Book Is Rallying Resistance to the Antivaccine Crusade

[Braggi]

phooph wrote:
The USA Patriot Act, which includes language allowing for the forced mass vaccinations of populations to protect against biological attacks also includes language protecting vaccine manufacturers from legal responsibility for adverse reactions and deaths from vaccines.

Isn't that great? If that wasn't the case we'd be dependent upon Europe to provide us with emergency vaccinations. I prefer local sources. In times of emergency we need fast performance from our providers. There are bound to be non standard challenges under such circumstances. A single error could put the provider out of business. In our current monopoly business environment putting one huge company out could be an international catastrophe. Frankly, I think "too big to fail" should be too big to exist, but we have what we have. If the big companies aren't protected in emergency times, it is unlikely the would be willing to take the risk to perform under pressure. This is one of the few parts of the "Patriot Act" (what a sickening joke of a name) I agree with.

... And I should mention that one biological attack we had here was the anthrax scare after 911, and the weapons grade anthrax that was circulating originated from Fort Dietrich in Maryland. ...

And isn't it interesting the recipients of the anthrax were all well known liberals? Hmmmm ...

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... Braggi often puts words in people's mouths. ...

I think you'll have trouble supporting that statement.

-Jeff

[phooph]

I forgot about that! Yes, this is true!

And I should mention that one biological attack we had here was the anthrax scare after 911, and the weapons grade anthrax that was circulating originated from Fort Dietrich in Maryland. This is a accepted fact and has even been reported on The History Channel:

YouTube - History Channel on Anthrax Attacks 01/2008

p.s many thanks for your informative posts on this thread

In addition, the anthrax attacks resulted in the purchase of $93,000,000 worth of Ciprofloxacin, an expensive synthetic antibiotic with a patent due to expire in 2003. The publicity prompted individuals to demand prescriptions of Cipro from doctors so they could do home stockpiling in case the attacks spread.

Prior to this the Merck Manual listed Cipro as one of the least effective drugs against anthrax, with old and cheap pencillin, amoxicillin, and doxycycline being more effective. Afterward the manual was changed to list Cipro as the most effective against anthrax.

There were allegations from some in the medical and conspiracy communities that the entire incident was staged so Bayer could increase revenue from a drug that was quickly loosing its status as the newest magic bullet and due to loose its lucretive patent.

Cipro, Anthrax And The Perils Of Patents - Forbes.com

[Braggi]

In addition, the anthrax attacks resulted in the purchase of $93,000,000 worth of Ciprofloxacin, an expensive synthetic antibiotic with a patent due to expire in 2003. The publicity prompted individuals to demand prescriptions of Cipro from doctors so they could do home stockpiling in case the attacks spread. ...

A good example of kneejerk, fear based reactions by both government and individuals.

... There were allegations from some in the medical and conspiracy communities that the entire incident was staged so Bayer could increase revenue from a drug that was quickly loosing its status as the newest magic bullet and due to loose its lucretive patent. ...

For those who see "Big Pharma" as the all powerful, evil enemy, yeah, that would be the only explanation. However, if you look at the list of recipients of the anthrax it's pretty obvious the sender was trying to sway influential liberals to support "the President's" plans to pass the "Patriot Act" and his invasion of Iraq.

Either way it was a pretty sick thing to do.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

again Braggi, if your research brings you to a different conclusion than mine did, feel free to get your vaccinations and take pharmaceuticals. I believe it should be a personal choice.

I agree, I do and I will. However, I bet I take a tiny fraction of the pills and potions that the average Wacco reader does. I take no drugs or pills of any kind on a regular basis. I use Ibuprofen on occasion. I would also take antibiotics or antivirals if my doctor prescribed them. I'm not big on pain meds. Not for me anyway.

I think it should be your personal choice whether or not you or your children receive vaccinations. However, I prefer, and would vote that your kids be excluded from my kid's school if they're not vaccinated.

I know that's not how it works in Sonoma County, but that's my opinion.

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

Jeff,
Would you consider this an ad hominum attack?

I'll just reply that every sentence in your post is garbage. I won't honor it with a line by line reply.

I really think you ought to just hole up in your bunker and never come out. The world isn't a safe enough place for you. There's someone around every corner wanting to take away your otherwise myriad choices.

