(Curezone Thread) Milk: cause of autism?

[b555]

Ray has mentioned a few times in different interviews that, starting at the beginning of the 1980s, there was a massive, country- wide governmental propaganda effort to convince people to get vaccinated.

He cited some data showing that before the 80s, the rate of allergy in the population was only 2%, but by the end of the decade, over 50% of people had some kind of allergy. I think this fits perfectly with what you said about autism taking off around 1986.

I don't know anything about fetus tissue in vaccines, but simply injecting people with whole proteins more often( which vaccines are known to contain) will increase the likelihood of allergy.

This study of thousands of children across 97 centers in 10 countries showed no evidence that any vaccine is associated with food allergies, airborne allergies, or eczema. This study of over 1000 children found the exact same thing. And this British study of over 29,000 children found - the exact same thing. And this study of nearly 15,000 children across 5 countries found - let me know when you tire of this - the exact same thing.

Early atopic disease and early childhood immunization--is there a link? - PubMed

In children at heightened risk for atopy, common childhood immunization in the first year is not associated with an increased risk of more severe eczema or allergic sensitization. Parents of atopic children should be encouraged to fully immunize their children.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Mullooly JP - Search Results - PubMed

Mullooly JP - Search Results - PubMed

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Vaccination and Allergic Disease: A Birth Cohort Study

Objectives. We examined the effect of vaccination for diphtheria; polio; pertussis and tetanus; or measles, mumps, and rubella on the incidence of physician-diagnosed asthma and eczema.Methods. We used a previously established birth cohort in the West ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Allergic Disease and Atopic Sensitization in Children in Relation to Measles Vaccination and Measles Infection

OBJECTIVE. Our aim was to investigate the role of measles vaccination and measles infection in the development of allergic disease and atopic sensitization.METHODS. A total of 14 893 children were included from the cross-sectional, multicenter Prevention of Allergy–Risk Factors for Sensitization...

pediatrics.aappublications.org

 

[yerrag]

This study of thousands of children across 97 centers in 10 countries showed no evidence that any vaccine is associated with food allergies, airborne allergies, or eczema. This study of over 1000 children found the exact same thing. And this British study of over 29,000 children found - the exact same thing. And this study of nearly 15,000 children across 5 countries found - let me know when you tire of this - the exact same thing.

Early atopic disease and early childhood immunization--is there a link? - PubMed

In children at heightened risk for atopy, common childhood immunization in the first year is not associated with an increased risk of more severe eczema or allergic sensitization. Parents of atopic children should be encouraged to fully immunize their children.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Mullooly JP - Search Results - PubMed

Mullooly JP - Search Results - PubMed

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Vaccination and Allergic Disease: A Birth Cohort Study

Objectives. We examined the effect of vaccination for diphtheria; polio; pertussis and tetanus; or measles, mumps, and rubella on the incidence of physician-diagnosed asthma and eczema.Methods. We used a previously established birth cohort in the West ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Allergic Disease and Atopic Sensitization in Children in Relation to Measles Vaccination and Measles Infection

OBJECTIVE. Our aim was to investigate the role of measles vaccination and measles infection in the development of allergic disease and atopic sensitization.METHODS. A total of 14 893 children were included from the cross-sectional, multicenter Prevention of Allergy–Risk Factors for Sensitization...

pediatrics.aappublications.org

And they have studies that also say autism is not related to vaccination at all.

And they retracted the studies of Andrew Wakefield, and did they cancel him?

And they cancelled Duesberg regarding HIV-AIDs.

And they will soon have studies that caters to the WHO's new narrative that herd immunity can only be achieved by vaccination.

All of these studies would say there is no evidence any vaccine is associated with food allergies, but they also have no evidence that anything is not associated with vaccines. I don't want to read these studies at all. They are flawed. Chances are there wouldn't be adequate controls made, and the duration of study is always limited. Conclusions they make are subject to such constraints. Deductive studies based on a population of people already suffering from food allergies and looking into their history of vaccination - are these being made? Probably no. I don't think these kinds of studies will ever be funded because the outcome from such studies will be damning to vaccine makers.

