I’ve previously posted links to a few studies indicating that flu vaccines had damaged children’s immune systems
(Previous posts: https://whyarethingsthisway.com/2014/09/13/confirmation-bias/
https://whyarethingsthisway.com/2014/09/17/more-confirmation-bias/ ). Here’s another such study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21880755

“Here we compared the virus-specific CD8(+) T cell immunity in children vaccinated annually with that in unvaccinated children. In the present study, we compared influenza A virus-specific cellular and humoral responses of unvaccinated healthy control children with those of children with cystic fibrosis (CF) who were vaccinated annually. Similar virus-specific CD4(+) T cell and antibody responses were observed, while an age-dependent increase of the virus-specific CD8(+) T cell response that was absent in vaccinated CF children was observed in unvaccinated healthy control children. Our results indicate that annual influenza vaccination is effective against seasonal influenza but hampers the development of virus-specific CD8(+) T cell responses.”

In other words, while these flu shots seem to have focused the immune system to fight certain specific strains of virus, they seem to have also hampered immune responses to other new viruses. This could plausibly predispose to pandemics if new viruses evolve to exploit these defects.

These results are confirmed in mouse models, showing that flu vaccines hamper mouse CD8+ T cell response
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20335492
and prevent the induction of heterosubtypic immunity against other flu virus.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19440239

According to this link: http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/09/23/mysterious-virus-spreading-across-u-s-canada-primarily-affecting-vaccinated-children/
the new disease Entovirus EV-D68 which has infected more than 150 children in the US, sending dozens to intensive care units, has yet to infect a child who hadn’t received MMR, polio, and flu vaccines.

I’m seeing lots of articles in the main stream media on why children should get their flu shots and the like. Haven’t seen one talk about these issues or citations yet, however.

I found an interesting study that will let me say something positive about vaccines for a change:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/1/e2.long
The authors looked at all the reported US national reports of child tetanus cases for the years 1992-2000. They found there were 15 cases in the 8 year span. No deaths, but some hospitalizations. 12 of the 15 were un-vaccinated. (I’m assuming all or most cases get reported, which I think is likely. Otherwise you’d need a factor for reporting frequency in the back of the envelope calculations below.)

The first thing their survey tells you is, the tetanus vaccine seems to protect against tetanus. Something like 90% of the population is vaccinated according to the CDC, yet only 20% of the tetanus cases are. That suggests the vaccine is something like 97% effective at protecting against tetanus, which I think makes it probably more effective than any other I know of. If every child were vaccinated the number of cases over the 8 year period might well have dropped from 15 to the 3 vaccinated cases they had or maybe 4 if they got another.

The second thing it tells you is, even if all the vaccinated had been UNvaccinated so they all got it 30 times as much, you might only expect 100 cases nationwide over the 8 year span. (How does that compare to the number of serious complications from the vaccine?) The chance of an unvaccinated child getting tetanus over the 8 year span seems maybe to be something like 1/500,000 or less, figuring that roughly 50 million vaccinated kids generated 3 cases so vaccinated maybe has 3/50 million, unvaccinated maybe 30 times as great or 1/500k.
(The 10% unvaccinated are maybe 5 million who generated roughly 10 cases, which checks the math.)

According to this history https://sites.google.com/site/tetanuswiki/project-definition: there used to be 200 cases per 100K people per year. (Caveat: This may be an overestimate for children, so I’m not quite apples to apples to the above figures which are of children. There maybe should be a fudge factor for that.) A frequency of 1/500. So tetanus frequency has dropped by a factor of maybe roughly 30000, of which maybe a factor 30 was due to the vaccine and 1000 was due to other factors unknown. I don’t see how this drop can possibly be attributed to herd immunity, since tetanus is not passed between humans. So tetanus is another example of a disease that largely vanished where a vaccine seems NOT to have been the major factor in the vanishing.

Michelle Budig, in a new paper,http://www.thirdway.org/publications/853, cf also
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/a-child-helps-your-career-if-youre-a-man.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1
regressed data in National Longitudinal Survey of Youth from 1979 to 2006 and claims that guys who had a kid they lived with had earnings increase 6%, while women’s decreased 4% for each child they had.

