Medication time.

[compared2what?]

C2W?
So I just scanned your link here. Does ms. England advocate for bleach enemas in this paper? Did I miss that part or could could point me to that in her other writing?


http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/upl ... ngland.pdf

Not directly, that I know of. That's why I pointed to her association (partnership, almost) with Freed (the guy I quoted earlier on the I-don't-know-much-but-I-know-Wakefield-musta-been-character-assassinated thing.)

Because that is, necessarily, lying about, concealing or tolerating a very thoroughly proven and documented case of extreme harm to children for no reason other than pure, self-serving, personal gain. No matter how you look at it.

But as I said earlier, all of those name-brand movement people appear together, support each other's work, coordinate their efforts and share resources generally, while never, ever admitting to fault or accepting criticism/blame for any part of anything they and their partners/allies have ever said or done. That's a constant. Invariable. I mean, it's kind of what you might call a strategy.

And anyway (by my lights, at least) if you're a prominent member of a movement that advocates for vulnerable children and someone closely associated with your cause does something in its name that's repellent or dishonest or cruel or -- to cut to the chase -- extremely harmful to your constituency and the movement responds with tolerance and/or evasion?

You should either denounce it or get the fuck out. Period. Whether you're directly implicated by it or not. Because if you don't, you are discredited by it. And rightly so. I mean, the protection of children from harm isn't the sort of thing you're allowed to take an oh-well-that's-another-department's-problem approach towards, even when you're not in the business of protecting them from it.
______________

Short answer: Don't know.

I do wonder though if you consider that the scientists that do see negative impacts of vaccine usage should be supported?

Of course. They should be supported on their merits, same as everyone else. Ditto wrt their work.

That is a somewhat rhetorical question, in that while you may answer yes, you sure seem to care more about overwrought advocate reactions than actual work done by scientists.

It's my position that when people inflict pain and injury on children without remorse or apology and/or tolerate others who do so, addressing it is a first-order moral imperative and obligation. Because assuming that it's unambiguous and uncontested, that's not something you can just get around to eventually or overlook when it's inconvenient, imo. And that's an absolute.

When there's a hypothetical scientifically based argument that children are being hurt and injured by something, I take it as seriously as the validity of the argument.

The judgment, ethical standards and impartiality of the work's sponsors and advocates are important factors to consider when evaluating that, no matter whose interests the results favor.
_______________

This is not a somewhat rhetorical question.^^Does any of that seem unreasonable or suspect to you?

____________

ON EDIT:

In other words: If and when the science stops being promoted by people who sponsor and/or tolerate harm to children or countenance it when their allies and partners do, I'll stop pointing out that it's a problem. Until then, it is one. And that applies to all or none. Both sides.

[compared2what?]

c2w, do you have more info, or links to the MMS thing. The claims and protocols of the Manufacturers, etc ?

I'm not sure it's proprietary. But if there are apologists out there who can successfully dispute that it's a 28 percent sodium chloride solution that comes with instructions saying to mix it with citric acid in a proportion that produces chlorine dioxide -- aka, industrial-strength bleach, such as factories might use to strip textiles -- I have something yet to learn about it.

Because as far as I can tell, that's what it is. So I look forward to the fruits of your research. (That's sincere, btw. I might not agree with you about them. But that's not all there is to life.)

[slimmouse]

Well, according to Wikipedia at least, Chlorine Dioxide is a gas?

[compared2what?]

But if it helps, I do have that info for luprolide, which is a chemo drug made by Abbot Pharmaceuticals and several other companies under various brand names.

Wanna see that? Here's wiki's rundown:

Clinical use

An LH-RH (GnRH) analog, leuprolide may be used in the treatment of hormone-responsive cancers such as prostate cancer or breast cancer, estrogen-dependent conditions (such as endometriosis[1] or uterine fibroids), to treat precocious puberty,[2] and to control ovarian stimulation in In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). It is considered a possible treatment for paraphilias.[3]

Leuprolide has been tested as a treatment for reducing sexual urges in pedophiles and other cases of paraphilia.[4][5] High doses are sometimes used to chemically castrate sex offenders.[6]

Leuprolide is also under investigation for possible use in the treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease.[7]

Leuprolide is also used to treat chronic adrenal disease in ferrets.[citation needed] It also used for treatment of steroid abuse.[citation needed]

Leuprolide, along with triptorelin and goserelin, are often used to delay puberty in transgender youth until they are old enough to begin hormone replacement therapy.[8] They are also sometimes used as superior alternatives to anti-androgens like spironolactone and cyproterone for suppressing testosterone production in trans women.