I could very well be wrong, but I rather not trust these studies. I rather not rely on vaccines for my health. I rather not change my natural immune response so that I don't have an altered response. The vaccine makers will not take responsibility for my altered state, and if I suffer autoimmune complications. I do not benefit at all from it. It's the pharma companies who do, as it makes me need to see doctors who will only give me prescription drugs to deal with a chronic condition till death do us part. I rather that I rely on my body to self-regulate and protect me.

Why should I follow the standard western vaccination regimen that is imposed on children the side-effects of which are for a lifetime? What is wrong with our natural immunity that we need such interventions? What do we really gain from being subjected to so many jabs in our lifetime? What did evolution fail to do that our pharma corporations can do better?

Yet the vaccine makers are free from being directly sued, thanks to bought and paid for politicians, and there is a vaccine court that awards damages, and that vaccine court has already awarded a $4-B worth of damages. It would have been more if these courts are fair. But hese vaccine courts are no better than SCOTUS - No evidence because they don't want to look at the evidence.

Why is it that there are worse effects from vaccines and there are no effects such as food allergy? Because it is food, and it's exempt from being considered allergens after vaccination? Or is it because to admit that vaccines cause food allergies would just overwhelm the vaccine court?

To believe all the garbage studies that the establishment produces is to play by rules that disadvantage us. To trust these studies and to say they are more important than what we see going around us, and to say that we are sick because there are more unknowns than knowns is to allow ourselves to deny our own reality, and to submit to the propaganda forced on us. To believe that it's in our genes and it's because we are old makes us helpless.

Current medical propaganda makes everything around us a mystery. They can't prove anything anymore; they can only prove that there is no proof. Except for the drugs that they want us to take which makes them great profits. Go to any doctor and ask them a simple question: why. And more often than not, despite all the science we claim to have, they will say: we don't know.

If this isn't the dark age, I don't know what is.

 

[b555]

And they have studies that also say autism is not related to vaccination at all.

And they retracted the studies of Andrew Wakefield, and did they cancel him?

And they cancelled Duesberg regarding HIV-AIDs.

And they will soon have studies that caters to the WHO's new narrative that herd immunity can only be achieved by vaccination.

All of these studies would say there is no evidence any vaccine is associated with food allergies, but they also have no evidence that anything is not associated with vaccines. I don't want to read these studies at all. They are flawed. Chances are there wouldn't be adequate controls made, and the duration of study is always limited. Conclusions they make are subject to such constraints. Deductive studies based on a population of people already suffering from food allergies and looking into their history of vaccination - are these being made? Probably no. I don't think these kinds of studies will ever be funded because the outcome from such studies will be damning to vaccine makers.

I could very well be wrong, but I rather not trust these studies. I rather not rely on vaccines for my health. I rather not change my natural immune response so that I don't have an altered response. The vaccine makers will not take responsibility for my altered state, and if I suffer autoimmune complications. I do not benefit at all from it. It's the pharma companies who do, as it makes me need to see doctors who will only give me prescription drugs to deal with a chronic condition till death do us part. I rather that I rely on my body to self-regulate and protect me.

Why should I follow the standard western vaccination regimen that is imposed on children the side-effects of which are for a lifetime? What is wrong with our natural immunity that we need such interventions? What do we really gain from being subjected to so many jabs in our lifetime? What did evolution fail to do that our pharma corporations can do better?

Yet the vaccine makers are free from being directly sued, thanks to bought and paid for politicians, and there is a vaccine court that awards damages, and that vaccine court has already awarded a $4-B worth of damages. It would have been more if these courts are fair. But hese vaccine courts are no better than SCOTUS - No evidence because they don't want to look at the evidence.

Why is it that there are worse effects from vaccines and there are no effects such as food allergy? Because it is food, and it's exempt from being considered allergens after vaccination? Or is it because to admit that vaccines cause food allergies would just overwhelm the vaccine court?

To believe all the garbage studies that the establishment produces is to play by rules that disadvantage us. To trust these studies and to say they are more important than what we see going around us, and to say that we are sick because there are more unknowns than knowns is to allow ourselves to deny our own reality, and to submit to the propaganda forced on us. To believe that it's in our genes and it's because we are old makes us helpless.