Gads, we have too many freedoms and too much time on our hands and too few challenges in life if this is what we spend our time on.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Jeff,
Would you consider this an ad hominum attack?

Call it what you will, it was exasperation driven. Not clever, agreed, not nice, but I really don't have time to answer 20 lines, each of which are totally ... not worth replying to they're so foolish. There was a time I would have been driven to answer it all in excruciating detail, but nobody wants to see that. I think this thread is dead. Once again, nobody who refuses to accept the science will choose to based on this thread. The anti vaccination crowd will insist it is I who just won't face reality, and I will insist they won't learn from valid sources. So, an impasse. Perhaps someone who was sitting on the fence will make a more informed, and maybe a better decision when the time comes based on our little back and forth.

I do apologize to d-cat and to you for making what appeared to you as an attack. It's a product of fatigue and certainly not one of my better posts I agree.

-Jeff

[Sylph]

Before this thread goes into the dustbin of history, I just want to remind everyone that it is the most vulnerable who are protected by "community immunity"...babies and people with poor immune systems who can't have vaccines or are too young to have them.
NNii : Immunization Issue

I learned a lot in this recent flurry of research and that's not a bad thing!
For instance, I was not aware that bacterial super-infection was common in measles pneumonia.

I just read up on the sorry story of laetrile as it was mentioned in a link someone provided above. Talk about profit motive. Some unscrupulous doctors made a fortune off desperate cancer patients, probably (surely) hastening their deaths. These docs were the 'alternative' guys.
The Rise and Fall of Laetrile

It's insulting to hear that doctors/nurses are ignorant about or don't care about preventative care. My doctor knows and cares, as she asks the pertinent questions and encourages me in living a healthy life. She's not a maverick, just practicing holistic care which is standard and expected.
We know more and more about the benefits of aspects of diet, like 'super-foods' and so forth, because of research by real doctors.

Do any of the anti-vax folks recommend any vaccines? Just curious.

[MsTerry]

Sylph, I find it offensive that in your epitaph you feel the need to kick alternative medicine.
Many now considered mainstream ideas come forth out of alternative or native healing practices.
And if you ever are in pain at the dentist, think about where that novacaine really originated.

We know more and more about the benefits of aspects of diet, like 'super-foods' and so forth, because of research by real doctors.

[Sylph]

Sylph, I find it offensive

:) Of course, you do!

kick alternative medicine.

I was referencing the doctors who became 'cancer specialists' and charged lots of money to administer laetrile without any evidence that it worked.

Many now considered mainstream ideas come forth out of alternative or native healing practices.

I agree. But, some therapies, like homeopathy, magnets and antioxidant supplements haven't done very well in the studies and practitioners keep using them, dogmatically insistent on their worth.

Epitaph? I'm not dead yet, I feel pretty good.

[d-cat]

I just read up on the sorry story of laetrile as it was mentioned in a link someone provided above. Talk about profit motive. Some unscrupulous doctors made a fortune off desperate cancer patients, probably (surely) hastening their deaths.

No profits! You get laetrile/B17 from food! Here's a list:

Foods Containing B17 (Nitrilosides)


You can buy vitamin B17 supplements in Mexico. I've seen websites offering it online (from Mexico) but I don't know whether it would clear customs into the US, or if the websites are reputable.

[d-cat]

for anyone concerned about mercury poisoning from vaccines, this lecture has some info regarding how to get it out of your system.

Mercury, Autism and the Global Vaccine Agenda

[d-cat]

and here again are the links to the free online videos about laetrile/B17:

The science and politics of cancer : Edward Griffin
G. Edward Griffin - A World Without Cancer - The Story Of Vitamin B17
(additional links in the original post)


and here is a link to a list of videos on Rockefeller and population control:
rockefeller population - Google Video

Yes, the family behind the American Cancer Society believes in population reduction! Is that a conflict of interest or what?!

[d-cat]

Some unscrupulous doctors made a fortune off desperate cancer patients, probably (surely) hastening their deaths.

Probably? Surely? Which one? Judging from your statements about laetrile, it seems you don't know very much about it. Yet you're so against it.

btw, from the info I've seen, chemo hastens death. And the fortune you talk about can be found in the medical and pharmaceudical industries, not in laetrile.

[d-cat]

However, I prefer, and would vote that your kids be excluded from my kid's school if they're not vaccinated.

