What Are Independent Researchers Telling Us About Vaccines?

10236
Image Source: research.unsw.edu.au

A Comprehensive Look at Vaccines: Part 11 of 12

Independent Researchers

As we learned in the first parts of this article, the clinical peer reviewed data has been compromised and the whole medical system is bought and paid for, which means that we need to look for other sources of information. Fortunately, there are many credible doctors who have put in the time and effort researching vaccines who are not heard through traditional media sources. It is important to note that most of these doctors were pro-vaccine before they started their research and had administered many vaccines to their patients. Once they started to research vaccines, they were very surprised to learn that what they were taught was simply at odds with the hard data. In part 11 of this article we will focus on these independent researchers and hear what they have to say.

What Is Conformity Bias?

Conformity bias, in the simplest terms, is the adult version of peer pressure. Most of us tend to act from a herd mentality, where we look to others to take our cue to evaluate our own behavior. In my opinion, many of the medical doctors with pro-vaccination stances are caught in a conformity bias. For if they really researched the data behind vaccines, which very few ever do, they would at the very least become more neutral in the debate.

Why Other Perspectives Are So Valuable

Vaccine proponents tell us that we must rely on consensus science to form our conclusions, even though that has been shown to be unreliable. They tell vaccines skeptics, “don’t listen to this or that doctor” or “that person does not have the proper expertise to comment on vaccines” even though these doctors have had direct experience with vaccine-injured children and adults. That type of thinking only roots us deeper in the old paradigm and does not allow us to make a quantum leap in understanding new, more efficient ways forward.

In any field of study, people tend to get caught up in the rules and limitations of the existing paradigm. Many times it is the person with no built-in bias or preconceived notions who ends up creating meaningful innovation. That is what the term “think outside the box” is meant to imply. Approach the problem with a new perspective that is different than the one others are relying solely upon, and cannot imagine beyond consensus (the box).

One of the ways we evolve in our understanding of the nature of our reality, is that new ideas usually come from that lone heretic who is not afraid to question some of the more dogmatic theories that support the existing paradigm. History is replete with such examples.

In almost every case, those first early adapters and open minded people who dare to question the existing paradigm are met with strong resistance from the people who have the most invested in keeping the old paradigm in place. It is only natural for those earning a living to want to protect all they have built and rely on – we have seen it countless times. I’m sure the horse and buggy industry was not happy to see Henry Ford’s new ideas.

It is only when the new information can no longer be ignored that the masses accept the new changes. But powerful industries can prop up the old paradigm for quite a while if they can control the flow of information.

Throughout history there are many products that the science and our health officials told us were safe. It was not until the few contrary voices started to question these products and more time on the market did we really learn about their true health detriments. Some were on the market for as many as 50 years before the FDA recalled, like Darvon & Darvocet.  Here are some more well known products we once viewed as safe and effective: tobacco, lead paint, DDT, Agent Orange, Bextra, Quaaludes and Vioxx. Here is a list of products that were recalled by the FDA. As we can see, just because the FDA say’s something is safe it does not mean we can put our blind faith behind it. And as we learned in part 3 of this series regarding U.S. health agencies, we should be even more careful about what we blindly trust.

Dr. Lawrence Palevsky

Dr. Palevsky is a board certified pediatrician. After doing his own extensive research on the medical data we are presented, he now uses a more holistic approach to care, which includes nutritional science, environmental medicine, chiropractic, osteopathy, and other natural healing modalities in his pediatric office in New York. He is one of the leading advocates of a more conservative approach to using vaccines. Dr. Palevsky did a fellowship at Bellevue Hospital in NYC.

He noticed in the early 90’s that vaccines were being used on a population (newborns) that had little to no risk of the disease for which they were being vaccinated (Hep B). In the late 90’s he became concerned about the mercury in vaccines, and realized that he learned next to nothing in medical school on this topic. He notes in the interview that current research only compares vaccinated to vaccinated children.

True placebo groups are not used because the conventional medical system says it’s unethical to fail to vaccinate any child. Studies typically only follow vaccinated children 1-4 weeks post injection. Vaccine research compares symptoms of children who received the vaccines in their studies to those of children in the general population, who have also been vaccinated. There are no vaccine studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children.

This flawed research design means that studies aren’t designed to discover the true safety or efficacy of a given vaccine. The fact that vaccines have been administered for so long does not prove safety, Dr. Palevsky notes, and there is no research about long term effects, side effects or interactions.