Naturally, she interprets this as implying discrimination against women. But I regard it as pretty good news for the future. If women’s earnings decrease 4%, that likely mostly shows that women are choosing to invest in their children rather than focus on their jobs.
If men’s earnings are actually increasing by 6%, that doesn’t seem likely to be because their employers think:
“this guy’s joined the Old Boys Network, I should give him a raise” just at the time when a lot of guys do lose sleep and devote time to child raising that might have been devoted to their job and have a new dependent to weigh further on the company’s health care premiums. I think its much more likely showing that women choose to have kids with guys who are going somewhere, not losers, and guys choose to have kids when they think they will be able to support them (and have a woman who thinks they are worthy). (But I’d like to see the data on men who had kids they didn’t live with.)

This sounds like good news for the IQ of the population. Income is presumably a reasonable proxy for IQ, since IQ is supposed to be about an ability useful for solving general problems, and earning money is a particular example of a general problem people are motivated to solve. If IQ means much, any problem people are motivated to solve that involves intelligence is something of a proxy for IQ, and they all should give similar results.

It is sometimes said that the population IQ must be decreasing, because poorer, and hence on average lower IQ women are said to have more children than wealthier and on average smarter ones. I’ve seen this claim from liberal Princeton Bio-ethics professors (Silver in a public lecture) to reactionary British ones https://archive.org/details/Dysgenics-Richard-Lynn and widely on the man-o-sphere (cf comments at http://blog.jim.com/science/dysgenic-fertility/ http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/08/01/is-the-collapse-of-america-inevitable/ ) I’ve long critiqued it because it discounts men, and sexual selection, which I have long believed to be possibly the primary force in the evolution of human language, among other things.

But in this study, men’s incomes increased more than women’s decreased, and both were likely weighed upon further by lifestyle/child investment decisions and the actual costs imposed by child raising on the employer, so that the income proxy probably systematically under-estimates the correlation between higher IQ and more children. This suggests that the amount that mean paternal IQ is higher than mean IQ much more than compensates for the amount that mean maternal IQ may (or may not) be lower than mean IQ.

It looks like the 15 kids in Syria that died after getting vaccinated for measles died because the vaccine was mixed with a neuro-muscular blocker by mistake.

Here’s the thing, The Institute for Safe Medical Practices published a report in 2005 pointing out that this mixup is fairly common. They’d received 50 reports of it happening in the US in the past year.

So here’s my question: if you get a measles vaccine, are you more likely to be injected with Atracurium than you would be to get measles if you don’t get the measles vaccine?

There are something like 600 US measles cases in the last year, but they are probably way better reported than the mix-ups, and the mix-ups may have affected many people each.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2014/09/18/syrian-infant-deaths-vaccine-mixups-with-atracurium-not-uncommon/

Definition: A discipline is a cargo cult science if authors often ignore rather than rebut results or possibilities contradictory to their theory.

Source (more or less): Richard P Feynman, Cargo Cult Science http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html

According to Feynman, it is incumbent on a scientist to emphasize everything that could be wrong with his theory, not sweep it under the rug. When this is widely disregarded, cargo cult science results.

In post 1 and other posts above, I have demonstrated by explicit lists of citations that there is a sizeable scientific literature indicating dangers and problems with vaccines.
I have demonstrated by explicit search of safety surveys etc. that the vaccine promoters at the CDC and the Institute of Medicine and Pediatric organizations do not cite, discuss, or rebut this literature.

Vaccinism is a Cargo Cult Science.
QED

I’ve been looking around for studies that injected children with placebo or vaccine randomly, and study their health (not just whether they got some specific disease supposed to be prevented). The one I discussed in the last post on confirmation bias is actually the only one I have found that tracked kids for more than 4 months. I haven’t looked incredibly hard, but if anybody knows of others please let me know. Right now the only placebo study of a vaccine of which I am cognizant that injected kids and tracked them for more than 4 months reported the vaccine was hugely damaging to their immune systems.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423139

As an aside: its more common to see studies that use another vaccine instead of a placebo!
As another aside: the only study I know that fed animals GMO’s and tracked them for more than 3 months found lots of cancer.

In the search, I came upon another (non-placebo) study that claimed that injecting pregnant women with flu vaccine made their infants when born less likely to be hospitalized for flu. They studied this by looking at why hospitalized infants were hospitalized and finding a smaller fraction of the time it was for flu if the mother was vaccinated than otherwise. Unfortunately, they didn’t comment on the fact that their data were at least equally explainable by assuming the children of the vaccinated mothers got sick more rather than got the flu less. Pure confirmation bias to assume one and ignore the other. I’d bet on the damage rather than the protection.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058908

Correction: I previously critiqued another study on TDaP but think I misunderstood how it was done.
Looking at it again it seems all right.

