News & Analysis
Wakefield Accused of Further Vaccine Fraud
Medical journal: Study linking autism, vaccines is 'elaborate fraud' ... A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines is an "elaborate fraud," according to a medical journal -- a charge the physician behind the study vigorously denies. The British medical journal BMJ, which published the results of its investigation, concluded Dr. Andrew Wakefield (left) misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study -- and that there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible. The journalist who wrote the BMJ articles said Thursday he believes Wakefield should face criminal charges. However, Wakefield said his work has been "grossly distorted." Speaking on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," he said Wednesday he is the target of "a ruthless, pragmatic attempt to crush any attempt to investigate valid vaccine safety concerns." The medical publication says the study has done long-lasting damage to public health. – CNN
Dominant Social Theme: Vaccines are safe. Period. And those who deny it are criminals.
Free-Market Analysis: Dr. Wakefield's journey into medical purgatory continues. He initially co-authored a study back in 1998 that suggested that a link between autism and vaccines deserved further study. Since then his views have hardened. He has been outspoken about the dangers of giving children so many vaccines in early childhood – by some estimates up to 35 vaccines before a child is five years old. His arguments have found fertile soil, with both parents and Dr. Wakefield suggesting that children with compromised immune systems – or even children with a certain genetic profile – ought to forego an aggressive vaccination schedules.
The idea of bombarding the young body with so many faux-illnesses over such a short period of time is probably bound to generate certain side-effects in certain children – or at least this seems to be a reasonable perspective. Doctors in private may admit to this possibility, yet Big Pharma, behind the vaccine industry, seems unable to countenance the perspective that vaccines are in any way responsible for any side-effects at all. The idea that a single one-size-fits-all medical treatment has NO untoward effects EVER seems a somewhat doctrinaire view, but it is the one that some in the field, including the pharmaceutical industry itself, continue to advance.
Dr. Wakefield has pointed out in the past that Big Pharma has resorted to fairly unorthodox tactics to discredit those it considers its opponents. We were fortunate to get a fairly lengthy interview with Dr. Wakefield back in May 2010, that from our point of view put the controversy into a larger perspective. What emerged was a portrait of beleaguered but defiant professional whose perspective was echoed by parents who had seen vaccine-based injuries first-hand with their own children. To read the interview Click Here.
Dr. Wakefield's persecution, in fact, fits a pattern. Despite denials about the profitability of vaccines, Big Pharma seems to be behind much of the persecution of those who question the viability of modern, Western medicine. There was, for instance, a trial in Australia in which Merck contested statements by doctors who dissented from the use of Vioxx, or considered Vioxx unsafe. Wakefield told us, "Internal Merck memos talked about how they would discredit them and neutralize them and the last internal memo to be read out had the following line, referring to those doctors, 'We may have to seek them out and destroy them where they live.' ... Is there corruption? Is there distortion? Is there manipulation? Absolutely."
The current BMJ article (referred to, above, in the CNN report) was written by Brian Deer; he also writes for the London Times. The owner of the London Times is publisher Rupert Murdoch who has a variety of ties to Big Pharma and the Anglo-American power elite that has substantial ownership of Big Pharma from what we can tell. Deer has written continuously about Dr. Wakefield; his conflicts of interest and his reported fraudulent initial study – which he claims was motivated by a business relationship that Wakefield had at the time to create a new kind of vaccine. Wakefield reportedly responded to the charges by suggesting that Deer was "a hit man who has been brought in to take me down" by pharmaceutical interests.
In our interview, Wakefield denied that any outside interests had played a part in his study and had more to say about Deer. He told us: "I think a lot of the problem has been the original [Deer penned] Sunday Times article on this whole affair was grossly, factually inaccurate but that was the lead story that people have followed. Certain things became imbedded as part of the truth and people came to believe them simply because they were repeated time and time again."