Why? Your kids are vaccinated, aren't they? Doesn't sound like you have much confidence in vaccines!

[Hotspring 44]

I cannot answer for anybody else, but these are a couple of my reasons:

number one main reason vaccine resistant hybrid strains!

Number two reason secondary and tertiary contagious infections!

Number three reason: I am old enough that I did have 2 friends when I was a kid, whom did contract polio.

One of them [Leo] was in a wheelchair because he couldn't move his legs.

He was very smart.

He was one of the top in the class with everything except physical education.
I'm absolutely certain that if he was an able-bodied person.

He may have been a football star, wrestler or something like that or at least he would have been able to choose doing something like that.

The most horrible thing about the whole deal for Leo was that all the other kids, but me and about two others were afraid of him; they were afraid that they were going to catch polio from him even though all of us had been routinely and properly vaccinated!

And that's not all! People’s vanity is so ridiculously high, they were afraid to be seen with a person in a wheelchair!
That was in the mid-60s.


The other person was so sick from complications that I was really only able to met him once or twice.
I don't even remember his name.

If tens of millions of people worldwide were dropping dead today because of bird flu and there was a viable vaccine for bird flu that people proved worked; question is, would you vaccinate you or your child for [H5M1] bird flu?

Why? Your kids are vaccinated, aren't they? Doesn't sound like you have much confidence in vaccines!

[Sylph]

If tens of millions of people worldwide were dropping dead today because of bird flu and there was a viable vaccine for bird flu that people proved worked; question is, would you vaccinate you or your child for [H5M1] bird flu?

Good question!
Are there any vaccines that you would recommend D-cat, ever?

So David Rockefeller says he believes in population control? Even if Rockefeller is more evil than Hitler, it is true that our earth has too many people and that we are running out of fuel, soil, clean air, clean water, ocean reefs, fish, endangered animals, etc, all because there are too many humans.
The Daily Texan - Overpopulation: the real crisis

[Sylph]

This is off-topic, but interesting. I was frankly, surprised that Laetrile is still advocated by anyone. It is definitely not a vitamin and has potential toxic effects!

"There isn’t enough proof that laetrile is an effective treatment for cancer or any other disease. Most of the websites promoting laetrile base their claims on unsupported opinions and anecdotal evidence.

The USA’s National Cancer Institute reviews the results of clinical research into the use of laetrile for cancer on its website. One animal study claimed that amygdalin slowed the growth of cancer in animals and helped stop tumours spreading to the lungs. But repeated studies couldn’t show similar results, so the treatment remains unproven.

Amygdalin (the active ingredient in laetrile) has shown anti-cancer activity in two studies when given with enzymes. This is most probably because the enzymes cause the amygdalin to release cyanide, which killed the cancer cells grown in the lab. One website promoting laetrile includes the quote "When we add laetrile to a cancer culture under the microscope, providing the enzyme glucosidase is also present, we can see the cancer cells dying off like flies." This isn’t surprising, as the glucosidase makes the laetrile release cyanide, which is a poison. The difficulty is getting the amygdalin close enough to cancer cells, along with the glucosidase, to cause it to kill them without poisoning surrounding normal tissues or the whole body.

This mirrors the main difficulty in a great deal of cancer research – as many cancer therapies are poisons. As cancer develops initially from normal body cells, the only way to kill cancer cells would be to use treatments that are poisonous to human cells. The mainstay of research today is how to get such treatments to the cancer cells without killing or damaging too many normal cells. Or to develop treatments that are directed at the subtle differences between normal cells and cancer cells – in other words targeted treatments.

Another study claimed that amygdalin might make cancer cells more sensitive to radiation. Doctors have known for a long time that cancer cells at the centre of tumours have less oxygen than cells nearer the outside of tumours. This absence of oxygen makes the central cells more resistant to radiotherapy. Apparently, during this study, amygdalin stopped cells in a laboratory dish from absorbing oxygen. The researchers then wondered whether preventing the cells on the outside of a tumour from absorbing oxygen with amygdalin, would mean more oxygen getting to the cells in the centre. But the problem remains of how to get the oxygen into the cells at the centre of the tumour. A great deal of cancer research has been carried out for many years simply to try to find a way of doing this. Since this research was first reported in 1978, it has not been confirmed by any other research.

