Vaccine Debate Guide: Looking for your input

In the works is a comprehensive guide to help combat vaccine and also autism falsehoods. While an extensive list of studies, quotes and information is being put in, the authors do not want to miss any information that would be helpful. So whatever studies, articles, quotes etc. that you have please help out an send them to us. We ask that any information has references with it to help confirm its validity but it is not required as the authors have staff on hand to help confirm such information. This guide I’m told, is meant to help with vaccine and autism debates so it will focus mainly on areas of discussion such as; whooping cough increases, vaccine ingredients, vaccine risks and side effects, autism rates and increases, autism gut connection, autism issues that affect the body, autism genetics and environmental, autism causes, autism treatments etc. If you have information and can help contribute, please do; the final guide will be made available free to all and will hopefully help activists and advocates on these subject have quick, reliable access to information.

We thank all who are making this possible and those who help to ensure that as much information can be put in as possible.

Please email me at jabwatchdog@live.com with your helpful information

 

All Our Fish in One Barrel

 

The IOM; I certainly hope no one is relying on them, for anything. I lash out at them for good reason, time and time again they keep disappointing us with reviews of old studies (and not full reviews, just the end conclusion reviews) and seeming to never produce anything new and useful to us. It of course didn’t surprise me to find another review by the IOM float my way, again they are going to great lengths to deter from what actually needs to be examined and this time they are using very sneaky tactics….that or they really are, giant morons…and I really doubt that to be true. I can’t begin to claim that this is a new tactic, I truly do not know for sure. What I can say for fact though, is that I am coming across recent articles and studies using these same tactics. What I am referring to is the fake out; articles and studies are being put out that seem like they are actually looking into the proper issues, that after all this time, those in charge are finally wising up and going to examine these concerns properly. I’ve seen them posted around, quite often with much enthusiasm about “finally science catching up”, finally there can be acknowledgement about what’s happening to all these people, these children.  As you read through you will find that it’s sort of like a hush puppy. A nice little treat, laced with poison; the illusion of what you want, riddled with things that will hurt you in the end. This is no different, so don’t get excited because they have given you a whiff of a vax vs unvax study, sniff a little harder and the poison will be clearly smelt.

 

The first thing that should be noted, before even the fact that this is only a review and not a study in any way, is that the reason why the IOM is even conducting this review in the first place is not because of our concerns. By our I am referring to the common person; the parent of a vaccine injured child, the nurse who suffered a reaction from a job requirement. They are not the concerns of the doctors or scientists who are speaking up, not even from the statistics coming to light of SIDS numbers, or VAERS numbers or the sudden low birth rates in girls who received the HPV vaccines or the huge rise in miscarriages and still births following H1N1 vaccination. Nope, apparently all our efforts and media coverage and studies and actual numbers that should raise concerns; have not even mattered, have not been heard. The concerns of shareholders have been heard instead. What’s really happening? Who knows for sure, maybe all those parents saying no are actually starting to affect sales, maybe shareholders are getting nervous from all the screaming families and wanting to back out. Whatever the reason it has nothing to do with all of us out there on the battlefield…I don’t think battlefield is too harsh a word either. We are the ones caring and fighting for the injured, we have to battle against something that a huge percentage of people (ourselves included at one time) believe whole heartedly have saved them and continue to do so.

The second part to note is the actual review itself which is going to look at a number of things to determine whether the proposed study will even take place. I personally do not think that they will even conduct the proposed study based on what they are looking at. The very first is actually reviewing past studies, which they have done several times and determined that no other studies are needed; I do not see this changing. Next is determining the design, methods and limitations in conducting such a study; more than likely it will be concluded that such a study will be too complicated to produce. Financial feasibility is of course looked at and why wouldn’t it be, for they do it with everything; every new “treatment”, vaccine etc. goes through this before it is done or put out for public use and consideration, basically whether it is worth the money. Again this more than likely will get a giant thumbs down because it will be seen as a very expensive study and when coupled with the review determining that this is not even needed to be done, it will most likely be scrapped. I saved this part of the review till last because it is a ‘red flag’ issue. Ethics. If you’re a big follower of this….-let’s call it- conflict….then you will understand right away what is happening. For everyone else I’ll try to explain as short and simple as possible. It has been determined (rather slyly and also without proper reasoning) that being unvaccinated is unethical, that saying no to receiving a vaccine for yourself or your child is unethical. So by their definition, they determine (time and time again) that studying already unvaccinated individuals is unethical. Remember, no one is withholding treatment, or refusing to give vaccines if requested; these are already unvaccinated individuals. What is unethical about that? Hell what is unethical about refusing a product, especially if that product has so many people claiming injury.

The third and final part to note is of course the actual proposed study. Now of course at first, everyone could be getting all giddy at the idea of finally getting that vax vs unvaxed study, to finally see for certain if all these people are as nutty as everyone thinks or if they are right and many, many people are suffering because of this. I’m hoping that if they, by some miracle actually decide to go ahead and do this, that they give more details on the proposed study. Going by what information they have currently given; this is going to be a lot of money wasted on crap, again. The very first problem is the groupings; they are not adequate and are not properly focused. By what is gathered here, they are grouping completely unvaccinated individuals with ‘alternate schedule’ vaccinated individuals. This is not vax vs unvaxed and the results will obviously come out skewed. This brings us to another foreseeable problem; the real concerns are not being addressed. This proposed study is examining the vaccine schedule, the focus is on health outcomes of those vaccinated according to said schedule, this will allow them to group unvaccinated individuals with those who have had all their vaccines but with an alternate schedule, instead of fully vaccinated vs completely unvaccinated. The specific parameters need to be stricter and should not be so loose as to include even at birth injections, or one vaccine in the same category as one who is completely free of vaccines. This brings us to the last tidbit; the health outcomes. Now those of you in the loop know and for many of you who don’t …….standard tests are crap. You can have a the whole array of standard tests done that will come up fine, then do one specific test that is not of the norm and voila, there really is something wrong. Those dealing with vaccine injuries know that standard tests will show up zilch even though something is terribly wrong. A perfect example is an autism child suffering greatly from milk and wheat. Some of the symptoms will point to an allergy, most mainstream health officials still will only admit to an allergic reaction in these children even though standard allergy tests will come up negative. However, if you do a urine peptide test, the results will show that milk and wheat are a problem…but even with that clear evidence, they will still claim allergy because there are certain things that at this point in time, absolutely cannot be said. So this will be a very big deal if this study were to be performed, this one little area alone could risk skewing the results into showing that absolutely nothing is wrong when it is possibly that a whole lot is wrong….and getting worse.

So sometime in mid-2012 we will hear from the IOM again, once they have conducted their review and we will meet again here to go over their findings.

 

Here’s the link to the article