From Natural News: Vaccine bombshell: CDC whistleblower reveals cover-up

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Can we stop with the trolling and thread capping.
Attack the subject not the person.
Did you watch the videos they are pretty interesting.

This has been done to death too many times. You take a chart and an insert and it's multinational conspiracy. At some level outlandish claims do not merit serious consideration, and we're way past that.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,150
6,317
126
Can we stop with the trolling and thread capping.
Attack the subject not the person.
Did you watch the videos they are pretty interesting.

The OP is the virus derived vaccine that causes autism. If yow watch the videos they can start to loop in your head and become all you can see. Even if eskimospy were to happen along to tell you you're nuts it wouldn't be enough to save you. You have to prevent the vaccine from entering your system. If you watched the video(s) and don't drink a big glass of mustard mixed in water within the next few hours, you will get autism too.
 

cyclohexane

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2005
2,837
19
81
I'm an immunologist. This is complete and utter bs. The immune system does not "become more powerful" with age. Immune system development begins before birth, and most lymphocytes are already mature at birth - they just haven't encountered as many antigens as an adult.

That is the reason why we vaccinate kids - BEFORE they come in contact with the real disease causing antigens.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
5,579
2,937
136
I would sooner believe alky than any pile of steaming BS on natural news. That site is a bigger farce than Oprah's workout regimen.

Ok I lied. I wouldn't believe alky either.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,493
26,515
136
I'm an immunologist. This is complete and utter bs. The immune system does not "become more powerful" with age. Immune system development begins before birth, and most lymphocytes are already mature at birth - they just haven't encountered as many antigens as an adult.

That is the reason why we vaccinate kids - BEFORE they come in contact with the real disease causing antigens.

You pathetic shill for the vaccine makers so they can continue to make bajillons of dollars every year off of the suffering of poor defenseless babies.

*trying to do a stewox imitation? How close it?*
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Vaccines cause coffee. I was vaccinated as a kid and here I sit with a cup of coffee.
The proof is out there.
Way, way out there.

I'm an immunologist. This is complete and utter bs. The immune system does not "become more powerful" with age. Immune system development begins before birth, and most lymphocytes are already mature at birth - they just haven't encountered as many antigens as an adult.

That is the reason why we vaccinate kids - BEFORE they come in contact with the real disease causing antigens.
Aaaah! They DO exist!

My sister-in-law worked for a time at a Michael Dunn Center. The vast majority of people there had developed extremely high fevers immediately after vaccination and suffered severe and lasting nervous system trauma, to the point of being forever unable to live outside of an institution. While extremely sad, this does not bother me regarding vaccines, for I know that if a very large number of people do absolutely nothing, some small number of them will develop horrible, debilitating illnesses for no apparent reason. This is life.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,160
136
Speaking of the CDC.

Does anyone realize doctors can no longer give an antibiotic shot by a needle in an office?
Remember those days when a doctor gave you a shot of penicillin?
No more.
New rules, if you need antibiotics directly into the blood stream, that must be only done in a hospital via an IV.
Now explain THAT?
 

master_shake_

Diamond Member
May 22, 2012
6,425
291
121
Does anyone realize doctors can no longer give an antibiotic shot by a needle in an office?
Remember those days when a doctor gave you a shot of penicillin?
No more.
New rules, if you need antibiotics directly into the blood stream, that must be only done in a hospital via an IV.
Now explain THAT?

there is a small chance that having it just injected in to you is less effective than having it directly in to your blood stream.

i mean, making you go to the hospital to get an injection is how they get the rfid microchip in to your body.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,157
16,572
136
An oldie but still relevant

DCkaIYM.jpg
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I seriously doubt that......why you ask? Because I was given antibiotic via a shot in my doctors office less than 2 weeks ago.....
Yeah, I got one a couple months ago. While there's always some small chance of complications, it's like vaccines; anyone worried about that chance should rightly be scared comatose by the risk entailed in actually traveling from the home to the doctor's office.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Untreated strep throat can lead to Rheumatic Fever caused by antibody cross-reactivity to your own tissues, flaring up an autoimmune disorder.