Current medical propaganda makes everything around us a mystery. They can't prove anything anymore; they can only prove that there is no proof. Except for the drugs that they want us to take which makes them great profits. Go to any doctor and ask them a simple question: why. And more often than not, despite all the science we claim to have, they will say: we don't know.

If this isn't the dark age, I don't know what is.

natural immunity is better?
-Longer lasting? Sure.
-Doesn't require a scary shot with scary-sounding ingredients which are not actually scary once you understand them? Most definitely.
-Requires you to suffer through the disease AND SURVIVE in order to gain immunity? yes.

I'm not sure why you think suffering through a disease is better than, you know, not suffering through a disease.
As for the claim that vaccine manufacturers are immune from being sued, no they aren't. While it is true in the US that you go through the vaccine court first, it is still possible for the manufacturers to be sued. And this is of course ignoring the fact that the vaccine court (and NCVIP) only applies in one country on the planet.

 

[yerrag]

natural immunity is better?

Sure.

Longer lasting? Sure.

What is? Be clear.

Doesn't require a scary shot with scary-sounding ingredients which are not actually scary once you understand them? Most definitely.

Oh, they are transparent about it, yes? No.

-Requires you to suffer through the disease AND SURVIVE in order to gain immunity? yes.

Suffer? In what way? Having a cold is suffering? What about having chronic diseases from vaccine-derived autoimmune conditions, that's not suffering for you?

I'm not sure why you think suffering through a disease is better than, you know, not suffering through a disease.

I'm not even sure why you're asking me this. Is this what I wrote?

Plus, I am also baffled why you think "natural" is somehow better. Belladonna is natural, but it will kill you. Tornadoes are completely natural, but they will kill you. It doesn't get much more natural than the Sydney funnel-web spider, but it will kill you. Natural does not necessarily mean better. At all.

Conflating things.

Is this your argument: Belladonna is natural, and so is natural immunity. If Belladonna can kill you, so can natural immunity.

Or maybe this is better: If Belladonna, which is natural, can be bad, so can natural immunity as well. Maybe this is what you meant.

And I will ask you: Does this have any bearing on whether vaccine-derived immunity is superior to natural immunity? No, it doesn't.

As for the claim that vaccine manufacturers are immune from being sued, no they aren't. While it is true in the US that you go through the vaccine court first, it is still possible for the manufacturers to be sued. And this is of course ignoring the fact that the vaccine court (and NCVIP) only applies in one country on the planet.

Give me an example of a vaccine manufacturer being sued? Do you live in Timbuktu maybe?

 

[Perry Staltic]

I'm not sure why you think suffering through a disease is better than, you know, not suffering through a disease.

Because the former doesn't automatically enter you into the lottery to acquire things like permanent disability from Guillane-Barre syndrome like the latter does. Most vaccine injury payouts are for flu vaccine-caused GBS. Some people would rather suffer and die than be permanently disabled.

 

[b555]

Interesting how this group is filled with anti vaxxers yet peat himself is not anti vaxxer

 

[b555]

Because the former doesn't automatically enter you into the lottery to acquire things like permanent disability from Guillane-Barre syndrome like the latter does. Most vaccine injury payouts are for flu vaccine-caused GBS. Some people would rather suffer and die than be permanently disabled.

GBS is significantly higher (about 1-8 cases per 100,000 population) after actually getting infected with the flu (or other infections).

The risk of GBS after flu vaccination is less than 1 per million (there's that damned statistic again), and the vast majority of cases of GBS recover fully.

 

[Ben.]

-Requires you to suffer through the disease AND SURVIVE in order to gain immunity? yes.

No?

In no means am i an expert, but why do you have to suffer from a disease to gain resilence against it? Isn't the body constantly dealing with viruses and potential threats without us noticing it? I mean otherwise we would be sick 24/7.

It also depends on what kind of theory one adheres to. The conventional standard medical belief (germ theory?) is flawed. Otherwise doctors wouldn't have so much blood on their hands.

PT: so is it possible that people under stress having to wear masks having to stay home losing their job, worried about their finances and their family could be creating these exosomes that could be shown up then as a virus?