Because I know how you feel about chemo. And the thing is...

Lupron protocol

A 2005 paper suggested leuprolide as a possible treatment for autism,[9] the hypothetical method of action being the now defunct hypothesis that autism is caused by mercury, with the additional unfounded assumption that mercury binds irreversibly to testosterone and therefore leuprolide can help cure autism by lowering the testosterone levels and thereby mercury levels.[10] However, used on children or adolescents it could cause disastrous and irreversible damage to sexual functioning, and there is no scientifically valid or reliable research to show its effectiveness in treating autism.[11] This use has been termed the "Lupron protocol"[6] and Mark Geier, the proponent of the hypothesis, has frequently been barred from testifying in vaccine-autism related cases on the grounds of not being sufficiently expert in that particular issue[12][13][14] and has had his medical license revoked.[6] Medical experts have referred to Geier's claims as "junk science".[15]

In short: Skeptics have already ruined that particular crusade against the evils of pharma and the vaccine industry. Those rats. So I don't know whether you still care.

However, fwiw, I've never seen anyone who used to champion the Geiers objecting to their having given autistic children chemo-level doses of a drug that's sometimes used at lower levels to treat precocious puberty, which they didn't have. (They were doubling it up with another highly toxic pharmaceutical that there were no indications for prescribing, too. But never mind that.)

In fact, as far as I know, the Geiers are still heroes, from a vaccines-cause-autism perspective.

So. Care to see THAT info? Let me know.

Here's the wiki link, for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuprorelin

[compared2what?]

Well, according to Wikipedia at least, Chlorine Dioxide is a gas?

Yes. I think that's true, as is this:

It can be dissolved in liquid for long enough to be consumed. But it's not very stable. That's one of the reasons it has industrial rather than household applications as a bleaching agent.***

I'm more than capable of being wrong about science inadvertently, though. So that's just the best of my understanding.

Short version: It's an industrial bleaching agent. And those who want to say it's not are pointing to an irrelevant but distracting/confusing detail in order to avoid admitting it, as I understand it.

BTW, you might notice that such distinctions never seem to come into play when the substance in question is in a vaccine.

Thimerosal, for example. That didn't have any form of mercury in it. Nor did it have any ingredients that might be metabolized as methylmercury, which is the kind that all the literature on mercury poisoning is about. It had something that might -- but hadn't been shown to -- metabolize as ethylmercury, which might -- but hadn't been shown to -- be toxic under some circumstances and conditions at some dosages.

And PLEASE NOTE: That's not a defense of thimerosal. I'm glad it's gone. I'm just pointing out that there seems to be an agenda-based bias in play when it comes to exactly how much like a poison something poisonous has to be before vaccine opponents call it that.
_____________

***ON EDIT: Also probably why the mixing step is necessary, come to think of it. That's just speculation, though.

[slimmouse]

Many big and serious thanks for your input here C2W.

Who knows, between yourself and other well informed people, we might get a Pharmaceutical System based exclusively on merit, as opposed to the seemingly more important goal of corporate profit.

Although Im sure you know that doesnt look good for anyone who wishes to enter on the stage of the official healing industry these days without the best part of at the very least several million dollars to spare.

But I guess that's a whole different argument actually.

Thanks again.

[compared2what?]

Many big and serious thanks for your input here C2W.

Who knows, between yourself and other well informed people, we might get a Pharmaceutical System based exclusively on merit, as opposed to the seemingly more important goal of corporate profit.

Although Im sure you know that doesnt look good for anyone who wishes to enter on the stage of the official healing industry these days without the best part of at the very least several million dollars to spare.

But I guess that's a whole different argument actually.

Thanks again.

The contemporary pharmaceutical industry operates in a way that's a wicked, evil blighted insult to the entire concept of human health, while occasionally producing medicines that have some efficacy for some things. But for the most part, they stopped making science-based advances a century ago. Or more. So at best, they're just recycling old rope for profit and calling it science, most of the time. While getting rich. And expecting people to thank them for it, including people who suffer or die.

I'm not a fan, IOW.

The FDA is (at best) a toothless and easily coopted entity and (at worst) a corrupt one. There are many examples of their being each and both. So I'm not really an enthusiast about their role or contributions either. But (as you may or may not know) they came into being as a response to thalidomide, with the ostensible mission of preventing a repeat of it by instituting and enforcing industry standards for safety. And I am generally in favor of that, in theory. It's their failures wrt the second part I abhor.