No matter how Wakefield is attacked, the controversy is not likely going to go away. Fox News reports that many families with autistic children are standing by Dr. Wakefield and his 1998 report, despite the new accusations. This is not surprising: Over and over parents make the point that their children began to show symptoms of autism after receiving vaccines. Either the children's immune systems were stressed from previous or current sicknesses at the time of the vaccine; or the children at very young ages received a vaccine cocktail. Here's an excerpt from the Fox News report:
Carmen Inclan, from Tampa, feels there's no scientific proof behind the British Medical Journal and its claim Dr. Wakefield is a fraud. "I don't give this article, this report any credibility – until I see more factual information about why they're saying it's fraudulent, prove it," she said. Inclan's 7-year-old son Michael is autistic. Inclan said her proof that his condition can be blamed on vaccinations is a very specific timeline. When Michael was 18 months old, he got a MMR shot and back-to-back flu shots. His fraternal twin Christopher got the same exact vaccinations. Carmen said the difference is that Michael was already sick and on antibiotics, his immune system compromised. Carmen won't vaccinate her children anymore, relying on a more holistic approach.
Despite such verbal evidence, defenders of vaccines still will not grant a link between vaccines and any side effects. They cite study after study that shows a lack of any individual link; meanwhile there is report after report by parents claiming just such a linkage. Another side-effect to vaccines may be asthma, which is a condition that has been growing significantly. There seems little research into any link between asthma and vaccines, though in our interview, Dr. Wakefield expressed interest in a potential linkage.
The barrage of ever-escalating accusations against Dr. Wakefield – his license to practice medicine in Britain has been revoked and his initial research has been retracted by the journal that published it – seems intended to chill whatever interest professionals may have in such investigations. Here's some more from the CNN article, excerpted above:
"It's one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors," Fiona Godlee, BMJ's editor-in-chief, told CNN. "But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data."
In our commentary about the interview with Dr. Wakefield, we pointed out that his reasonable point of view (that "safety-first" ought to be of paramount importance when it comes to vaccines) would eventually win the day. We also noted that "what is being done to him now, this campaign of apparent de-legitimization, is fairly puzzling given obvious conclusions almost any fair-minded person would reach regarding this controversy." Since we wrote these words, Dr. Wakefield has lost his license to practice in Britain, had trouble finding a publisher for a new, broader study about vaccines and their side-effects in monkeys and now has been accused of criminal fraud. Nonetheless, we concluded our commentary as follows:
But no matter. The Internet has radically leveled the playing field. The word is out to millions. Wakefield's public evisceration has probably done nothing more than to generate sympathy for him in many quarters ... Eventually, in our opinion, vaccine makers (and their enablers in government regulatory agencies and especially within the World Health Organization) will be forced by the market itself – by concerned parents – to admit that certain vaccines apparently have certain side-effects – at least when given to certain children at certain times in their lives ...
Here at the Bell, anyway, we would welcome further scrutiny of Big Pharma generally. We think finding natural cures in the Amazon and elsewhere and then mimicking them artificially in the laboratory is fundamentally questionable and leads to dangerous medicine. In fact, we hope at some point the whole science of vaccines comes in for more serious scrutiny. There are more and more disease-specific vaccines these days, but from our humble point of view the evidence for the efficacy of many of these is scant. Certainly, according to Dr. Wakefield, not a lot of safety testing is going on.
No matter what Big Pharma tries to do these days – especially to Dr. Wakefield – the controversy about vaccines is likely to continue and vaccines rates (especially of the measles vaccine) will remain stubbornly lower. If one grants the efficacy of vaccines generally, it does not seem to make much sense that the pharmaceutical industry and its governmental allies are fighting so hard to suppress knowledge that vaccines can have side effects. In the United States, in fact, a special court has been set up to hear the evidence of parents who claim that vaccines have harmed their children, and awards have begun to be made.
