Uncut Interview With "Vaxxed" Producer Del Bigtree

[Salty]

Didn't know that Such, thanks. The article mentions a database of vaccine adjuvants. I checked it and there are 103 adjuvants. I'm sure BigPharma is clever enough to use any existing adjuvant (or create a new one) that is not derived from one of the most toxic compounds for humans (mercury). Really, there should not be a need for heavy metals on vaccines.

Just for clarification. Mercury is/was used as a preservative, not as an adjuvant in vaccines.

The role of the adjuvant is to "boost" the immune response. Unfortunately, it seems that adjuvants NEED to be toxic (pro-inflammatory) for the vaccine to work, otherwise the body mounts no (or minimal) response. The only currently approved adjuvant in human vaccines is alum (an aluminum salt).

Vaccine Adjuvant Safety - The Elephant in the Room

 

[Salty]

Very interesting information. Thanks! The theory is very plausible. It makes sense. And it happens all the time. We know they do it all the time with the psychiatric diagnostic manuals like DSM. So with the polio, ok, apparently it can be easy to disguise polio paralysis with other diganostics, or discard polio if the children were vaccinated, etc. A paralysis can be from lots of factors (accident, genetic defect, other illnesses, etc.)

However it doesn't resist the fact that I don't know ANYONE who has the very characteristic smallpox disfigured face. What's the answer for that ? Do doctors now prescribe plastic surgery when you get smallpox or what ? Or smallpox isn't a real illness and it's endotoxin ?

And what happened to the boy that died from difteria a few months back who wasn't vaccinated ? The first case in 32years. So the doctors and media are so evil and conspirators that they never diagnose difteria EXCEPT if the children is not vaccinated so they can blame the antivaccination theories ? Wow.

You mean like the face of this child in 2010?:
Monkeypox Strikes in Congo

How much smallpox was monkey pox before "eradication"? Not an easy question to answer, to be honest. And its far from the only statistically complicating factor. The story of smallpox is as convoluted as the story of polio.

From a researcher that actively studied smallpox transmission (A Different View of Smallpox and Vaccination, 2003):

"Long before the World Health Organization’s Smallpox Eradication Pro-gram began, and despite low herd immunity, un-sophisticated public health facilities, and repeated introductions, smallpox disappeared from many countries as they developed economically, among them Thailand, Egypt, Mexico, Bolivia, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and Iraq."​

The case of any child dying from any disease is a sad story. But on what basis can you assume that had this child been vaccinated against diphtheria he would have been fine? Like any other vaccine, it can fail. See this abstract to a Russian report discussing the resurgence on diphtheria in Russia in the 1990's despite high vaccination coverage. HALF of the cases were vaccinated.

Or this: Respiratory diphtheria among highly vaccinated military trainees in Latvia ("Over 85% of trainees [infected] had received > or =5 doses of diphtheria toxoid.")
Or this: Diphtheria with polyneuropathy in a closed community despite receiving recent booster vaccination ("We report 20 patients aged 18-24 years from Latvia with diphtheritic polyneuropathy. All lived in a closed community and 80% were known to have been fully vaccinated against diphtheria until at least 14 years old.")

No guarantees. Both Peat and Broda Barnes talk about susceptibility to infectious disease being largely a matter of thyroid function. That child needed some good thyroid, not a vaccine.

 

[tomisonbottom]

My brother wasn't born with autism. Then he got vaccinated. Then he had autism. Weird, huh?

 

[heartnhands]

Haven't see the film so I can't say anything about that specifically, but just generally interested in this discussion. One of the issues here that seems to be so often overlooked is the accuracy of historical medical statistics. Many discussions about vaccines seem to quickly degenerate into vague generalities when, in my view, its the specifics that really shed some light. And to get to specifics you really have to dig up some of the historical discussions/articles/data etc. Otherwise you're relying on way too many interpretations. And yes, that takes time and active interest. An example: it seems we tend to assume the diagnosis of something like "polio" is clear cut and absolute. As it turns out, how polio was diagnosed changed dramatically AT THE SAME TIME that the Salk vaccine was introduced.

Here is a fascinating 1960 article (really a panel discussion) in the Illinois Medical Journal that really sheds some light on the various controversies surrounding the Salk polio vaccine AT THAT TIME (which our "cultural memory" has forgotten). It is worth reading in its entirety if interested in this topic, but here is the part about the diagnostic changes and how that artificially led to significant changes in the "incidence" of polio post vaccine introduction:

"Prior to 1954, any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization and was being community-minded in reporting a communicable disease. The criterion of diagnosis at that time in most health departments followed the WHO definition: 'Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: Signs and symptoms of non paralytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart.'