UPI Reporter Dan Olmsted went looking for the autistic Amish. In a community where he should have found 50 profound autistics, he found 3. The first was an adopted Chinese girl who’d had vaccinations rushed before she was shipped from China and more here on the way to the adoptive parents. The second had been normal until developing classic autism symptoms within hours of being vaccinated. The third there was no information about.

He published his findings in 2005. And I’ve just heard about it. That’s another way you get crowd think: the rational information can’t propagate fast enough.

Click to access e.4.pdf

A new paper appeared in the Journal Of Public Health and Epidemiology. The authors report finding residual human DNA as a contaminant in vaccines, vastly more than the FDA limits. They find extensive correlations between getting vaccines with human DNA and becoming autistic.

Leaving aside the statistical case, we have now been told that vaccines are currently contaminated with human DNA as well as mycoplasmas, and have in the past been contaminated with various living viruses such as HIV and SV-40.

So far as I can tell, the media, the CDC, and big pharma have so far completely ignored the latest contaminant.
Which come to think of it, is par for the course. No wonder there are contaminants.

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0018qJxNgDGtrzdR0wBSxkEXHTc4alQ6yjU0nlEC8pVdXQV0KNiXkiN3M3zhaeB5C8N5WPIkivjtyqITcdqyAaSaJ7VafibbV3oIL3Nt113t4n-iwPEfQ4y5b30840f_UJ0bfrwbR4jxHrbmd0EsQUXncIzKXzhY_vadQtujUJ3H44XowtAffPDj2PQ3cTa6faMTsL9_Pw2kX6DF0A3w4zWF_RuVGurhmWm&c=NDm6aYzxK_m32GoGx89Qw8nnhw0uIcJS-qfxLW953yxF4MCCVrqgrQ==&ch=kOQlKNF97ZhIBXf8LBin_tb_Ly683terEF6tPORekJOWD96Lzp8l6g==

I came across an excellent example of the confirmation bias that is enforced by and contributes to crowd-think in fields like Global Warmism and Vaccinism.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423139
Increased risk of noninfluenza respiratory virus infections associated with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine.

ABSTRACT: We randomized 115 children to trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) or placebo. Over the following 9 months, TIV recipients had an increased risk of virologically-confirmed non-influenza infections (relative risk: 4.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.31-14.8). Being protected against influenza, TIV recipients may lack temporary non-specific immunity that protected against other respiratory viruses.

Nice abstract, short and to the point. Only, when they say in the last sentence of the abstract “temporary”, that’s a euphimism for “a defect in their immune system that persisted as long as we studied them, and we hope it eventually goes away”, and when they say “Being protected against Influenza”, they are saying something their study did not in fact provide statistically significant evidence for. What it did find was they got 4 times as many non-flu respiratory illnesses.

If vaccines are punching gaps in immune systems, how long till viruses evolve to exploit the weaknesses?

Here’s my take on the current vaccine design procedure. As always, I’d love to be corrected on any point.