Conclusion: The legal evidence seems increasingly to contradict the stances of Big Pharma and its medical and governmental enablers. This is not going to help Dr. Wakefield though, who looks increasingly like the Galileo of his day, pressured on all fronts to deny something that he and many others know is most likely true.
Posted by Healthcoach on 02/03/11 12:28 AM
Hello, Thank you for your nice article. I found something special on it. Thanks
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 01/13/11 08:04 PM
"It would be nice if a large controlled study could be done evaluating the need for a yearly vaccine schedule"
There have been studies performed on animals and they have had some effect on public health policy. For example, Hawaii have changed their quarantine and vaccination policies based on a large study demonstrating that dogs retain a rabies antigen response for as long as ten years following vaccination. Since many breeds have a life expectancy of approximately ten years it is becoming an accepted practice to vaccinate once and perform titration tests for anti-rabies antibodies when needed.
As a rule I vaccinate my dogs at 8 and 12 weeks for parvo then never again. Parvovirus is frequently lethal in Rottweilers which is why I vaccinate against it as I do for rabies. In general, I don't favor vaccination.
Posted by Casey on 01/10/11 04:34 PM
Click to view link
QuackWatch found guilty
Posted by Brad Weeks, MD on December 3, 2007
"Dr." Barrett of Quackwatch/Quackbuster
(Partial information extracted from Dr. Brad Week's post.)
"Who Is Steven Barrett, What Are Quackbusters?
Steven Barrett is an unlicensed Pennsylvania psychiatrist, who, though he failed his psychiatric boards and has been criticized for his lack of expertise by several courts, still claims to often advise the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the FBI, State Attorneys General, HMOs, Consumer Reports, medical journals and state medical, chiropractic and dental boards.
The insurance industry cites Barrett's highly opinionated "Quackbuster" attacks to deny paying claims for chiropractic and other natural healthcare.
Barrett and the "Quackbusters," a vigilante group of self proclaimed skeptics of any medical or health modality that avoids drugs, surgery or radiation, attack almost all non-conventional healthcare practices as quackery.
Ignoring all scientific research to the contrary, they dismiss Gulf War Syndrome, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Chemical Sensitivity, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and dietary supplements as rubbish. Double Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling is on their "quack" hit list along with many well known and respected doctors and scientists, including Deepak Chopra, Andrew Weil, and dozens of others.
Barrett claims to give over 500 interviews a year to newspapers, magazines, and television shows, including CNN and the Today Show. He claims to have been a peer reviewer for seven medical journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, even though he had no license to practice medicine when he did the reviewing."
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks for the update.
Quackbusters is an incredibly important organization in terms of the credibility imparted to it by the mainstream media. When Quackbusters criticizes a treatment, it is a big deal. But the site has less power now as alternative thinking and treatments continue to blossom.
A narrative is being formed that is quite important. As the alternative narrative becomes more apparent, Quackbusters will have increasingly less ability to deal with each specific alternative practice as a "one off" fraud. We have the Internet to thank for this. It is gradually building entire narratives that counteract the dominant social themes of the elite.
Human beings are metaphorical creatures and build their lives around stories. Each person in fact has his own little threnody running around in his head. But there are larger cultural stories as well that provide the social glue.
The most threatening thing to the elite is a believable counter-narrative. It is another reason why Wakefield has been attacked so viciously - though have interviewed him we can say with some certainty that he does not fully understand the sociopolitical impact of his actions ...
Posted by Dr H on 01/10/11 02:19 PM
"the Galileo of his day..." ROTFLMAO! Quack quack!
Reply from The Daily Bell
Are you REALLY a doctor?
Posted by Peacenik on 01/10/11 09:55 AM
As a physician , I am amazed at the plethora of recommended vaccinations . I don't think it is wise to vaccinate against every perceived illness under the sun . Certainly , never vaccinate a sick child or pet for that matter .
Vaccination challenges the immune system , so don't challenge the immune system when it is weakened by disease . Personally , I would give core immunizations , as in the olden days , and really research and evaluate the need for others .