Note that 'two examinations at least 24 hours apart' was required. Laboratory conformation and presence of residual paralysis was not required. In 1955 the criteria were changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the 1954 field trials: residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days after onset of illness and again 50 to 70 days after onset. The influence of the field trials is still evident in most health departments; unless there is residual involvement at least 60 days after onset, a case of poliomyelitis is not considered paralytic.

This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with longer lasting paralysis. Furthermore, diagnostic procedures have continued to be refined. Coxsackie virus infections and aseptic meningitis have been distinguished from paralytic poliomyelitis. Prior to 1954 large numbers of these cases undoubtedly were mislabeled as paralytic poliomyelitis. Thus, simply by changes in diagnostic criteria, the number off paralytic cases was pre-determined to decrease in 1955-57, whether or not any vaccine was used."

http://www.vaccination-information-...uploads/participants-database/ratner_1960.pdf​

He then goes on to also discuss the hesitance of doctors at the time to diagnose paralytic polio in vaccinated children due to the "publicity given the Salk vaccine" (even though it was known to fail in a significant proportion of the population - see pages 84-85). Same thing has been documented in more recent years with pertussis (that is, NOT diagnosing pertussis if a child was vaccinated for it despite symptoms, without any laboratory verification, "optimism bias", they call it - a significant thorn in the side of reliable pertussis statistics). Anyhow, fascinating historical piece worthy of your time if you intend to debate this topic. (I won't even touch on the explosion in childhood paralysis on the heels of the recently declared polio "eradication" in India - another topic all together, but related to the bigger story that is Polio.)

The point noted about "cultural memory" is also a very important one. But to assume that "cultural memory" is necessarily accurate is a mistake, imo. I would say that what a culture "remembers" has more to do with what is emphasized by the authorities in the context of that particulate time and place. This does not necessarily equate with what should be emphasized, that is, the reality of a situation as it truly is.

Vaccines are just one of those areas where the authoritarian grip and intense effort to manipulate opinion is just so intense, that even without knowing much of anything about the topic, our natural instincts should tell us that something is not quite right. It has nothing to do with just being "anti" for its own sake. Even if vaccines are moderately successful at generating some kind of immunity via antibodies, it does not negate the possibility that they are having other, unintended effects. To me THAT is the critical point - what is the FULL RANGE of effects, both short term and long term, both positive and negative, after a vaccination (or series of vaccinations and their interactions). But that seems to be a highly neglected area of mainstream research. Fear of disease can paralyze logical reasoning (no pun intended).

Just my 2C.

Thanks Salty.
Appreciate your long perspective. It's good to have more than the narrow same old.

Thanks again!

 

[Makrosky]

You mean like the face of this child in 2010?:
Monkeypox Strikes in Congo

How much smallpox was monkey pox before "eradication"? Not an easy question to answer, to be honest. And its far from the only statistically complicating factor. The story of smallpox is as convoluted as the story of polio.

From a researcher that actively studied smallpox transmission (A Different View of Smallpox and Vaccination, 2003):

"Long before the World Health Organization’s Smallpox Eradication Pro-gram began, and despite low herd immunity, un-sophisticated public health facilities, and repeated introductions, smallpox disappeared from many countries as they developed economically, among them Thailand, Egypt, Mexico, Bolivia, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and Iraq."​

The case of any child dying from any disease is a sad story. But on what basis can you assume that had this child been vaccinated against diphtheria he would have been fine? Like any other vaccine, it can fail. See this abstract to a Russian report discussing the resurgence on diphtheria in Russia in the 1990's despite high vaccination coverage. HALF of the cases were vaccinated.

Or this: Respiratory diphtheria among highly vaccinated military trainees in Latvia ("Over 85% of trainees [infected] had received > or =5 doses of diphtheria toxoid.")
Or this: Diphtheria with polyneuropathy in a closed community despite receiving recent booster vaccination ("We report 20 patients aged 18-24 years from Latvia with diphtheritic polyneuropathy. All lived in a closed community and 80% were known to have been fully vaccinated against diphtheria until at least 14 years old.")

No guarantees. Both Peat and Broda Barnes talk about susceptibility to infectious disease being largely a matter of thyroid function. That child needed some good thyroid, not a vaccine.