There have only been two published human studies testing the efficacy of laetrile as a treatment for cancer. They were both sponsored by the American National Cancer Institute in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The first study was a phase I clinical trial looking at safe levels of laetrile, and involved only 6 patients. It tested the dosage and different ways of giving laetrile. Although the researchers reported very few side effects, 2 patients developed symptoms of cyanide poisoning because they ate raw almonds while taking amygdalin.

The second study looked at whether laetrile had any effect on shrinking cancer tumours in 175 patients. Of these patients, only one person had any apparent response to laetrile and this only lasted for 10 weeks. Seven months after the study, all the patients’ cancers had continued to grow. There haven’t been any randomised controlled clinical trials using laetrile.

A systematic review was published by the Cochrane Library in January 2006 which looked at laetrile treatment for cancer. It concluded that the claimed benefits of laetrile are not supported by controlled clinical trials. You can read a plain language summary of this review on the Cochrane website.



If you take laetrile, you have it

• As an injection (intravenously)
• As tablets

Taking laetrile as tablets has more toxic side effects than having it as an injection. Our digestive bacteria, and the enzymes in the food we eat, break down the laetrile and release cyanide.

Laetrile’s promoters typically recommend you have daily intravenous injections for 2 and 3 weeks, followed by laetrile tablets for some time. Laetrile is also used in enemas and lotions that you can apply to your skin.

People who promote laetrile usually also suggest that you also

• Take high doses of vitamins
• Follow a special diet

So it can be quite a rigid and complex regime to stick to.




Laetrile contains cyanide, which is a type of poison. So the side effects of laetrile are the same as those of cyanide. These include

• Sickness
• Headache
• Dizziness
• Liver damage
• A lack of oxygen to the body tissues
• A drop in blood pressure
• Drooping eyelids
• Fever
• Nerve damage, causing loss of balance and difficulty walking
• Confusion, coma and eventually death

If you do take laetrile as tablets, it is very important that you avoid eating

• Raw almonds
• Crushed fruit stones or pips
• Celery
• Apricots
• Peaches
• Beansprouts
• Carrots
• High doses of vitamin C
• Beans - mung, lima, butter and other pulses
• Flax seed
• Nuts

All these can increase the risk of cyanide poisoning if you take them with laetrile because they contain low levels of amygdalin. (These foods are safe when you eat them without laetrile because the levels of amygdalin in them are low.)



Because of the lack of evidence that laetrile works, and the serious side effects it has, it is not authorised for sale in the European Union. The Food and Drugs Agency in the US (FDA) have also banned it.

But some hospitals and clinics in Mexico offer laetrile. And there are many websites that promote its use. These websites often encourage people with cancer to travel to the Mexican clinics for treatment. As well as the considerable cost of the treatment, you also have to come up with money for your airfares and accommodation when you are there"

[phooph]

However, the vast, vast majority of "Big Pharma" works only in the best interests of you and me. … It is certainly in their best interests to put their drugs in the best possible light, and there is the conflict. Sometimes they cheat on studies, mostly by excluding the studies that show their drugs don't work that well. OK, we agree.

Big Pharma is akin to Big Oil and other such institutions. They are corporations who owe allegiance first of all to their stock holders. All other considerations come after that. There are people working in drug companies who do care about helping people, but they do not operate at the level of major decision makers. The number of bad drugs that have passed the FDA approval process due to suppression of adverse effects is long. Many of these drugs were known to be lethal to an alarming percentage of users and that information was hidden. The rising death toll of patients was the alert that all was not right.

You cannot state that an industry that would so willfully kill people to make money has our best interests at heart. These have not been isolated incidents, they are an oft repeated pattern. For the last 35 years I have repeatedly seen employees from drug companies and the FDA coming forward as whistle blowers revealing how the industry and the FDA knowingly approved drugs and other products that were well documented to be harmful.Then there are all the former drug salesmen/women who have told the stories of how they were trained to induce doctors to prescribe drugs that harmed patients, knowing full well that it would harm the patients. People with any kind of a conscience don't usually remain in that kind of a work environment.

That has rarely been the case with vaccines. The science is solid. Vaccines work and are statistically safe. Yes, some people have had and will have bad reactions. But so many fewer than would have had terrible illnesses that it is more than worthwhile to vaccinate.
-Jeff

Vaccines wiped out smallpox and have doubtless saved a lot of lives, but they are not all harmless and some are more harmful than others. The smallpox vaccine was originally made from a less harmful virus, cow pox, that created immunity to small pox. In a way you could call it a natural vaccine. It was not man made but man discovered and was the origin of the concept. Cowpox has been replaced by vaccinia, a related virus and is the origin of the term 'vaccine.'