Meaning: Not that they deserve a prize for not having approved another thalidomide, but as far as it goes, repetition of something equivalent actually has been prevented. Whoop-di-do, in a way. But certainly better than the alternative.

Anyway. They fail at the institution and enforcement of safe standards part, due to corporate cooptation/corruption. I'm not arguing that. I'm just arguing that it doesn't help anyone to join forces with people/interests who seek to exploit rather than constructively address anger over it, via less than honorable means and tactics.

Wordy, I know. Sorry. I'm just trying to be fair. Leads to over-qualification.

[compared2what?]

The only claims I'm interested in defending is that there isn't an anti-vaccine movement: that is, there is no large-scale, well-organized effort to keep everyone from taking any vaccines or to get rid of vaccines.

I actually agree. There's the appearance of one. But it's a stalking horse for other things. (Medicare. Etc. Overton Window.)

Care to explain that?

It occurred to me that there was actually a pretty straightforward way to do that if the "Etc. Overton Window" that was in the original post was reinstated. Because at the political level, it's really a coalition of groups, each of which is pursuing an interest other than vaccine safety. And that's why it's such a disservice to people at the popular level. (Us, in other words.) So I reinstated it.

You think that vaccine opposition is a proxy for medicare opposition?

Although it's "among other things," yes. In fact, I think it's probably the interest group that calls most of the shots (no pun intended) these days, just as a function of having the political chops, organization, will and outreach to do so, plus vocal tendencies and a flare for populist rabble-rousing. But that part's really just my opinion.

This is interesting to me. How so?

It's a big-time, longtime crowd-pleasing favorite issue of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. They put resources into it.

In fact....Well. I'm not sure. But I think that the Geiers (father and son who were giving the chemo/chemical castration agent to autistic children) had (maybe "have") an AAPS affiliation. And they definitely published anti-vaccine research in the AAPS journal. (BTW, they wrote on a range of subjects -- ie, they did the kind of VAERS-database analyses arguing for an epidemic on which the movement as a whole hangs its hat, not just Lupron-Protocol stumping for themselves.)

And the AAPS is:

a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943 to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine."

That's from wiki here. They seem to have changed the text on their website (here). But I can personally attest that those words were current within the last two years, as can wiki's footnote.

And anyway, it's not like they now make a secret of it:

AAPS Stands up for Physicians!

The AAPS legal team defends doctors who have been mugged by Medicare, or railroaded by hospitals using sham peer review. We sued the Texas Medical Board in defense of physicians’ due process rights; this suit is now on appeal. We drafted legislation for reform of the Texas medical practice act and are fighting for its enactment.

AAPS Helps Physicians Reduce and Eliminate Third Party Interference!

The AAPS seminar, “Thrive Don’t Just Survive,” has reached doctors all over the country who wish to leave the hassles of Medicare and the interference of managed care and start a cash practice. We have helped hundreds of doctors opt out of Medicare through information on our website and our limited legal consultation service. We challenged the HIPAA “Privacy Rule,” and got the government to acknowledge the “country doctor exemption” for physicians who do not file claims electronically.

So....I don't know. Obviously, they predate the existence of Medicare. But I think it's fair to say that opposing it is their raison d'etre in the present:

The organization opposes mandatory vaccination,[12] universal health care[13] and government intervention in healthcare.[11][14] The AAPS has characterized the effects of the Social Security Act of 1965, which established Medicare and Medicaid, as "evil" and "immoral",[15] and encouraged member physicians to boycott Medicare and Medicaid.[16] AAPS argues that individuals should purchase medical care directly from doctors, and that there is no right to medical care.[17] The organization requires its members to sign a "declaration of independence" pledging that they will not work with Medicare, Medicaid, or even private insurance companies.[11]

.

They just don't do it directly when addressing large crowds. And that's unsurprising. Because it's not a popular or winning issue when it's not all proxified and prettied up and (in short) attractively buried in a wide enough array of appeals to principles such as liberty and individual choice to speak to a number of different political demographics, most members of which probably don't oppose Medicare, since it's a very popular program.

For example:

There is a movement against making them mandatory and thus against forced compliance, which in the case of vaccines has additional valence due to the fact that vaccines work by herd immunity. Thus my immunization works better if you get yours, and if enough people don't get immunized my own might not be worth much. So there is an entirely legitimate group interest in increasing vaccine compliance, which can get dicey in a society with a strong civil liberties heritage.

^^That type of thing. It's perfect for them.