I would imagine getting a cocktail of vaccines can cause a similar response and I bet the cross-reactivity is to proteins responsible for brain development. Hence why the vaccines are safer when you are older.

That would be a potential mechanism for higher rates of autism along with higher rates of vaccination. Developed countries in general that use alot of vaccines and have higher rates of autoimmune disorders. No one knows if its because of a lack of common contact with harmless bacteria (which could be an entirely different yet equally probable mechanism) but I'm thinking it could hypothetically be exposing people to like 100 antigens of some pretty nasty bugs and your body settling on an antibody that is cross-reactive with a protein used in brain development.

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/autoimmune/Documents/adccfinal.pdf

All you really need to read is the first paragraph and the rest boils down to "we don't know."

Read the bottom of page 31 and the beginning of page 32. It could very well be that the immune system isn't meant to be immune to every possible pathogenic microbe the world over. There seems to be a risk with every antigen that you are exposed to that you develop an autoimmune disorder. So injecting 100's of them into newborns.... eh.

Hygiene hypothesis and autoimmune diseases.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22090147

If you were to go along with that theory by itself, then its pretty dumb to be giving out Streptococcus pneumoniae vaccines with Streptococcus pneumoniae lives in just about everyones nose, anyway.
That's certainly a valid point, but we're not seeing it statistically, and we have VERY large samples. For most vaccines we're generally talking significant morbidity rates in whole or even double percentages versus significant morbidity rates literally too small to measure. For any significantly transmissible disease with an effective vaccine, that's a no-brainer.

For the record I'm greatly in favor of vaccinations being more spread out and later in life. But the greater the unvaccinated population, the more dangerous that becomes, and we have a huge influx of unvaccinated illegals (many with new diseases or variants) as well as our own homegrown poor-at-math crowd. Whooping cough vaccines for instance are ineffective and even dangerous to newborns, so herd immunity is extremely important.
 
Last edited:

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,676
5,208
136
There seems to be a risk with every antigen that you are exposed to that you develop an autoimmune disorder. So injecting 100's of them into newborns.... eh.

But we don't inject 100's of antigens into newborns at any point in the vaccination cycle.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,676
5,208
136
Are you sure? Did you watch the videos? They are not infoworld videos.

Well, I read the articles that the OP linked, and followed links back to this article from GreenMedInfo.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/br...s-cdc-scientists-covering-vaccine-autism-link


Basically it lays out more detail than the OP's link, but some things are troubling with the article.

It says this is evidence of the coverup:

According to Dr. Hooker, the CDC whistleblower informant -- who wishes to remain anonymous -- guided him to evidence that a statistically significant relationship between the age the MMR vaccine was first given and autism incidence in African-American boys was hidden by CDC researchers. After data were gathered on 2,583 children living in Atlanta, Georgia who were born between 1986 and 1993, CDC researchers excluded children that did not have a valid State of Georgia birth certificate -- reducing the sample size being studied by 41%. Hooker explains that by introducing this arbitrary criteria into the analysis, the cohort size was sharply reduced, eliminating the statistical power of the findings and negating the strong MMR-autism link in African American boys.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/br...s-cdc-scientists-covering-vaccine-autism-link



Then I read the abstract of the study under question and this was the method used:

Methods. A case-control study was conducted in metropolitan Atlanta. Case children (N = 624) were identified from multiple sources and matched to control children (N = 1824) on age, gender, and school. Vaccination data were abstracted from immunization forms required for school entry. Records of children who were born in Georgia were linked to Georgia birth certificates for information on maternal and birth factors. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs).

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/2/259.abstract


Now, never mistake me for a math wizard, but something doesn't compute with the good PhD's math assessment of starting with 2,583 kids and dropping it 41% in size to exclude kids without GA birth certificates (and I guess every one excluded was black to change the percentages significantly enough to matter) to achieve ~1060 left to report on.

But in the abstract, the total number of children reported on was actually 624 (case children) + 1824 (control children) = 2448 children. And even if you only look at the 624 case children as your number, it's still far off of the 1060 the good PhD claims were in the study.



Hmmmmm..........