WOW. Thank you so much for the links of diphteria. So yes, you smashed my hypothesis on the boy who died from it.

 

[Such_Saturation]

My brother wasn't born with autism. Then he got vaccinated. Then he had autism. Weird, huh?

Let's just say it's not n=1

 

[Salty]

Thanks Salty.
Appreciate your long perspective. It's good to have more than the narrow same old.

Thanks again!

Thanks, heartnhands. Its a vastly broad topic that gets reduced to nothing but a few talking points. Sadly, that tends to be true for both sides of this debate. But please keep in mind that whatever I've posted is just another interpretation. We all have to come to our own conclusions. Mine are forever evolving.

 

[Salty]

WOW. Thank you so much for the links of diphteria. So yes, you smashed my hypothesis on the boy who died from it.

Wow to you too - thanks for being open minded and actually participating in a constructive discussion. That's rare (though less so here on this forum).

 

[heartnhands]

Thanks, heartnhands. Its a vastly broad topic that gets reduced to nothing but a few talking points. Sadly, that tends to be true for both sides of this debate. But please keep in mind that whatever I've posted is just another interpretation. We all have to come to our own conclusions. Mine are forever evolving.

Of course, I don't mean to ever limit personal responsibility. Optimal interdependence means everyone stands best. Your sharing reflects what my intuition needs to research. So many ways we can fall into thinking that stops the process of finding truth. Truth is all I'm after.

 

[Salty]

Let's just say it's not n=1

No, its not n=1. Most vaccinated kids do not get autism, so that's fair. But, when you add up a bunch of n=1's you get useful data.

I'm not aware of any accurate statistics on the regressive forms of autism (and I'm guessing that is what tomisonbottom's brother experienced - very sorry for that), though I have seen estimates as high as 40-50% of autism being regressive (meaning, seemingly normal development, followed by some environmental insult, followed by gradual autistic regression vs. obvious autistic symptoms from birth). Here is the progression as reported by the father of Hannah Poling (the one "infamous" case where vaccine court conceded that vaccines triggered, but did not cause, her autism):

19 month old child with history of repeat ear infections >> 9 immunizations in one day >> 48 hours later - high fever, lethargy, irritability, refusal to walk >> low-grade fever for next 12 days >> by day 10 rash on abdomen diagnosed by pediatrician as a result of varicella vaccination ["breakthrough" varicella] >> gradual decline over next 3 months - irritability, loss of expressive language >> clear autistic behaviors become visible, such as spinning, gaze avoidance, disrupted sleep/wake cycle, and perseveration on specific television programs >> All expressive language lost by 22 months >> diagnosed with mild autism at 23 months

Another n=1, but an oft repeated series of events. And importantly, this case was reported by her father, who happened to be a neurologist at John Hopkins:

Developmental Regression and Mitochondrial Dysfunction in a Child With Autism (Poling, 2006)

"To our knowledge, this is the first description of an autistic child with mitochondrial dysfunction, growth failure, and abnormal muscle histopathology without seizures or a defined chromosomal abnormality. This patient exemplifies important questions about mitochondrial function in autism and developmental regression. It is unclear whether mitochondrial dysfunction results from a primary genetic abnormality, atypical development of essential metabolic pathways, or secondary inhibition of oxidative phosphorylation by other factors. If such dysfunction is present at the time of infections and immunizations in young children, the added oxidative stresses from immune activation on cellular energy metabolism are likely to be especially critical for the central nervous system, which is highly dependent on mitochondrial function. Young children who have dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism therefore might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time. Although patterns of regression can be genetically and prenatally determined, it is possible that underlying mitochondrial dysfunction can either exacerbate or affect the severity of regression. Abnormalities of oxidative phosphorylation can be developmental and age related and can normalize with time."​

The bolded part of the quote above is crucial, imo. This was from 2006 - the evidence for mitochondrial dysfunction in autistic children has only grown since then. My view of the possible role, if any, of vaccines in autism has changed greatly over time but in my view the best evidence points to significant metabolic dysfunctions in a child being a per-requisite. These seem to be due to health issues in the mother (often unrecognized). Vaccines seem to be one of many triggers that can push these vulnerable children over the edge.

If you would like a "balanced" view, here is Paul Offit's take on this case:

Vaccines and Autism Revisited — The Hannah Poling Case

"Although it is not unusual for children with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies to develop neurologic signs between their first and second years of life, Hannah’s parents believed that vaccines had
triggered her encephalopathy....