And what's sad about that is that it's true precisely because it IS an issue of real concern to many. Same for vaccine safety. So I'm not saying those are bogus things to care about. I'm saying that the movement that purports to care about them doesn't. And that it isn't working to bring about changes or improvements in relation to them. It just serves their interests to use them as a proximate rhetorical occasion for brawling, attention-getting, and -- in the case of the anti-Medicare faction -- sowing seeds of broad, popular resentment and distrust towards the medical establishment and the government, jointly.

They do piggy-back a few other more non-anti-Medicare things in there, too, from time to time such as:

Seizure of Rush Limbaugh's medical records

In 2004, AAPS filed a brief on behalf of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh in Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, opposing the seizure of his medical files in an investigation of drug charges for Limbaugh's alleged misuse of prescription drugs. The AAPS stated the seizure was a violation of state law and that 'It is not a crime for a patient to be in pain and repeatedly seek relief, and doctors should not be turned against patients they tried to help.'"[6][38]

or

that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern;[47]
that HIV does not cause AIDS;[48][49]
that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.[50]

or

n a 2005 article published in the Journal, Madeleine Cosman argued that illegal immigrants were carriers of disease, and that immigrants and "anchor babies" were launching a "stealthy assault on [American] medicine."[65] In the article, Cosman claimed that "Suddenly, in the past 3 years America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy" because of illegal aliens.[65] The journal's leprosy claim was cited and repeated by Lou Dobbs as evidence of the dangers of illegal immigration.[59][66]

But they're not really about liberty and choice. So moot point. They're Medicare opponents who flirt with other issues via proxy.

_________________

That's why I think that.

[Sounder]

C2W? wrote...

It's my position that when people inflict pain and injury on children without remorse or apology and/or tolerate others who do so, addressing it is a first-order moral imperative and obligation. Because assuming that it's unambiguous and uncontested, that's not something you can just get around to eventually or overlook when it's inconvenient, imo. And that's an absolute.

Excellent, I can work with this. So if big pharma does such as the following, are vaccine proponents required to speak up on this issue to be credible proponents for vaccines? I would not think so, because I imagine that most vaccine advocates are not aware of these events. But the events are deserving of examination because children and their communities are harmed and ‘when people inflict pain and injury on children without remorse or apology and/or tolerate others who do so, addressing it is a first-order moral imperative and obligation’.

Five hundred children were locked into their school, threatened that if they did not agree to being force-vaccinated with a meningitis A vaccine, they would receive no further education. These children were vaccinated without their parents’ knowledge. This vaccine was an unlicensed product still going through the third phase of testing.

Within hours, one hundred six children began to suffer from headaches, vomiting, severe uncontrollable convulsions and paralysis. The children’s wait for a doctor began. They had to wait one full week for a doctor to arrive while the team of vaccinators just carried on vaccinating others from the village. More children became sick.

When the doctor finally came, he could do nothing for the children. The team of vaccinators, upon seeing what had happened, fled the village in fear.

Now does Christina England have no standing to speak here? Is she disqualified because her own house is not in order? Does she even live in the house you say she lives in? I don’t know. Are the following folk guilty of the same infraction? Have they been vetted as to their position on bleach enemas?

It seems to me that the determined belief that vaccines produce far more good than harm encourages its proponents to not call out and protest when harms clearly do occur.
But that does not make these people,'bad people', it's simply a strategy, a common one, used by most folk on both sides of the debate it seems.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/scient ... -promotion

Scientists Point Out Corruption in Vaccine's Promotion

Posted on:
Monday, February 11th 2013 at 2:00 pm
Written By:
Heidi Stevenson

Using Merck's Gardasil vaccine as a case in point, an investigation documents Big Pharma's near-total control of governmental health agency decisions and the utter lack of concern by the decision makers. However, some scientists are speaking out, and here's what they have to say.

Researchers are speaking out about the corruption in science with regard to vaccines. Certainly, they're in the minority, but their expertise and solid evidence for their claims are resulting in both their studies and their concerns being published in medical journals.

The arena of vaccination, which has been adversely affecting so many children, is now a centerpoint for documenting how Big Pharma has taken over so much of science, resulting in outright fraud that's used to promote their products. Scientists Lucija Tomljenovic, Christopher A. Shaw, Judy Wilyman, Eva Vanamee, and Toni Bark use the example of Merck's Gardasil, a human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, to demonstrate the point that HPV vaccine activism is not based on science, but instead on misrepresentations of science.
In a letter signed by all five of these scientists, they point out several flaws in the claims that Merck's Gardasil and Pfizer's Cervarix make to sell their vaccines[1]:

1. HPV vaccines have never been shown to prevent cervical cancer.

2. The end-points used in the studies are based on infections and lesions that usually heal without help, so how can they demonstrate efficacy in preventing cancer several years later?