Dr. Mercola, who interviews Dr. Palevsky in the above video, encourages everyone to be skeptical and to investigate and evaluate the topic with a critical mind. This admonition is directed at doctors, in particular.

On doctors who are ‘firing’ patients who decline vaccines: these patients are considered to be heretics. Dr. Palevsky noted that it “reeks of a tremendous amount of coercion and paternalism.” He said that parents are often ahead of their physician on the knowledge base — not reading garbage on the internet— but finding and reading information out there that is outside of what their physicians are reading. He notes a need among the medical community for greater humility.

It’s hard to admit you’re wrong, especially if you’re a physician, and especially so if you’ve been wrong about something that could be harmful to your patients. When it becomes a dogmatic issue, wherein there is no room for disagreement, and when parents who decline vaccines are viewed as heretics by those who ascribe, then we have a problem.

Dr. Palevsky notes that it is a myth that vaccines eliminate disease-causing organisms in those who are vaccinated. “These adherents are the same people who said that the world is flat.” Science is growing and what we thought we knew is not valid. The role of physicians has become a ‘with us or against us’ type of role. Most pediatricians are committed and compassionate people and it is very hard for them to imagine that they might have been wrong about vaccines or that they may have done something that unintentionally hurt a patient.

The teaching of physicians is not going to start with their education; it has to start with a groundswell of parents who implore them to delve deeper because they read the literature. A critical mass of educated advocates will signal the turning point for the transition of more enlightened medical practice. Parents don’t have to accept physicians who don’t listen. Lawmakers parrot the medical perspective, the lobbyists’ mantra, that vaccines are safe and effective.

There are a tremendous number of studies that are showing that vaccines may not be safe or effective. Dr. Palevsky noted that “it feels like there is a concerted effort to stop a dialogue, to completely disallow any disagreement, to not allow for public discussion or discourse and you either do it my way or you go.” He asks: “What kind of relationship is that? “

The power of parents connecting with parents, looking at the scientific evidence, will result in the necessary critical mass. You can do this through the Vaccine Information Center. NVICAdvocacy.org will help parents stay abreast of what’s happening in their states regarding informed consent. Parents are the drivers for release of information. Physicians are paternalistic and coercive on both sides of the argument and neither recognizes the rights of parents to make informed choices for their children. The middle ground is that parents weigh the risks and benefits of each vaccine.

Some of the things we vaccinate for are actually helpful to the immune systems of children, triggering developmental growth spurts post recovery. This is basic information regarding the field of virology. The purpose of viruses is that they actually help protect the host, cleaning out waste and providing for optimal cellular functioning. There are ways to support children through childhood illnesses in first world countries where conditions are viable for optimal healing.

Measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, ostensibly to curtail the incidence of a dangerous type of encephalitis that can occur following measles. Dr. Palevsky discovered, from reviewing CDC data firsthand, that this encephalitis occurred in only .0061%, of those who had had measles. In 2012, at the time of this interview, Dr. Palevsky noted that 1 in 88 children had autism and there was a 1.14% encephalitis rate in children in general, which represents a roughly 500-fold increase. There are studies which demonstrate a link between autism and brain inflammation, which is encephalitis. It is unknown what role vaccines plays in this change, but it is clearly worthy of investigation. Literature shows that diseases do not result in adverse effects which are propagandized widely. Polio rarely results in paralysis, for example. Most people don’t know what polio looks like in first world conditions. Highlighting worst case scenarios that result from childhood illness is a great propaganda tool.

Dr. Palevsky indicates that he sees a clear cut case of vaccine injury an average of twice per week in his 2 days/week practice. Palevsky notes that, despite this high number, we still don’t understand vaccine effects and injuries well enough to help children who have been injured.

Dr. Palevsky is concerned that there are a lot of questions about vaccines for which we have no answers. Chief among these questions is uncertainty and lack of data regarding the relative absorption of vaccine materials across the blood brain barrier. This barrier is supposed to protect the brain and nervous system from toxins. What materials in vaccines get into the brain? We haven’t studied it. No materials should get into the brain. What is the impact? As of today, we don’t know. One in six children today in the US who have some form of neurodevelopmental disorder, according to Dr. Palevsky and based on this fact, he suggests “we have to wonder what’s happening”.