What has happened to vaccinations, however, is what has happened to the whole of medicine with the rise of the pharmaceutical mega powers. Good science has given way to greed.



And here's a comment that was posted below the above viedo on YouTube:
"as a pharmacy technician, i appreciate a drug rep coming out and telling the truth about the pharmaceutical industry. it is highway robbery at the expense of your health and money."

And then there is this lovely guy who waited for the statute of limitations to run out to publish his kiss and tell book.

[phooph]

A good example of kneejerk, fear based reactions by both government and individuals.

Yes, I suppose it has nothing to do with the Bush family's long standing relationship with "Big Pharma."

For those who see "Big Pharma" as the all powerful, evil enemy, yeah, that would be the only explanation. However, if you look at the list of recipients of the anthrax it's pretty obvious the sender was trying to sway influential liberals to support "the President's" plans to pass the "Patriot Act" and his invasion of Iraq.

Either way it was a pretty sick thing to do.

-Jeff

One can always kill two birds with one stone.

Michael Corleone: "My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator."
Kay Adams: "Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed."
Michael Corleone: "Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?"
-- The Godfather, Part I

"The high incidence of sociopathy in human society has a profound effect on the rest of us who must live on this planet, too, even those of us who have not been clinically traumatized. The individuals who constitute this 4 percent drain our relationships, our bank accounts, our accomplishments, our self-esteem, our very peace on earth.

Yet surprisingly, many people know nothing about this disorder, or if they do, they think only in terms of violent psychopathy - murderers, serial killers, mass murderers - people who have conspicuously broken the law many times over, and who, if caught, will be imprisoned, maybe even put to death by our legal system.

We are not commonly aware of, nor do we usually identify, the larger number of nonviolent sociopaths among us, people who often are not blatant lawbreakers, and against whom our formal legal system provides little defense.

Most of us would not imagine any correspondence between conceiving an ethnic genocide and, say, guiltlessly lying to one's boss about a coworker. But the psychological correspondence is not only there; it is chilling. Simple and profound, the link is the absence of the inner mechanism that beats up on us, emotionally speaking, when we make a choice we view as immoral, unethical, neglectful, or selfish.

Most of us feel mildly guilty if we eat the last piece of cake in the kitchen, let alone what we would feel if we intentionally and methodically set about to hurt another person.

Those who have no conscience at all are a group unto themselves, whether they be homicidal tyrants or merely ruthless social snipers.

The presence or absence of conscience is a deep human division, arguably more significant than intelligence, race, or even gender.

What differentiates a sociopath who lives off the labors of others from one who occasionally robs convenience stores, or from one who is a contemporary robber baron - or what makes the difference between an ordinary bully and a sociopathic murderer - is nothing more than social status, drive, intellect, blood lust, or simple opportunity.

What distinguishes all of these people from the rest of us is an utterly empty hole in the psyche, where there should be the most evolved of all humanizing functions." [Martha Stout The Sociopath Next Door]

"Ignotas nulla curatio morbid - do not attempt to cure what you do not understand - is the opening theme in this study of evil. Political Ponerology is “a science on the nature of of evil adjusted for political purposes.” The author, Andrzej Lobaczewski, describes himself as a Polish psychologist who — with many other colleagues — found meaning living through Nazism and then Communism by studying how evil happens and triumphs in a wider political and economic system.

Lobaczewski’s hypothesis is that a small percentage of humans are born psychopaths. Another minority percentage are of a nature to go along with psychopaths while the vast majority of people are essentially healthy. The majority who are healthy have a difficult time understanding that some people are not — they can not fathom being a psychopath or acting like one." - C.A. Fitts

[Braggi]

Big Pharma is akin to Big Oil ...

It's pretty clear you've never worked with either. Having worked with both, I can tell you ... there's a difference.

I used to make tools for the medical industry as well as tools for the oil industry. It was very clear who cared about the end customer and the safety and quality of the products.

I know a handful of people who, it could be said, work for "big pharma." Not one of them would put profits before safety.

Phooph, I suggest you never take any pharmaceuticals. Your fear and disgust wouldn't be conducive to healing.