RP: yeah, any stress that can increase your exosome manufacture. But those, it's a fairly small industry to study of the exosome system and the basic problem is that it was denied as contrary to the basic dogma of genetics and molecular biology. It's the epigenetic system, and RNA viruses were said to be impossible because of the dogma that says information goes only from DNA to RNA to protein and so for a virus to contain only RNA but to get into DNA went in the wrong direction. so the whole thing required about, well fifty years ago it started, but the scientific community gradually adapted to to accept RNA viruses are real thing but seen the whole genome, the whole DNA content of cells, seeing that as active and functional that's the hard part. They just prefer not to get involved in that, especially as it relates to immunity, because it it opens up the area of doubt about a million-fold.

PT: doubt for the germ theory vaccines and pharmaceuticals.

RP: yeah basically the the antibody-vaccine theory would totally melt away into nothing if people started looking at the actual immune system.

PT: Wow. So, Dr. Ray Peat, then was this what Pasteur was arguing that there are RNA things out there, viruses that are separate from us and can attack us I mean that was his premise right?

RP: yeah yeah there are there are things out there but that the dogma says that they originated separately, and what the evidence looks like is that these circulating viruses probably, since they can't evolve they can't exist except in a higher organism you can't evolve lower thing like a virus if its existence depends on a mammal, for example, you can't conceive of it coming into existence de novo. So you have to see it as a product of higher organism. We or other organisms under stress create exosomes. Some of these get emitted into the environment and they spread information between organisms the way bacteria, if one bacterium is exposed to an antibiotic, it can produce a little particle a bacteria equivalent of an exosome having the genes which make it able to resist the antibiotic and it will approach another bacterium of a different strain even or even a different species. There's evidence that this particle can be transmitted across a fairly genetic difference. So one bacterium sends out a little tube connecting it to another bacterium that wasn't exposed and passes this particle of genetic information and the other bacterium can then integrate it and reproduce and all of his descendants will be immune to antibiotic so if bacteria can fit, it's only the genetic genetic dogma of one-way information that makes makes people resistant to looking at the transmission of these particles between organisms. So if you're around stress organisms, this approach would say sure you're at risk of catching their stress.

PT: so let's see so say a husband is stressed and creates exosomes and starts the process of healing I suspect then the wife could experience the same thing because? He's gonna teach her body help her body to learn how to become immune from this thing?

RP: yeah the basic principle would probably be like the bacteria that the bacterial adapted and passed its adaptation to its neighbors and the mechanism as as far as it exists in plants and the animals would be to pass these useful repair units on to other members of the family.

PT: yes so that could be possible then I just a kind of a God whatever you want to call it evolutionary process to make the species stronger everybody's helping everybody to get stronger essentially is what you what are you saying.

RP: yeah, yeah there have been people at making good arguments for this in among plants, in particular, going back 50-60 years.

PT: so does, do we always have to feel symptoms flu-like, headache, or whatever, when when we take on one of these little repair guys to get stronger. do we have to know that?

RP: no not not at all. The fact that they're finding positive RNA evidence of the virus in people who don't have any symptoms at all. Maybe eighty percent of the people don't feel anything from it. so it's it's being passed on and that probably integrated into creating better immunity eighty percent of the people. But if you have a sick stressed unhappy malnourished population, they are going to have trouble adapting.

PT: okay so there will be some people that will die? Could die right because they were just sick you know and compromised in pre preconditioned and the rest of it?

PT: yeah that would be the 1/10 to 1/4 of 1% what's happening.

ORN 2020-06-15: Dr. Peat On COVID Testing, Exosomes, EMFs, Gray Hair, Vaccines, Aging​

Interesting how this group is filled with anti vaxxers yet peat himself is not anti vaxxer

This response has a bitter "high horse" taste to it. Dividing us between pro and antivaxxers is stupid and shortsighted.

Can vaccines make sense/help us? Probably.
Are they completly safe and is it what we should build our entire health on without question? Hell no.

Idealy, we vaccine as little as possible. Atleast unless future 100% undisputable research proves otherwise.

A smart person in this dilemma - to vaccine or not to vaccine - would choose the option that is the one with the best and safest outcome. This requires information of all variables ... which we don't have, which the manufactures don't have and first and foremost easily 99% percent of the population doesn't have to make an informed decision.