3. The trials are biased to produce false negatives and therefore cannot accurately estimate the risk of developing cancer.

4. Passive methods of recording adverse effects cannot accurately reflect how prevalent they are.

5. Accurate estimates of the actual frequency of HPV vaccine adverse effects cannot be made when such effects are automatically dismissed as unrelated to the vaccine.

6. Women are not informed that, in some instances, the HPV vaccines may increase the rate at which existing abnormalities develop, thus causing the cancer from which they're supposedly being protected.

7. When information about HPV vaccine risks and limitations are not provided, women cannot possibly make informed decisions about whether to have the vaccine.

8. Health regulators are making decisions based on information provided by the same corporations that hope to profit from them. How can they possibly make rational decisions on such limited and biased information?

Investigation into Merck's Murky Dealings with Government

"Pharmaceutical Companies' Role in State Vaccination Policymaking" is an investigation into the lobbying efforts by Merck to promote the HPV vaccine, Gardasil.[2] It states:
Merck engaged in direct lobbying to varying degrees in all of the states we studied. Merck proactively contacted legislators to discuss strategies to maximize uptake of Gardasil, either directly through company employees or by using local political consultants, prominent physicians, or public relations firms.

Many respondents reported that company representatives proposed specific legislation, often drafting the bills and searching for a sponsor. In most states, their efforts focused on a school-entry mandate. Respondents pointed out that Merck's activities were not unusual, although the public seemed to have been unaware that private companies played such a role in the legislative process. One commented, "Just about every vaccine mandate that we have lately has been the result, at least partially, of the drug industry's efforts."

[Emphasis mine.]
They asked respondents, who included legislators, health officials, medical professional organizations, advocacy organizations, journalists, health insurers, and clinical researchers, what role pharmaceutical manufacturers should play. The respondents believed that pharmaceutical manufacturers should provide scientific information about the products they push and that it was appropriate for Merck reps to sit on task forces and committee meetings. Worse, though, not one person felt that there was any problem in Merck's drafting legislation!

In my reading of the paper, it appeared that the respondents tended to hide behind the fact that Merck donated some vaccine, though there were a few who found Merck's involvement to be inappropriate.

Women in Government (WIG) received funding from Merck, which some respondents felt was just fine, though opinions did vary on that point. It should come as no surprise that WIG heavily promoted implementation of the Gardasil vaccine.[3]

The investigation documented the extremely disturbing influence that pharmaceutical corporations have in governmental health decisions that affect us all.
Response to Investigation into Merck's Influence in Government

"Who Profits from Uncritical Acceptance of Biased Estimates of Vaccine Efficacy and Safety?"[4] is a definitive statement regarding Merck's influence in vaccine policy. Tomljenovic and Shaw state:

... [C]areful scrutiny of Gardasil clinical trials shows that their design, as well as data reporting and interpretation, were largely inadequate.

They go on to delineate that optimism about Gardasil's clinical benefits rests "on an extremely weak base built on a number of untested assumptions and significant misinterpretation of factual evidence." They cite these examples:

• The claim that Gardasil will result in a 70% reduction in cervical cancer is made in spite of there being no clinical data to support it.
• The claim that life-long protection is provided by three vaccine doses has no basis in fact, as studies lasted, at most, five years.
• The claim that Gardasil's adverse effects are minor are supported only by "highly flawed safety trial design".
• They also point out "evidence of biased and selective reporting of results from clinical trials".

Their conclusion is:
Keeping in mind that "the primary interest of a pharmaceutical company is developing and selling pharmaceutical product," one must ask whether rational vaccine policy decisions should be based on conclusions derived from an uncritical acceptance of flawed vaccine safety and efficacy estimates provided by the vaccine manufacturer. Failure to adhere to principles of evidence-based medicine with respect to Gardasil promotion and vaccination policymaking inevitably raises the question of whether we have learned anything from the Vioxx debacle.

Indeed! It most assuredly does look like nothing has been learned from past disastrous destruction of lives by Big Pharma. Just how many times must we go through such agony? The toll Gardasil has been taking is being swept under the table, but the evidence is growing, as Tomljenovic and Shaw have been documenting in their research.
How many more must suffer before we step back from the pharmaceutical juggernaut and refuse to let them manipulate and control our healthcare system?