[later goes on to say]

...although experts testifying on behalf of the Polings could reasonably argue that development of fever and a varicella- vaccine rash after the administration of nine vaccines was enough to stress a child with mitochondrial enzyme deficiency, Hannah had other immunologic challenges that were not related to vaccines. She had frequent episodes of fever and otitis media, eventually necessitating placement of bilateral polyethylene tubes. Nor is such a medical history unusual. Children typically have four to six febrile illnesses each year during their first few years of life; vaccines are a minuscule contributor to this antigenic challenge."​

Note if you read the article that he never mentions that one of the experts is the father, a neurologist. Basically its all coincidence, with naive parents just needing something to blame. Offit is also "infamous" for saying that a child can safely receive 10,000 vaccines at once, since kids are so germ exposed, purely based on antigen load (and ignoring all other non-antigen components of vaccines and their pro-inflammatory effects, not to mention synergisms).

 

[Such_Saturation]

Autism is listed in the side effects...

 

[Salty]

Autism is listed in the side effects...

I believe that was only in the Sanofi Pasteur version of the DTaP vaccine (Tripedia), which was discontinued in 2011. The newer package inserts no longer contain autism or SIDS as a reported adverse event. But even in the old one they cautioned that a causal relationship had not been established, just that it was voluntarily reported in post-marketing surveillance.

 

[Such_Saturation]

I believe that was only in the Sanofi Pasteur version of the DTaP vaccine (Tripedia), which was discontinued in 2011. The newer package inserts no longer contain autism or SIDS as a reported adverse event. But even in the old one they cautioned that a causal relationship had not been established, just that it was voluntarily reported in post-marketing surveillance.

Well I don't believe a causal relationship is established either for the "dizziness" that is in 90% of drug leaflets

 

[Salty]

Well I don't believe a causal relationship is established either for the "dizziness" that is in 90% of drug leaflets

That might eventually get removed too, lest they "overwarn" you:

A Quantitative Analysis of Adverse Events and “Overwarning” in Drug Labeling

"...the number of unique ADEs [adverse events] per label ranged from 0 to 525, with a median of 49 and a mean of 69.8. At the upper extreme, we identified 588 labels having more than 150 ADEs and 84 labels with more than 300 ADEs."​

This is the source of the often reported statistic that the average pharmaceutical drug has 70 listed side effects. I wonder which one had 525 listed side effects . Who has time to figure out all that causality?

 

[Such_Saturation]

That might eventually get removed too, lest they "overwarn" you:

A Quantitative Analysis of Adverse Events and “Overwarning” in Drug Labeling

"...the number of unique ADEs [adverse events] per label ranged from 0 to 525, with a median of 49 and a mean of 69.8. At the upper extreme, we identified 588 labels having more than 150 ADEs and 84 labels with more than 300 ADEs."​

This is the source of the often reported statistic that the average pharmaceutical drug has 70 listed side effects. I wonder which one had 525 listed side effects . Who has time to figure out all that causality?

I appreciate it when they list them under common, rare, very rare, etc.

 

[Giraffe]

Young children who have dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism therefore might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time.

Is it only those young children that develop autism after vaccination or infections? Older kids are more or less safe? Do you have information about it?

 

[tara]

Even if vaccines are moderately successful at generating some kind of immunity via antibodies, it does not negate the possibility that they are having other, unintended effects. To me THAT is the critical point - what is the FULL RANGE of effects, both short term and long term, both positive and negative, after a vaccination (or series of vaccinations and their interactions).

This is what interests me too. It looks to me as thought there can be both positive and negative effects of many vaccines, but because the debate has gotten so polarised, it's hard to see where the balance between these is for particular vaccines in particular contexts.

 

[PakPik]

This is what interests me too. It looks to me as thought there can be both positive and negative effects of many vaccines, but because the debate has gotten so polarised, it's hard to see where the balance between these is for particular vaccines in particular contexts.

The problem, as far as my understanding goes is that vaccines, at least some of them, contain stuff that it's not supposed to be there: they can be contaminated with live viruses, some of which are oncogenic, others are neurovirulent, or both! Why such contamination? Some say it's because pharma companies aren't required to perform the needed sophisticated tests that would detect those contaminant viruses and they would then have to purify the vaccines (it would be too much $$$ they'd lose); others have pointed out that some viruses have some particular qualities, for example are extremely small to be detected with the usual methods. And again, if they used the sophisticated techniques (which would cost $$$) they'd discover so much contamination and they'd lose $$$. It wouldn't be a lucrative business at all
Deep sequencing reveals viral vaccine contaminants

Furthermore, there have been several documented vaccine related disasters that only strengthens my wariness about vaccines.