-Jeff

[d-cat]

number one main reason vaccine resistant hybrid strains!

In this scenario, even if a child is vaccinated, the child would not be protected from
from the vaccine resistant hybrid, and could catch and spread the virus just as any unvaccinated child could. In fact, the vaccinated child may have a weaker immune system from vaccinations and could catch and spread the virus easier than the unvaccinated child.

So I see no good reason to ostracize unvaccinated children and deprive them of an education (home schooling is now illegal in California). If a child is banned from going to school, the Child Protective Services goes after the parents. In short, they are forcing parents to vaccinate their child. This shouldn't happen in a "free society". I believe the parent should have say in what is injected in their children or how they are schooled.

[d-cat]

Good question!
Are there any vaccines that you would recommend D-cat, ever?

if I were considering a vaccine, I would look into its ingredients. I understand that this info shouldn't be gained from the bottle, but from the insert, as the bottle label will sometimes omit ingredients. Here is one website that lists vaccine ingredients: INFORMED CHOICE - Cocktail

So David Rockefeller says he believes in population control? Even if Rockefeller is more evil than Hitler, it is true that our earth has too many people and that we are running out of fuel, soil, clean air, clean water, ocean reefs, fish, endangered animals, etc, all because there are too many humans.
The Daily Texan - Overpopulation: the real crisis

So if we we were truly running out of the resources you mention, it would be OK for someone "more evil than Hitler" to pick and choose and depopulate the world for us???

[d-cat]

many of the points in Sylph's post on laetrile are covered in the videos I previously posted:

lecture
The science and politics of cancer : Edward Griffin

documentary
G. Edward Griffin - A World Without Cancer - The Story Of Vitamin B17

[d-cat]

Government Vaccines – Bad Policy, Bad Medicine (2002)
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

...As a medical doctor, I believe mandated smallpox vaccines are bad medicine. The available vaccine poses significant risks, even though the more serious complications affect only a statistically small number of people. As with any medical treatment, these risks must always be balanced against the perceived benefit. Remember, not a single case of smallpox has been reported, despite the near-hysteria that characterized recent news reports. Even if some individuals became infected, smallpox spreads only with very close contact. Those in the surrounding community could then decide to accept vaccines based on a much more tangible risk.

As a legislator, I believe mandated smallpox vaccines are very bad policy. The point is not that smallpox vaccines are necessarily a bad idea, but rather that intimately personal medical decisions should not be made by government. The real issue is individual medical choice. No single person, including the President of the United States, should ever be given the power to make a medical decision for potentially millions of Americans. Freedom over one’s physical person is the most basic freedom of all, and people in a free society should be sovereign over their own bodies. When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our bodies...

Government Vaccines – Bad Policy, Bad Medicine by Rep. Ron Paul

[phooph]

It's pretty clear you've never worked with either. Having worked with both, I can tell you ... there's a difference.

I used to make tools for the medical industry as well as tools for the oil industry. It was very clear who cared about the end customer and the safety and quality of the products.

I know a handful of people who, it could be said, work for "big pharma." Not one of them would put profits before safety.

Phooph, I suggest you never take any pharmaceuticals. Your fear and disgust wouldn't be conducive to healing.

-Jeff

Unlike the oil industry, the pharmaceutical industry attracts people who are concerned about the well being others. Finding the cure to some scourge of humanity is no doubt a motivation for many who get degrees qualifying them to work in the industry. And they do great research and they develop products that address health problems. But the companies themselves are not owned by those who work to save the world. They are owned by stockholders who expect dividends, and those stockholders expect the management to deliver those dividends. This puts management in conflict with the other mission of the company, to be of help to humanity. Unfortunately, corporate law requires companies to bow to the desires of the stockholders. If improving the health of medical patients conflicts with producing dividends, then dividends often win out.