Also , ask whether or not the vaccine contains mercury . Heavy metals are not good for the developing brain , no matter what spin is put on this .Incidentally , I was vaccinated against Hepatits B in1983 . I still had protective antibodies twenty years later , although a gastroenterologist recommended that I " just go get the vaccine again."
Look at veterinary medicine . Many vets recommend yearly vaccination claiming " Well what's the problem with it and it protects against disease." Did you know that many dogs still have protective antibodies for a period of 7 to 8 years after receiving the 1 yr. puppy shots ? The yearly shots ensure that pet owners will bring the dog to the vet for a yearly exam .
It would be nice if a large controlled study could be done evaluating the need for a yearly vaccine schedule , however , Big Pharma ( Fort Dodge ) would obviously not support this , because it would affect their bottom line .
A dogs immune system declines with age . Why challenge an already weakened immune system unless there is a realistic danger of disease ? You could cause a serious illness to develop as an unintended consequence .
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 01/09/11 12:58 AM
@ R.P. McCosker
"Copyright is an authoritarian restriction on the use of one's own paper, ink, compact discs, DVDs, personal computers, etc."
I don't think it should be. I agree that under this new "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" it has become what you say, but I think that Act went too far. I believe that a person's work should be protected from profit by others who copy it, but it should not be protected from copying by a person who has purchased a copyright. Maybe this is a fine distinction, but it's one I think is important and its why I think the DMCA should be repealed. I believe it falls under the doctrine of "Fair Use", which has been violated by the DMCA.
The game being played under the DMCA is the one that the film "Men in Black" made a joke of a few years ago when they said "Now everyone's going to have to buy the White Album again". It isn't all that funny in an age that rapidly obsoletes recording technology, we saw this in the transition between CD's and MP3's; the quality of the copy didn't change, only the format. The RIAA wanted everyone to buy the White Album again, even though it was easy to copy the digital CD to a computer and re-format it to MP3. The only value added was the format conversion; the CD didn't sound any better.
Now they're trying it again with DVDs and this time it looks like they'll succeed. It's robbery. If I have a physical copyright to the title "Men in Black" why shouldn't I be able to copy it to my computer? I own it!
Selling the copies is different. I believe that right should be retained by the artist and the artist should be compensated when the work is copied and sold.
So, is there a way for you and I to agree?
Posted by R.P. McCosker on 01/09/11 12:30 AM
Patent and copyright alike -- that's why they're denoted under the umbrella term "intellectual property" -- are an attack by the government on the peaceful use of preexisting property. No free society should suffer a regime restricting the physically peaceful use of property: It's theft by the regime, operating on behalf of the mercantilist elite, of its citizens' property. Copyright is an authoritarian restriction on the use of one's own paper, ink, compact discs, DVDs, personal computers, etc. The "IP" thugs even try to control the use of privately owned copying devices.
"IP" -- any "IP" -- is confiscation, plain and simple.
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 01/08/11 11:24 PM
@ R.P. McCosker
"End patent and copyright laws altogether. "Intellectual property" is theft of pre-existing property"
You really should distinguish between patent protection and copyright. I can make arguments that people should not have the right to copy my work or the work of others, then sell that work for personal gain without any compensation to the creator of the work. I may or may not put a copyright on my work, but I do believe I should have that option.
Patents are a whole different ballgame and should be treated as such.
Posted by Zenbilionaire on 01/08/11 10:45 PM
"The elves intend to investigate."
Excellent! We need all the help we can get. A slightly different but potentially synergistic investigation might include the actions and mechanism of telomerase, see "Telomerase, Aging and Disease", Mark P. Mattson ed., Elsevier, 2001
Reply from The Daily Bell
Posted by R.P. McCosker on 01/08/11 09:30 PM
On rereading what I last posted here, I see one of the items on the list could easily be misread:
"6) End the theft of patents and copyrights (so-called 'intellectual property')." Oops.