These articles contain more information on Tomljenovic and Shaw's research:

• Mechanisms of Aluminum Adjuvant Revealed: Vaccine Risks to Children Clarified
• Gardasil Destroys Girl's Ovaries: Research on Ovaries Never Considered
• Gardasil Destroys Girl's Ovaries: It Should Have Been Predicted
• Gardasil: Evidence of Immense Harm
• Gardasil Is Probable Cause of Girls' Deaths: Brain Histology Study
• HPV Vaccines: Scientists Use Manufacturers' Data to Prove Lack of Efficacy

[Pele'sDaughter]

Response by Michigan state govt? Make it next to impossible to sue!

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/ ... any_l.html

HERIDAN -- When Nancy Luckhurst underwent knee surgery five months ago, she was unaware an antibiotic she was given could cause joint pain and ruptured tendons. She also didn't know she would become part of an effort to repeal a Michigan law barring most lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies.

The day after surgery, both knees, including the one that had not been operated on, were so painful, "it was like someone had whacked me with a baseball bat," she said. Then, both her Achilles tendons became swollen and painful.

At her computer she typed in "Levaquin," the name of the antibiotic she was given. That's when she found out the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, after being sued by Public Citizen, a consumer watchdog group, required the drug maker to issue a "black box warning" listing the potential side effects, including ruptured tendons and joint pain. The risk was particularly high for patients over 60, she learned.

"I went, 'Oh, my God,'" recalled Luckhurst, 60, a retired truck driver. "Until then, I didn't have a clue."

She talked to a lawyer about suing the drug maker, Ortho-McNeil-Jansen Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, but was told a 1996 Michigan law prohibited it unless she could prove the company had committed fraud, bribery or withheld information from the FDA.

[compared2what?]

C2W? wrote...

It's my position that when people inflict pain and injury on children without remorse or apology and/or tolerate others who do so, addressing it is a first-order moral imperative and obligation. Because assuming that it's unambiguous and uncontested, that's not something you can just get around to eventually or overlook when it's inconvenient, imo. And that's an absolute.

Excellent, I can work with this.

Except you'll be working against yourself if you continue to read it as if it could be decoupled from the two points that followed it. Because the gist of those was: The anti-vaccine movement has such a thorough-going history of dishonesty, abuse, and misrepresentation that it's not any safer a bet that what they say and/or how they spin it is reliable than it is for the CDC.

However, if all you want is to get spun, that's your choice.

So if big pharma does such as the following, are vaccine proponents required to speak up on this issue to be credible proponents for vaccines? I would not think so, because I imagine that most vaccine advocates are not aware of these events. But the events are deserving of examination because children and their communities are harmed and ‘when people inflict pain and injury on children without remorse or apology and/or tolerate others who do so, addressing it is a first-order moral imperative and obligation’.

Yes, it is. The article you're quoting below is by Christina England, a woman who works day and night to advance, prove and validate the premises of a movement that champions as heroes prominent movement figures who:

(firstly) do such things as:

* perform unnecessary and permanently incapacitating invasive procedures on autistic children;

* treat them with massive doses of chemotherapy/chemical-castration pharmaceuticals, coupled with long-term courses of pharmaceutical chelating agents that are so depleting and dangerous that they're only administered (or approved for administration) for immediate prophylactic treatment in urgent cases of extreme heavy-metal poisoning for life-saving purposes;

* Throw annual state-of-the-science/movement conferences at which they showcase speakers like this, in these terms:



38 Children Recovered in 20 months with MMS

This presentation will outline the approach Kerri has used successfully to help recover 38 children from a diagnosis of Autism. She will explain how MMS (chlorine dioxide) has become the “missing piece” to the autism puzzle for so many of the families that she works with. MMS is available worldwide, and is extremely cost effective, bringing recovery in reach of all families, despite economic or geographic limitations. This presentation seeks to prove that Autism truly is curable.

Kerri Rivera

Director and Founder of Autismo2 – Hyperbaric Clinic, first and only Biomed-based Autism Clinic in Latin America, Kerri Rivera is the mother of two sons; 11-year old Patrick is in recovery from ASD. Responsible for translating the ARI´s Biomedical Protocol to Spanish, she is a part of “Curando el Autismo” and “Fundacion Venciendo el Autismo” (Puerto Rico and Venezuela); Mexican liaison for AutismOne and ARI, Rescue Angel, bilingual mentor for TACA, and member of the Global Autism Alliance.