 

Dr. Christopher Shaw

This is an excerpt from the findings of a 2011 study conducted by Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher A. Shaw, Ph.D. Dr. Shaw is an acknowledged expert on animal models of neurological disease, especially the ALS-Parkinsonism dementia complex. Dr. Shaw is Professor of Ophthalmology, Medical Faculty, University of British Columbia where he holds cross appointments to the Department of Physiology and Experimental Medicine, and author of over 100 peer reviewed publications, over 130 scientific abstracts, and editor or author of 4 books on topics in neuroscience.

Dr. Shaw did a study on the effects of aluminum in mice and the results were troubling. The mice were injected with the same type of aluminum used in vaccines (aluminum hydroxide) and the vaccine schedule was mimicked. To the researcher’s surprise, they found a rapid deterioration in the mice’s behavioral skills as well as motor skills and cognitive function. When autopsies were performed on the mice the researchers found massive damage to neurons in the brain.

Aluminum has replaced mercury in many vaccines. Used as an adjuvant, aluminum boosts your body’s immune response to the antigen, which means that the drug company can use less of the active ingredient and this makes production of the vaccine less expensive. Aluminum is in many vaccines, and can currently be found in the following ones: Hep A, DTaP, Pneumococcal, Hep B, Hib and the HPV vaccines.

Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. “In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community.”

Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic

Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic is an early career postdoctoral fellow. She was awarded a PhD in 2009 in Biochemistry from the Comparative Genomics Centre at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. In 2010, she joined the Neural Dynamics Research Group at the University of British Columbia (Chris Shaw’s lab) and is currently researching the neurotoxic effects of aluminum vaccine adjuvants. Tomljenovic has recently become an Associate Editor of the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease. She values open-minded discussions on controversial topics and the pursuit of truth in research endeavors, wherever they may lead.

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny

Dr. Tenpenny is probably one of the most knowledgeable people in the world on the topic of vaccines. Dr. Tenpenny has put almost 20,000 hours into vaccine research and has published thousands of articles on the subject. In my opinion, Dr. Tenpenny has to be considered one of the foremost experts on vaccination today. Dr. Tenpenny’s website is an excellent source for REAL vaccine research. The above video is an interview of Dr. Tenpenny by Henrik Palmgren of Red Ice Radio.

Dr. Suzanne Humphries

Dr. Suzanne Humphries is a nephrologist (kidney specialist) who started out as a conventional doctor. It was only after her hospital was mandating vaccinations for all of her patients that she began to look into the subject. Dr. Humphries started to see a correlation between vaccines and kidney failure with her patients. When Dr. Humphries questioned the practice of vaccinating every one of her patients (some very ill) upon admission into the hospital she was told that the adverse reactions she was witnessing could not be a result of the vaccines.

From that point on, Dr. Humphries has spent her time extensively researching vaccines. Dr. Humphries’ evidence and conclusions are quite different than the medical and pharmaceutical industry’s version.

Dr. Nancy Banks

Dr. Banks is a graduate of Hunter College and Harvard Medical School. She is an activist, speaker and author.  She speaks here about the choice to use toxins in vaccines and inject them directly into the bloodstream and characterizes the practice as dangerous and, perhaps, even evil. She notes that doctors study a particular type of medicine in school because this is the type that is sanctioned by the powers that be. Dr. Banks’ perspective is that our doctors are trained to do a job, versus educated to think for themselves and she notes the dangers that await those in the medical profession who digress from the prevailing paradigm of allopathic medicine. Finally, she speaks on the danger of all vaccines and, from her perspective as an OB/GYN, characterizes the HPV vaccine as totally useless and harmful.

Dr. Russell Blaylock

Dr. Blaylock is a board certified neurosurgeon, author and lecturer. He attended the LSU School of Medicine in New Orleans and completed his general surgical internship and neurosurgical residency at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina. During his residency he ran the neurology program for one year and did a fellowship in neurosurgery after his residency. For the past 25 years he has practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice. He recently retired from both practices to devote himself full-time to nutritional studies and research. Dr. Blaylock is interviewed by Mike Adams of Natural News.

“It has never been shown that [Gardasil] prevents cervical cancer,” explains Dr. Blaylock to Adams, noting that Merck’s widely-aired “One Less” television and internet campaign, which insinuates that Gardasil prevents cervical cancer in young girls, is a complete fraud. “They don’t even have scientific evidence of any kind to back up the assertion that this vaccine prevents cervical cancer.” —Dr. Russell Blaylock
As a neurosurgeon, Dr. Blaylock has a lot to say about how vaccines affect brain development, too.

