Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
So how do researchers get figures which APPEAR to show that vaccines have been successful?
Well, there are many ways. ONE (way) is through misleadingly strict definitions of "vaccinated". Another, is how the disease is diagnosed
I have always been looking for articles that could demonstrate that vaccines work.
And when I saw this title, "The Elimination of Indigenous Measles, .Mumps and Rubella from Finland, by a 12-year Two Dose Vaccination Program"
I said "Wow, this is it! This is the article that I have been looking for!" So let's have a look how they eliminated indigenous measles, mumps and rubella from Finland.
Results: "The 99% decrease in the incidence of the three diseases was accompanied by an increasing rate of false positive clinical diagnosis."
Another little hook. So these children were still developing measles, mumps and rubella, but they called it false positives! What is a false positive?
Polio is a striking example of what you can achieve when you change the diagnostic criteria, as New Zealand medical doctor David Ritchie will reveal.
In 1954 the Americans pushed forward a polio campaign with the oral Sabin polio vaccine
What happened within the first year, was to their horror, they found that particularly one type of polio vaccine was causing polio
because what is in the vaccines is not a totally killed virus, you are giving polio in a partly killed form, a so-called attenuated form.
And so they jumped up and down and got rid of this particular type of polio vaccine. That was fine.
Then they realized to their horror - this was actually reported by Dr Ratner who was a public health official in Chicago at the time
The next thing was they realized that all the different types of oral polio vaccine would cause polio.
That also was a bit of a shock, and so they simply ignored that data. That data has never been released really that publicly.
You will find that very hard to find that in the public literature.
What they did though was they decided to redefine polio. Prior to that, polio was by definition if you had muscle weakness
in one or more limbs within 2 examinations 24/48 hours apart, it was called polio. What they did, the first thing they did was to say OK
polio can only be diagnosed as polio if the person has still got paralysis 60 days later after the actual event."
Now in most cases of polio, of course, the paralysis resolves within the first few days.
Very few go on to get permanent paralysis, although that is the form we see most dramatically
I think that cut, the amount of polio in the western world by about 80%, just by changing the definition, not by vaccination.
They then went a bit further and said "Well there are all sorts of other viruses that can cause a polio-like syndrome.
We'd better make sure they're not included." So they changed the definition again and they said "OK, polio is now only diagnosable
if you can grow the polio virus from faeces, and you haven't been immunised in the last month".
Because, of course, we excrete the polio virus after immunisation.
So by these two rather interesting changes in definition, the rate of polio dropped dramatically in the 1960s."
And now I will show you how they eliminated poliomyelitis in the Americas (meaning South America).
In these countries there are less than 100 reported cases of polio per year. They started vaccinating in 1985.
Within 4 months they had an outbreak of 350 cases. Indeed these shadowy columns here are the reported,
notified, cases of placid paralysis, and these black columns represent confirmed cases. They couldn't do very much about it here or here,
but they started fiddling with the figures. So they caused a sustained huge outbreak of poliomyelitis, but they started
discarding most of the cases. That is the word they used in the paper - "discarded", but I praise them for publishing it this way.
But what about Australia? Aren't outbreaks occurring due to low vaccination levels?
Well Dr Mark Donohoe, a Sydney medical doctor, can put us in the picture here..
I also want to say something about where this figure of 51%, you know "We have lower vaccination rates than third world countries"
We have a minister who has stood up and said "I intend to get 90% vaccination rates by the time I leave here."
You've got to think about this ABS study - the Australian Bureau of Statistics study, right through the paper, says what all the shortcomings are.
There are certain states in which it was able to check its information and found it over-estimated the un-vaccinated group by a factor of 50%.
In fact when you look at recall, ask the parents "Did you vaccinate?" half of the people who said "No" had actually vaccinated,
they just didn't know it - they'd forgotten. There was some missing information. The Australian Bureau of Statistics does not suggest 51% vaccination rates.
It says it's around 51% for a child having got all vaccines, from age 1 to 6, all on time. What's the major reason that people didn't get it?
It was the Haemophilus Influenza b that the doctors didn't even know they should be giving it. 51% is just not true.
If you look at the vaccination for the majority of those diseases, you are finding figures of between 75 and 90%
exactly the same as they've been done in other studies. Why aren't the real figures used? Because it does not suit government
to say "There isn't a problem." In the push to keep on going and keep on going, figures are drawn out of mid air.
The trouble is we are reporting it with only a clinical impression. Most of these cases now are not confirmed by laboratories,
not confirmed by cultures, we don't know much about where the cases are coming from, it is just a number appearing out of the blue.
It's expected not because there's been an increase in pertussis, but because we had a media event and pressure on doctors from every corner
and I know this, because I get the doctors' journals and papers, on every corner, to push vaccination, not let a child go
never waste an opportunity in your surgery, never let people think that the adverse reactions may outweigh the benefits.
Now after 6 months of that, the success of it can be measured by the fact that doctors are not reporting the adverse reactions,
but are now reporting the cases of those that are missed. And we also have strange things with this: the cases that
are being reported are in fact in states where they have the highest vaccination rates �