The people who are willing to work in such capacity are people who are not going to loose sleep over the decisions. I trust you read my post regarding sociopaths and psychopaths. I have one in the family. My brother is a non-violent sociopath. What matters most to him is social status. He is a member of several do-gooder community organizations and the Rotary. He regularly attends meetings and events and likes to rub shoulders with those active in working for a better Sonoma County. Upon being introduced as his sister I have to smile and endure the compliments about what an intelligent, charming, warm, and caring person he is. But I know who he really is. He has no conscience. He is always on the hunt for victims. Those who he sees as less powerful than he and unable to affect his social standing will find themselves cruely treated as he wages psychological warfare on them. Part of winning for him is the ability to fool the greater world into believing he is something that he is not. He is careful with his public image and like all of his ilk, careful not to tip his hand. People who have known him and worked on various projects and campaigns with him for years have no idea what he is really like. Fortunately for the world at large he has chosen to be an "environmentalist" and a "humanitarian." If he were traveling in the circles of upper management in a corporation able to do great damage, he would have no qualms about choosing dividends over the well being of people or the planet.

Because you know people in the pharmaceutical industry that you are confident would not put profits before safety does not mean there aren't others who would. I am also not assured that your perception of all of them is necessarily who they really are.

I happened to catch a bit of TV yesterday on a con artist who charmed all her victims with plates of cookies and her warm motherly attention. Even as her victims' dividend checks bounced she was able to continue to reassure them it was some sort of mistake and that all would be recitified. "Here, have a brownie, and how about lunch on Thursday." Then she skipped town with the money and left her son, who was also her partner, to be the fall guy. Her victims had a hard time resolving their perception of her with the criminal she truly was. Appearances are not necessarily reality.

I am an e-penpal with someone who has been a long time friend of Alberto 'OK to torture' Gonzales. I am assured that our disgraced former attorney general is a warm and caring person. This penpal is friends with others in high places, and when writing to him about any of them who have popped up in the news due to some reprehensible behavior, I have gotten the same response. "My wife and I have known __________ for some years and I can assure you he is a most charming and respectable person."

Bernie Madoff was a highly trusted and no doubt charming individual who seemed to care a great deal about delivering profits to his investors, which is why he was such a successful crook. People expect bad guys to look and act like bad guys. Some of the worst of them don't.

[phooph]

I know a handful of people who, it could be said, work for "big pharma." Not one of them would put profits before safety.

-Jeff

ZENIT - A Believe-It-or-Not Cancer Drug

Janossy says the company steered clear of the United States because of its heavily profit-oriented pharmaceutical industry, and instead looked toward this Italian Catholic hospital. "Their whole approach to healing is so different," Janossy says. "The president is a priest who's not picking up a salary. All the profit goes back to research or is sent to the missions. That is extremely unique. So we said, 'OK we will share this product and the potential it has.'"

[Yubajeff]

It is rather weird that the 2 vaccines we DO really need are nowhere near prime time: HIV and hepatitis C. Hepatitis B vaccine was worthwhile, and probably saved many lives in the past 35 years, as did polio vaccine (IPV and prior to that OPV, which I had to demand Kaiser to special order for my patients for 10 years prior to the bureaucrats deciding to take OPV off the market and switch entirely to IPV for safety reasons. No I am not psychic or even that bright; it was obvious common sense reasoning).
Now everyone benefits from herd immunity so getting the vaccine no longer is as crucial. However, I suspect there is a significant number of older dentists and surgeons out there,now in their 60's or beyond, who are chronic carriers having contracted hepatitis B prior to the availability of the vaccine. Of course this is probably 1% of the risk of getting hepatitis C from your dentist or surgeon, who are not required to give any informed consent of the risk to their patients -another good reason to avoid doctors; this applies to dentists, dental hygenists, etc of course (OUCH). I know of a few ethical ones who have voluntarily given up operating, due to a degree of unprevetible risk (despite "universal precautions"- accidents do happen.
Some anti-cancer vaccines are worth considering. If there were a breast cancer vaccine, I imagine women would consider it. There is now a reasonably good cervical cancer/HPV vaccine- recommended for 11 year old girls.I would certainly consider it for a teen about to begin sexual activity.
Hepatitis B vaccine also prevents liver cancer, which is now seen primarily in folks with chronic hep C, although not at a high rate. Most folks with chronic hep C do just fine, even without the overhyped Interferon/ribovirin chemotherapy pushed by the GI guys.
One of more my more hair-brained theories is that much otherwise unexplained cancer is caused by varicella/zoster (chickenpox/shingles) virus. The vaccine for this is reasonably good, usually recommended at "age 50". I have consider getting this myself, but haven't come to a conclusion on the risk/benefit ratio. Personally I would not withhold primary varicella vaccine from an infant; I've seen (and had myself) chickenpox and I consider it a pretty nasty disease. HOwever one can take acyclovir or its cousins at the onset with pretty good effectiveness.
I might just as well go public with my other pet theory: that we are facing a massive cancer epidemic which will strike down the babyboomer generation first, not due to the carcinogens that we measure and monitor in the air and soil (they are bad enough), but to the now pervasive electromagnetic pollution of our atmosphere, from microwaves, AM, FM, TV, UV, and ionizing radiation (not to mention medical xrays; there is a growing body of literature regarding the risk of CT scans in children). There is at least one prominent neurosurgeon who agrees with my empiric observation that we are seeing a rapid increase in brain cancer, probably due to cell phone use (those rays don't suddenly stop at your ear; they go straight into your brain cells and fry your DNA). I won't even use bluetooth, although the energy delivered is lower. People tend to leave them in all day long! I have spent a small fortune on wired earpieces for my cell phone(stereo, so I can enjoy the music) but they usually last a few weeks before going haywire.
I'm probably forgotting something crucial, but I am now 2 years free of the medical industrial complex, praised be. After 2 years the memory starts to fail, which is actually a good thing, freeing up RAM for me to learn something useful, like Kiswahili. I have no strong opinions on the other many vaccines; everyone should do their own research and make up their own minds. Find a new doctor if this offends yours (it often does, in my experience).
Yubajeff