(1) They start with something that is undeniably toxic to inject– a deadly virus.
(2) They tinker with this until they can inject it without its causing an unacceptable number of side effects within 48 hours of the shot while still raising titer levels for a year or two. (This is basically the definition of passing clinical trials.)
NB: From the package inserts you can see that having a sizeable minority or for some vaccines even a majority of the kids report side effects such as redness, swelling, tenderness, drowsiness, irritability, vomiting etc is apparently acceptable, with the frequency and severity of the symptoms increasing as the vaccine is repeated multiple times, and being worse still in some testing on kids also getting other vaccines at the same time. Also, some serious fraction like 1/1000 of the kids in the clinical trials *die* during the trial, but if it doesn’t happen within 72 hours they put that down to background because kids are dying all the time. Of course, they never compare the background death rate in unvaccinated kids, of which they have no idea. And when it does happen multiple times within 72 hours in the clinical trials, they sometimes chalk it up to some other cause. CF the Tripedia package insert.[1]
(3) The tinkering inherently involves adding dangerous substances like mercury and aluminum, some of which are added because they are toxic (so can even kill viruses or bacteria) and some of which are added because they provoke the immune system out of its normal operating range. The added substances are specifically selected for this, the salts of aluminum they use for example are particularly ones that the kidneys can’t readily eliminate. Of course, the normal operating range of the immune system has been highly tuned by evolution, so going out of it may be expected to cause some problem. Many if not all of these substances are bio-accumulative and known neuro-toxins. (Incidentally, although the CDC claims they have removed mercury as a precaution from children’s vaccines other than flu, the Tripedia package insert above explicitly says its in Tripedia as a residue of manufacturing process.)
(4) The injection process inherently bypasses the digestive system, thus injecting intact antigens and poisons directly into the blood in a way that never happened in nature. For example, 99.75% of dietary aluminum is pooped out without ever reaching the blood, but virtually 100% of aluminum in the vaccines will eventually make it into the blood and thence much of it will pass into organs.(Indeed, they are bypassing four (4) separate filters that had evolved apparently for the purpose of keeping neuro-toxins like aluminum out of the baby’s immune system and brain:(1) the mother’s digestion kept most aluminum from reaching her blood, (2) the placenta filtered out the aluminum and toxins, constructing the fetus in a clean room, (3) the breast milk has very low aluminum, and (4) the infant’s digestive system filtered 99.75% of that. )
(5) They do not check the vaccines for mycoplasma contamination, which they have long known was likely, which is said to be happening, and which is suggested by scientific literature to cause serious problems in the long term.[2],
(6) They do not in the assessment of whether the tinkered product is still toxic attempt any assay whatsoever of long term effects, even though there are solid physical and empirical arguments such long term effects are precisely what you should expect for a variety of reasons:
(a) most of the aluminum in a shot stays localized for weeks in the muscle where it was injected, slowly leaking into the blood, from where it is likely in a form the kidneys can’t readily eliminate,
(b) There is the possibility of interfering with development in children. The animal studies of both antigen injection and aluminum show problems in the adult animal following vaccination of infant animals, not immediately after the vaccination.
The package inserts routinely say things like:”Tripedia vaccine has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic or mutagenic potentials or impairment of fertility.” They do not perform placebo studies, where vaccine getters are compared to unvaccinated people. At best they compare people who got some vaccines to people who got other vaccines.
(7) They virtually ignore the interaction of vaccines, or the possibilities (strongly suggested by the animal literature) that too many vaccines could overload the immune system and cause auto-immune disease, or that vaccines given at critical times in development could cause problems. The safety studies invariably compare individuals getting one vaccine plus others to individuals getting others, and there is no cogent paper sensitive to early and often or to total aluminum load that I’ve been able to find, that doesn’t suggest these things are dangerous.
(8) Not infrequently it becomes very likely that some vaccine has indeed caused a large number of immediate deaths[3] or immediate miscarriages[4] or infertilities or put a bunch of kids in a coma [5] or injected a large number of people with other contaminating live viruses suspected of causing cancer and possibly originating AIDS[6]. In the numerous events where a serious problem is discovered plainly and/or becomes public knowledge, they do their best to keep it quiet, although they may withdraw or fix the vaccine. Or they may not. Even when a co-author comes forward to claim fraud and misconduct (not only Thompson, but also the insiders suing Merck over alleged fraud in the Mumps trials[7]) they don’t withdraw the papers or the vaccines. Moreover its become clear that virtually the entire commercial media with the exception of some foreign or alternative web-sites is in lockstep compliance with suppressing questions about vaccines. How many problems have they hidden we don’t even know about?
(9) The vaccine manufacturers are completely indemnified from any damages by an act of Congress.
(10) CDC and FDA honchos routinely go on to and/or come from lucrative positions at big Pharma.

What could go wrong?

Citations for assertions I haven’t bothered to cite can mostly be found at
https://whyarethingsthisway.com/2014/03/08/example-1-pediatrician-belief-is-opposite-the-published-scientific-evidence-on-early-vaccine-safety/

[1] http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fda.gov%2Fdownloads%2Fbiologicsbloodvaccines%2Fvaccines%2Fapprovedproducts%2Fucm101580.pdf&ei=mqgEVOihHY78yQS3hILwDg&usg=AFQjCNF0WAJF5QHgpChNs4Ej0BTpH7rhTQ&sig2=4mwVJ5Ir0ZFQ7OFTv6XsRA&bvm=bv.74115972%2Cd.aWw
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk-RMI4qNvA
[3] http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/12/05/swine-flu-shot-side-effects-beginning-to-take-their-toll.aspx
[4] http://vactruth.com/2012/11/23/flu-shot-spikes-fetal-death/
[5] http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/5/216/216ra176.abstract
[6] http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=13EAAF22CDA367BB3C2F94D2CD90EF7B
[7] http://www.naturalnews.com/036328_Merck_mumps_vaccine_False_Claims_Act.html