I still try to ask myself the similar questions to what you're presenting here. An important one is: in the hypothetical case vaccines were 100% free of viral contamination, and only contained what they are supposed to, would they still be safe? To be honest, I doubt it. If they work by making the immune system go overwire, then you have a recipe for disaster. I mean, most people don't get autism from a vaccine or a lifelong disability right after a vaccine, but a lot of them, already being born in times of most mom's having endocrine problems when pregnant, bad food supply, xenoestrogens, bad nutrition, etc, will have in vaccines the straw that breaks the camel's back. People can and indeed get immune dysfunction from its overstimulation (that's a topic all over the journals, it's called immune exhaustion or immune deficiency), and that's why you see more people nowadays getting diseases from younger and younger ages, and the MODERN epidemics such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and other neuroimmune diseases, not to mention the common allergy-hypersensitivities type of issues that plague just about everyone today.

The previous paragraph was hypothetical, assuming vaccines as a pristine purified thing. But since that's not the case, they are injecting live unknown viruses with those vaccines, beside the inherent immune stimulation problem, it seems to me there's a real issue with them: you're getting new infections! Plus all the people that have been immediately harmed by vaccines, an undeniable fact. Some have gone to develop autoimmune disease or neurological disease right after a vaccine. Or cancer: 60 Lab Studies Now Confirm Cancer Link to a Vaccine You Probably Had as a Child

 

[tara]

The problem, as far as my understanding goes is that vaccines, at least some of them, contain stuff that it's not supposed to be there: they can be contaminated with live viruses, some of which are oncogenic, others are neurovirulent, or both!

Bother.
But even with that, some of the diseases that people get vaccinated against are very dangerous in themselves, so it's not a matter of :
vaccine=unsafe
non-vaccine=safe.

It's more like:
vaccine risk= x-(high) chance of low severity + y-chance of high-severity
non-vaccine risk= v-chance of low severity + w-chance of high-severity
And we don't know much about any of the values.
So it's not surprising that it's controversial, and that people assess the risks differently.

 

[Salty]

Is it only those young children that develop autism after vaccination or infections? Older kids are more or less safe? Do you have information about it?

That's a hard question to answer as not enough research has really been done (most government funded autism researchers are looking for autism genes). My take based on my own reading is that young children (under 2 especially) are significantly more vulnerable to any kind of metabolic stressor, so bombarding this particular age group with repeated immune stimulation and pro-inflammatory substances is crazy imo. As noted by Dr. Poling in one of the quotes above, and as I tend to believe, as children mature certain metabolic abnormalities can normalize with time which would significantly reduce risks.

However, having said that, there is some evidence that older children can develop autism symptoms, though this is more rare and has been generally documented primarily after herpes encephalitis infections.

From: Controversies in autism: is a broader model of social disorders needed? (2013)

"...late onset presentations are typically associated with herpes encephalitis infections. While marked signs of general cognitive decline appeared shortly after the encephalitis, autistic symptoms appeared weeks to months following the infection. Some of the referred patients fulfilled the diagnostic criteria of the DSM edition (valid at the time of examination; DSM-III-R, DSM-IV) with the notable exception of the onset criterion; however, formal/specific information was lacking in other cases. This variation prompted Gillberg to suggest that autism was not necessarily a developmental disorder in the sense that it was only capable of presenting in typical form during early development.
The philosopher Karl Popper put it very succinctly, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing or observation can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication was derived, to be false. Although the Popper's maxim sounds too strict for neurobehavioral science, the above-mentioned case reports regarding late-onset autism may very well destabilize the paradigm of early-onset ASDs."​

A few more recent reports have also shown autism like symptoms in older children after enterovirus induced encephalitis:
Atypical enterovirus encephalitis causing behavioral changes and autism-like clinical manifestations: Case report [14-yr old female]
Autism spectrum disorder secondary to enterovirus encephalitis [32 month old]

I agree with the above quote that some crucial clues are being overlooked by the lack of general attention at these late-onset regressive autism cases.

Now, having said all that, autism is not the only concern, so when making these decisions for one's kids you really need to look at the broader picture. For instance, I think some of the concerns (CFS/ME, ovarian failure) over HPV vaccine (given to teens) are probably legitimate.