In that sense, not injecting a "experimental never before used in history compound" directly in to the body ... might be something to consider.
And perhaps the chronic illness realy came from a vaccine one had as a baby, or the mother/grandmother had ... not by the vaccines mechanism alone but perhaps by the damage caused along from it.

 

[b555]

In that sense, not injecting a "experimental never before used in history compound" directly in to the blood stream ... might be something to consider.

There are exactly ZERO vaccines that are injected intravenously. All vaccines (other than oral polio and intranasal flu) are administered into the muscle (intramuscular), skin (subcutaneous), or dermis (intradermal).

 

[Ben.]

There are exactly ZERO vaccines that are injected intravenously. All vaccines (other than oral polio and intranasal flu) are administered into the muscle (intramuscular), skin (subcutaneous), or dermis (intradermal).

Thanks, edited it. My point still stands.

 

[Perry Staltic]

There are exactly ZERO vaccines that are injected intravenously. All vaccines (other than oral polio and intranasal flu) are administered into the muscle (intramuscular), skin (subcutaneous), or dermis (intradermal).

I believe his point was that they gain entry to the body by bypassing all natural defense systems through which immunity is naturally developed. Totally unnatural and ripe for problems.

 

[b555]

I believe his point was that they gain entry to the body by bypassing all natural defense systems through which immunity is naturally developed. Totally unnatural and ripe for problems.

Once an injected substance reaches the bloodstream, it’s treated the same way by the body as an ingested substance that reaches the bloodstream.

 

[Perry Staltic]

Once an injected substance reaches the bloodstream, it’s treated the same way by the body as an ingested substance that reaches the bloodstream.

The point was that in a healthy person foreign stuff doesn't reach the blood stream in the quantities that are injected into the blood stream, if they reach it at all due to natural defenses.

 

[Perry Staltic]

And btw, you don't have to get sick to develop adaptive immunity. Innate immunity is able to prevent sickness, while the body makes long term adaptations to the foreign invader. That's part of the scam that the vaxx cult promotes, i.e., that the only immunity is adaptive immunity.

 

[RealNeat]

natural immunity is better?
-Longer lasting? Sure.
-Doesn't require a scary shot with scary-sounding ingredients which are not actually scary once you understand them? Most definitely.
-Requires you to suffer through the disease AND SURVIVE in order to gain immunity? yes.

I'm not sure why you think suffering through a disease is better than, you know, not suffering through a disease.
As for the claim that vaccine manufacturers are immune from being sued, no they aren't. While it is true in the US that you go through the vaccine court first, it is still possible for the manufacturers to be sued. And this is of course ignoring the fact that the vaccine court (and NCVIP) only applies in one country on the planet.

Man reading your stuff is like attending a convention put on by a vaccine rep to teach "doctors" how to use their "flawless" product and shut down any patients concerns with ad hominem attacks. You are so quick to throw labels around like your mainstream colleagues looking to silence any critical thought because the "science is settled" and ignore every single bit of evidence to the contrary.

Suffering through a disease is determined completely by the environment, the fact that you view viruses as causative agents instead of the bodies skewed relationship to the environment makes you the one who is unsharing of Peats vision instead of the "anti-vaxxers." Viruses are not pathogens. They, like exosomes are forms of signaling from one organism to another, like horizontal gene transfer of certain bacteria. There are so many viruses (Are There 1031 Virus Particles on Earth, or More, or Fewer?) on earth that neither our immune system nor antibodies can explain how our body doesnt just die instantly when its born The blood DNA virome in 8,000 humans. Not to mention the critical role of retro-viral inserts in stem cell function and pregnancy.

This "suffering" you speak of also increases the bond and trust between parents and their children so long as the parents havent been brainwashed by pharma to outsource their inherent wisdom for the money machine that is modern "medicine." Many of the so called illnesses that we live through decrease the likelihood of various cancers later in life. We dont suffer needlessly. The reductionist mainstream so desperately wants us to think, like you, that we are better off injecting their garbage into our intelligent body rather than using our existing defense mechanisms. How inexcusably stupid the confidence of modern man is. Shortsighted and reductionist to the core.