[Sylph]

Everyone should do their own research about vaccines and about any medication or herb that their doctor or healer prescribes! I have my doubts that most people have the basic science background to be able to determine truth from fiction, though. The web is a minefield of ridiculous claims and folks out to make a buck.

even if a child is vaccinated, the child would not be protected from
from the vaccine resistant hybrid, and could catch and spread the virus just as any unvaccinated child could. In fact, the vaccinated child may have a weaker immune system from vaccinations and could catch and spread the virus easier than the unvaccinated child.

Is there any credible evidence that immunized children have a 'weaker immune' system? What does that even mean? There are populations of unvaccinated kids in certain religious groups and so forth and I'm not aware of any 'super-immunity' of these groupsl

As a medical doctor, I believe mandated smallpox vaccines are bad medicine. The available vaccine poses significant risks, even though the more serious complications affect only a statistically small number of people. As with any medical treatment, these risks must always be balanced against the perceived benefit. Ron Paul

Absolutely! Smallpox was wiped out (by vaccines!) and the vaccine is more dangerous than the faint possibility that some terrorist would have the means to launch an epidemic. Right after 911, the Medical Reserve Corps in Sonoma County and elsewhere, had volunteers from the medical community bravely take their smallpox vaccines in case they were needed to vaccinate the public. Thank God, that wasn't necessary. He was talking about smallpox here, not all vaccines.

So if we we were truly running out of the resources you mention, it would be OK for someone "more evil than Hitler" to pick and choose and depopulate the world for us???

Do you think we aren't running out of resources?? I guess we can just keep multipying forever and somehow grow more food, make more land, water, etc. How?
If he (Rockefeller) really did want to depopulate the world, (why, I can't imagine, as it would be bad for economies everywhere) well, he could start a rumor in Africa that vaccines were dangerous and then thousands of kids would die of measles...Much more effective, it's already happening.

It sounds nice that a 'good Christian man' has an amazing cancer cure. Apparently it's made of blue-green algae(?) You take it my mouth or as a cream (for skin cancer?). You can buy it for $49.00 for a small jar. They can't sell it in the USA because the FDA wouldn't allow their claims. No published studies, just testimonials. It's going to be 'tested extensively' by a bunch of nuns? Hmmm.
CellAdam: The Catholic cancer cure backed by the Virgin Mary - Counterknowledge.com

Solarex-Europe, Inc. - Shopping Cart
Drops and Cream for a hefty $49.00 each, Visa accepted.

BioStemWorld - Frequently Asked Questions

During animal tests the active substances of the capsule were injected into the body of the examined animals. Then they examined the number of stem-cells orbiting in the blood of animals correlating it to a control group. The study was carried out with flow-citometrial methods and CD34+ antibodies. According to the study, in that group consuming the active substances, the number of stem-cells increased with 50%.

Very doubtfull! Even if true, you can't take something orally and compare it to something that is injected.

[d-cat]

I find it interesting that Sylph supports both population reduction and vaccinations.