Dr. John Bergman

Dr. Bergman was propelled into Chiropractic by a severe auto accident, with 2 broken legs and a fractured skull and sternum, along with several organ injuries. With great need and a passion for healing and regenerating, Dr. Bergman began studying the body’s recovery process. Dr. Bergman obtained his degree in Doctor of Chiropractic at Cleveland Chiropractic College in Los Angeles (CCCLA), California. Dr. Bergman is teaching at CCCLA: Human Anatomy, Physiology, Biomechanics, and 4 Chiropractic techniques: Full Spine Specific (Palmer Method), Thompson, Diversified, and Extremity Adjusting.

It’s clear from his many presentations that Dr. Bergman is an avid researcher when it comes to vaccines. Dr. Bergman points out that we hear over and over that vaccines are safe and yet, that is not what the body of evidence suggests. Dr. Lauri Markowitz from the Centers for Disease Control tells us that the CDC has “no identified safety concerns at this time”, yet VAERS reported the occurrence of almost 27,000 adverse events related to vaccines. VAERS openly admits that it only records a fraction of the events (between 1-10%) so these figures would have to be considered to be very conservative.

Dr. Peter Gøtzsche

Dr. Peter Gøtzsche is a Danish medical researcher and founder of the Cochrane Collaboration Group in Denmark. Dr. Gøtzsche bluntly tells us that much of what the drug industry does, fulfills the criteria in U.S. law to be categorized as organized crime. Pharmaceutical companies have corrupted nearly every aspect of the healthcare system, including our politicians, who have been very effective in advancing their agenda.

He also tells us that it is not popular to tell the truth in healthcare and he has made a lot of enemies for doing so. Despite of all the name-calling and harassment he received, his critics were never able to successfully discredit his body of work. I address pharmaceutical criminal offenses and fines in part two of this article.

Who Is Dr. Andrew Wakefield?

Dr. Andrew Wakefield is an academic gastroenterologist from the UK who, in 1998, co-authored a study which suggested a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism.  The study was published in 1999 in the Lancet medical journal.  BBC characterizes the study as being “like many academic papers – cautious, saying the findings based on a study of 12 children did not prove for certain that there was an association.” Even so, the study created a great deal of interest and caught the attention of parents and the medical community, alike. The BBC dubbed the controversy that ensued “one of the most contentious health stories of this generation.” The paper was subsequently retracted by the Lancet following a finding by the General Medical Council that Wakefield had acted ‘”dishonestly and irresponsibly”’ in doing his research.

In 2004, the Sunday Times newspaper “…. highlighted what it said was a series of conflicts of interest and unethical research practices. At this point the GMC became involved, leading to the hearings which started in July 2007.” The author or the Sunday Times articles was Brian Deer.

Three doctors in total faced professional misconduct charges – Dr. Wakefield and two former colleagues, Professor John Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch.” The BBC characterizes the hearings that ensued as “one of the longest and most complex in the history of the GMC” and noted that they were “not focused on whether the research was right or wrong. Instead, they have been aimed at establishing whether the research was carried out in the correct way.”

The most extravagant of those who would discredit Dr. Wakefield and his research say: “Wakefield had been secretly payrolled to create evidence against the shot and, while planning extraordinary business schemes meant to profit from the scare, he had concealed, misreported and changed information about the children to rig the results published in the journal.”

Interestingly, the person who filed the original complaint against Dr. Wakefield was Brian Deer, the investigative journalist who was commissioned by the British Medical Association to write the article to discredit Wakefield. Evidence might suggest that Deer created the story so that he could then report on the story. BMJ, which ran the article, admits that it receives most of it’s funding from ads for pharmaceutical companies.   B.J. Handley describes the relationship: “Brian Deer, a journalist hired by a pharmaceutical front group, a group that specialized in reporting doctors to the GMC, was the only person in all of Britain interested in filing a complaint about Wakefield’s study with the GMC, and he didn’t even do so until 6 years after Wakefield’s work had been published in The Lancet.”

Dr. Andrew Wakefield describes his situation as being one of a traditional, mainstream physician going against policy and threatening profit, with the end result being that his career was ‘flushed down the toilet’. He notes that “medicine begins and ends with the patient’s narrative” and that his now controversial paper was never intended to test a hypothesis about an MMR vaccine and autism link, but was a simple description of patient report and findings which suggests avenues for further research.