Vaccinated kids are and forever will be healthier than non-vaccinated, hence why any attempt at these kind of studies is quickly revoked. Unless we evolved with a needle in our arm that Im not aware of, you have no real argument for vaccines resulting in any benefit to humanity. Almsot every instance when a virus is blamed for a certain condition the environment is to blame like lead arsenate and DDT during "polio" which is neither cured nor "killed." Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness|Hardcover

Its really too late for these discussions, all we can do is hope and strive so that the reductionist disease of modern medicine isn't forced upon those who use their human right of choice to deny these crimes against humanity a.k.a vaccines.

Here is some stuff to keep you busy and maybe honest: Download Full Vaccine Guide

Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination

We performed a retrospective analysis spanning ten years of pediatric practice focused on patients with variable vaccination born into a practice, presenting a unique opportunity to study the effects of variable vaccination on outcomes. The average total incidence of billed office visits per...

www.mdpi.com

 

[b555]

Man reading your stuff is like attending a convention put on by a vaccine rep to teach "doctors" how to use their "flawless" product and shut down any patients concerns with ad hominem attacks. You are so quick to throw labels around like your mainstream colleagues looking to silence any critical thought because the "science is settled" and ignore every single bit of evidence to the contrary.

Suffering through a disease is determined completely by the environment, the fact that you view viruses as causative agents instead of the bodies skewed relationship to the environment makes you the one who is unsharing of Peats vision instead of the "anti-vaxxers." Viruses are not pathogens. They, like exosomes are forms of signaling from one organism to another, like horizontal gene transfer of certain bacteria. There are so many viruses (Are There 1031 Virus Particles on Earth, or More, or Fewer?) on earth that neither our immune system nor antibodies can explain how our body doesnt just die instantly when its born The blood DNA virome in 8,000 humans. Not to mention the critical role of retro-viral inserts in stem cell function and pregnancy.

This "suffering" you speak of also increases the bond and trust between parents and their children so long as the parents havent been brainwashed by pharma to outsource their inherent wisdom for the money machine that is modern "medicine." Many of the so called illnesses that we live through decrease the likelihood of various cancers later in life. We dont suffer needlessly. The reductionist mainstream so desperately wants us to think, like you, that we are better off injecting their garbage into our intelligent body rather than using our existing defense mechanisms. How inexcusably stupid the confidence of modern man is. Shortsighted and reductionist to the core.

Vaccinated kids are and forever will be healthier than non-vaccinated, hence why any attempt at these kind of studies is quickly revoked. Unless we evolved with a needle in our arm that Im not aware of, you have no real argument for vaccines resulting in any benefit to humanity. Almsot every instance when a virus is blamed for a certain condition the environment is to blame like lead arsenate and DDT during "polio" which is neither cured nor "killed." Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness|Hardcover

Its really too late for these discussions, all we can do is hope and strive so that the reductionist disease of modern medicine isn't forced upon those who use their human right of choice to deny these crimes against humanity a.k.a vaccines.

Here is some stuff to keep you busy and maybe honest:

? thomas cowan...

 

[b555]

Vaccinated kids are and forever will be healthier than non-vaccinated,

Ugh no.... lets see some evidence

 

[b555]

humanity. Almsot every instance when a virus is blamed for a certain condition the environment is to blame like lead arsenate and DDT during "polio" which is neither cured nor "killed

It is true that DDT was used to try to prevent the spread of polio, because at the time (mid 1940s) it was incorrectly thought that polio was transmitted by insects like mosquitoes or flies (it is actually faecal-oral).

The big problem with this hypothesis is the timing. The first polio epidemic in the US, for example was in 1894, and the polio virus was discovered in 1908. DDT, on the other hand, was invented in 1874 but was not discovered to be an insecticide until 1939, well after polio was harming children

 

[Perry Staltic]

It is true that DDT was used to try to prevent the spread of polio, because at the time (mid 1940s) it was incorrectly thought that polio was transmitted by insects like mosquitoes or flies (it is actually faecal-oral).

The big problem with this hypothesis is the timing. The first polio epidemic in the US, for example was in 1894, and the polio virus was discovered in 1908. DDT, on the other hand, was invented in 1874 but was not discovered to be an insecticide until 1939, well after polio was harming children

 

[Perry Staltic]