(^^From the Autism One/Generation Rescue 2013 Conference speaker's page here; Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gave the keynote, for shame.);

secondly, do them habitually, frequently and -- in effect -- all the time. Because (as I've already said) those are just the three representative examples that I've gotten around to introducing so far;

thirdly, have never, as far as I'm aware, ever, one single time backed down from a position of full-throttle support and endorsement for any of them, or admitted a single error in judgment or misstep of any kind; and

lastly do all of them in the name of advancing, proving and validating the same premises to which Christina England dedicates 100 percent of her efforts and energies, as a result of which all the proof and validation for them comes from equivalently blind-to-all-considerations-beyond-the-single-minded-goal sources. ALL OF IT.

In light of that, out of camaraderie, affection and respect for you, I find it upsetting (not to say horrifying) beyond words that her full-hearted support and advocacy for people who have done things such as admitted under oath that they beat their four-month-old infants to death doesn't give you pause.

But oh, well.

Skipping ahead for the sake of thematic continuity:

Now does Christina England have no standing to speak here? Is she disqualified because her own house is not in order? Does she even live in the house you say she lives in? I don’t know. Are the following folk guilty of the same infraction? Have they been vetted as to their position on bleach enemas?

She has standing to say whatever she wants. But she works for and with a movement that has habitually, consistently and routinely shown itself to observe no ethical or moral constraints whatsoever in the pursuit of its goals to the most grotesque extremes imaginable.

So imo, by that fact alone, her judgment is demonstrably faulty to the point that if I asked her the time of day, I wouldn't take it for granted that the reply "It's three o'clock" meant that the big hand was on the 12 and the little hand was on the three until I had made a dedicated and serious effort to consider the meaning of all the circumstances and conditions myself, independent of whatever connotations and interpretations she attached to them.

IOW: I'd receive any information that came from her in the same spirit that I would any information that came from one of the three principle interest groups whose presence/influence I most regularly encounter at movement-leadership levels. And they are:

(a) Anti-Medicare crypto-Birchers such as the AAPS, as outlined in my last post;

(b) Today's against-God-law's crowd (Schlafly, etc.) who are still working the same angles they were 200 years ago, here



with a few updates, as can be seen in this iteration from VacTruth, here;


Check out just some of the ingredients doctors plan on injecting into your precious baby. Here’s an example:

Aluminum Hydroxide (Heavy Metal)
Egg Protein
Formaldehyde
Bovine Calf Serum
Thimerosal (Heavy Metal)
Calf Skin
Aborted Fetal Tissue (Human Diploid Tissue)
Monkey Kidney Tissue
Mouse Brain

You can sleep well at night knowing you at least checked it out.

(c) The Co$, who are in it because vaccines are pharma and pharma is psychotropics and psychotropics are psychiatry, which is an industry of death.

Which is to say, I'd receive it as if it were political propaganda put out by people with a long history of using deceptive practices and assorted other unseemly means to attain their undisclosed ends.

Because the odds are very high that's what it is. However, that doesn't mean it mightn't have some truth in it. So I'd be attentive and open to it in my considerations.
______________________

I'll reply to the vaccine-safety (as opposed to the vaccine-safety movement) points you raised in a separate post shortly. Maybe more than one, actually. I will reply to it, though. I'm just trying to be cohesive.

[Canadian_watcher]

so hold on a second, C2W.

the anti-vaccine movement(tm) has a history of dishonesty, abuse blah blah bad things galore yadda yadda)...

let's say that's true.

What is their motivation, do you think, these parents of sick children? Do you think that they hate life, and that they want children to get polio/HPV/diptheria/tetanus/HIV whatever and die long, suffering deaths?

It seems to me that we might need a wee bit of motive here before we accuse people of quasi-criminal behaviour. After all, what do they benefit?

The answer of who benefits is very clear when we put the shoe on the other foot. Doctors and the entire med/pharma establishment don't need to be concerned about human welfare in order to benefit from their actions, and therefore it is conceivable that they might lie and hide and deceive.

But as for the anti-vaccine movement(tm) ... what benefit accrues to them?

Or is this another case of "they are just stupid and I'm smart." ??

[slimmouse]

so hold on a second, C2W.

the anti-vaccine movement(tm) has a history of dishonesty, abuse blah blah bad things galore yadda yadda)...

let's say that's true.

What is their motivation, do you think, these parents of sick children? Do you think that they hate life, and that they want children to get polio/HPV/diptheria/tetanus/HIV whatever and die long, suffering deaths?