It should be noted that Dr. Wakefield’s co-author, Professor John Walker-Smith, was exonerated of professional misconduct and reinstated after he won on appeal.

Here is an article titled “Co-Author of Lancet MMR-Autism Study Exonerated on All Charges of Professional Misconduct.”

Here are some excerpts:

Dr. John Walker-Smith, considered the father of pediatric gastroenterology, has today been restored to his much-deserved reputation of high esteem. His appeal of the U.K. General Medical Council’s 2010 decision to remove his license for serious professional misconduct has been quashed in its entirety. This decision raises questions about the validity of the 2010 GMC proceeding in general.

The GMC proceeding was a multi-year, multi-million dollar prosecution against Drs. Wakefield, Walker-Smith, and Murch. It related to a controversial 1998 study published in The Lancet suggesting a possible link between autism, the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and bowel disease. Based on the GMC prosecution, both Drs. Walker-Smith and Wakefield lost their licenses to practice and the Lancet article was officially retracted. The GMC alleged that the physician-authors had failed to obtain necessary ethical clearances and that they had subjected the twelve children in the study to unnecessary medical procedures. 

Justice Mitting, reviewing Dr. Walker-Smith’s appeal in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court, found that the GMC’s conclusions were “based on inadequate and superficial reasoning” and that “the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed.”

Dr. Walker-Smith’s professional insurance coverage paid for his appeal; Dr. Wakefield’s insurance carrier would not.

Dr. Wakefield has recently filed a defamation lawsuit in Texas against the British Medical Journal, Dr. Fiona Godlee, Editor-in-Chief, and journalist Brian Deer, who instigated the GMC prosecution. His lawsuit alleges that the defendants knowingly or recklessly engaged in fraudulent misrepresentations about 1998 Lancet study. While far from decisive, the Mitting ruling bodes well for Dr. Wakefield’s defamation action.

Justice Mitting’s impartial judicial decision marks a turning point in a long campaign to discredit 1998 Lancet article and Dr. Andrew Wakefield in particular. To date, international media have failed to probe the GMC’s ruling or to explore the many connections between Brian Deer, the Rupert Murdoch media empire, Glaxo Smith Kline, the British Medical Journal and numerous other medical bodies.

“Finally, we are getting to the bottom of what happened at the GMC,” said Mary Holland, Esq., EBCALA managing director, “This victory for Dr. Walker-Smith is a triumph for all those who care about people with autism and bowel disease. I hope this decision leads to investigating the true causes of this global epidemic.”

I mentioned Dr. Wakefield for a reason which we will discuss in part 12 (conclusion) of the article.

Summary

When we listen to doctors who are without financial ties to the drug industry, we hear a very different story than the one that is constantly repeated by our health officials and the media. These doctors have not only put thousands of hours of research into vaccines but they have come forth despite knowing that their reputations would be viciously attacked for going against the system. In many cases, these doctors are on the front line and have direct experience with children that have had adverse reactions to vaccinations. Unlike most doctors who are taught to ignore adverse reactions to vaccinations and to make no connection, these doctors tell us that in their experience there is a connection to vaccines and adverse reactions in many cases.

This is Part 11 in the 12 part series: A Comprehensive Review of Vaccines


Part 1: Why Are So many People Choosing Not To Vaccinate?

Part 2: A Closer Look at Pharmaceutical Companies

Part 3: Vaccine Policymakers and Conflicts of Interest

Part 4: How The CDC, FDA and WHO Lost the Trust of Vaccine Skeptics

Part 5: Are Vaccines Safe & Effective?

Part 6: What Are The Real Risks of Not Vaccinating in the U.S.?

Part 7: Herd Immunity, Shedding and the Questionable Science Behind Vaccines

Part 8: Did Vaccines Really Eradicate Infectious Diseases in the 20th Century?

Part 9: The Conclusive Evidence Linking Vaccines and Autism

Part 10 Why Don’t We Hear The Whole Story About Vaccines?

Part 11: What Are Independent Experts Telling Us About Vaccines?

Part 12 Vaccines: The Greater Good or Greater Greed? – Conclusion


minds banner 728x89 1
SHARE
Speed the Shift is an independent group of researchers on a mission to find the truth about controversial topics. We utilize alternative information sources which is often ignored by traditional media in an effort to gain broader awareness on relevant issues.