It seems to me that we might need a wee bit of motive here before we accuse people of quasi-criminal behaviour. After all, what do they benefit?

The answer of who benefits is very clear when we put the shoe on the other foot. Doctors and the entire med/pharma establishment don't need to be concerned about human welfare in order to benefit from their actions, and therefore it is conceivable that they might lie and hide and deceive.

But as for the anti-vaccine movement(tm) ... what benefit accrues to them?

Or is this another case of "they are just stupid and I'm smart." ??

If I'm reading this entire thread correctly, I would have to say that I think that what C2W is trying to say here is to beware of all of the alternative options, which as such, is surely no bad thing.

From what I've read of her, she, like the rest of an increasingly informed humanity is certainly no fan of Big Pharma, but isnt throwing the entire shooting match out.

Would a diabetic disagree? ( I'm not btw)

[Canadian_watcher]

gosh slim, I like you very much, but I hate it when people answer for other people. Still, it's enlightening to see where you're at on the C2W mindfuck spectrum.

I used to think the same thing.

[compared2what?]

so hold on a second, C2W.

I'd like to take this first...

Or is this another case of "they are just stupid and I'm smart." ??

...because you've said it before, and it just kills me that you feel I'm saying or implying or thinking that anyone I disagree with is stupid. Or that I'm smart. To the extent that I think about it at all, I assume that everyone has about the same amount of heart and mind that I do in a general sense. And that each has unique, individual gifts and abilities -- intellectual, creative, personal, all kinds -- of about comparable worth if they have to be compared, which happily they don't, because appreciating them is a lot more fun.

But I'm not qualified or entitled to judge people I know very little about in those terms, anyway. I'm stating my opinion of how valuable, reliable and/or meaningful their words and deeds are. And giving my reasons for thinking as I do. That's all.

the anti-vaccine movement(tm)

Is there something wrong or biased with admitting that there is one when speaking of it? I mean, there is. It's too organized, high-profile and vocal to overlook. How would it be more fair and balanced to pretend that it wasn't there?

has a history of dishonesty, abuse blah blah bad things galore yadda yadda)...

Feel free to verify that any of the examples of those I've mentioned are what I say they are.

let's say that's true.

Because it is.

What is their motivation, do you think, these parents of sick children? Do you think that they hate life, and that they want children to get polio/HPV/diptheria/tetanus/HIV whatever and die long, suffering deaths?

It seems to me that we might need a wee bit of motive here before we accuse people of quasi-criminal behaviour.

I don't accuse the parents. Or the rank-and-file popular part of the movement. In fact, I've specifically exempted both on this very thread several times for no other reason than that I thought there was a chance what I was saying at that moment might be construed to apply to them.

So if I don't say otherwise, you can assume that whenever I say "anti-vaccine movement" (and other phrases of that kind), I'm talking about people in positions of enough power and influence wrt standards and policy to be responsible for them and nobody else, unless otherwise specified.

After all, what do they benefit?

They don't. Some of them are being very cruelly abused. Others are just being misled and/or misinformed. But nobody benefits except the propagandists.

The answer of who benefits is very clear when we put the shoe on the other foot. Doctors and the entire med/pharma establishment don't need to be concerned about human welfare in order to benefit from their actions, and therefore it is conceivable that they might lie and hide and deceive.

It's more than conceivable. I'd say that (at a minimum) it's likely enough as a standing possibility always to require scrutiny, pretty much.

But as for the anti-vaccine movement(tm) ...

If you think there isn't one, say so. Otherwise, once again, is there something about recognizing and identifying a recognizable, identifiable entity by its name while accurately describing/quoting its words and actions that you find problematic?

Because (on the face of it) you seem to be seeking to discredit the substance of what I'm saying by side-stepping it altogether in order to imply (without explanation, out of the blue) that I'm saying there's an organized movement for some reason other than that (a) there is; and (b) it's what I'm talking about.

what benefit accrues to them?

I laid that out in quite a bit of detail for the anti-Medicare faction. And with some adjustments, it's the same story for the other vested interests as well. (I'm not sure I understand the question.) But for the record: The truth (or untruth) of that doesn't say anything about anyone (including anyone's intelligence) other than them. I mean....I guess I really don't understand.

What I'm saying is either true and meaningful on its stated terms. Or it's not. It doesn't exclude (or even challenge) the true, correct and meaningful belief that the pharma/med.-establishment is corrupt and profit-driven.

I'm just talking about the reliability, judgment, influences, interests, and biases of an entirely different group of people and organizations. That's all.