This sounds like I want the government to enforce "intellectual property" even more than it does now, which is exactly the opposite of what was intended. What I meant was:
6) End patent and copyright laws altogether. "Intellectual property" is theft of pre-existing property. Allow instead for a free market in medicines and other aids to health. And thereby end the government-enforced cartel of Big Pharma and free human beings to find their own healthcare remedies.
Posted by R.P. McCosker on 01/08/11 06:48 PM
Here's a list of simple health reforms governments could make -- undoing a couple of centuries of disastrous, PE-driven government interferences -- which would point the way to medical progress. Not that I expect any of them to be considered by State regimes in the foreseeable future -- after all, regimes are about power and stealing resources to favor those with greater political influence (e.g. the successful cartel-seeking American Medical Association) -- but we can all think about these matters more clearly if we see what ought to be done.
1) End all licensing of healthcare practice. Allow all and any to undertake healthcare without government permission or oversight. (And thus take down the "medical" and other healthcare cartels.)
2) End all government and government-subsidized hospitals, medication, etc. End government licensing and regulation of hospitals and other healthcare facilities. Allow affordable healthcare to flourish.
3) End all government accreditation, provision, or subsidy to education related to healthcare.
4) End the government-imposed requirement of prescriptions for designated chemicals and other products.
5) End all healthcare or healthcare-related research directed or underwritten by government.
6) End the theft of patents and copyrights (so-called "intellectual property").
7) End healthcare liability: The politics-ridden government (including its inherently corrupt judicial system) has no business whatsoever in determining which healthcare procedures are appropriate. (Instead, leave room for private referrals and certifications to flourish.) Knowing that government coercion won't be coming there to rescue them, healthcare seekers will generally do so with responsibility and caution. (For the few who don't, the general public should not suffer. And it's not as though the government and its cartels can be trusted to find the best treatments, anyway.)
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 01/08/11 06:39 PM
I had read Naessens' letter, it was one of the citations given in the feedback above, I didn't find it a compelling rebutal to the history outlined in Quackwatch. I didn't pursue it further so there may well be more to the story than either of us has read. Frankly, I'd never heard of Naessens' work or somatids before reading the feedback to this article.
My comment about conflating his research into somatids with ongoing research in the field of somatic hypermutation was meant to make sure you (and other readers) noticed the distinction, i.e. that somatid and somatic were different.
Somatic hypermutation was what I was referring to, not somatids. My point was that somatic hypermutation is a relatively new field of research in molecular and cell biology that may very well explain the mechanism by which vaccines cause unintended damage to the human immune system. This was presented in defense of the position taken by persons who believe Dr. Wakefield is being unjustly pilloried by the medical community.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks for shedding light on this. Somatic hypermutation is new to us. The elves intend to investigate.
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 01/08/11 05:11 PM
The fraud/charlatan part came from the citation:
"In 1967, the American Cancer Society published a detailed report on its investigation of Naessens . The report stated:
Naessens had proposed two treatments for cancer and leukemia. The first called G.N. 24, was found by a Swiss pharmacist to contain mineral salts and methylene blue. The second, called Anablast, attracted worldwide attention in 1963 when Naessens used it to treat a 4-year old boy.
Although Naessens claimed to have studied biology at the University of Lille, the school records fall to verify this.
In 1956, Naessens was convicted of illegally practicing medicine. He was fined 300,000 old francs and made to pay 600,000 old francs to the doctors' "ordre" and "syndicat." After that, made it a condition that a doctor should administer his treatment.
In 1964, Naessens agreed to a test of Anablast by Professor Pierre Denoix, Director of the Gustave-Roussy Institute at Villejuif, France. Denoix concluded that Naessens was mistaken in the premise on which the serum was based, and that an investigation of cases of cancer and leukemia treated with Anablast [h]ad proved that the serum had no therapeutic value. (In every allegedly successful case Denoix was able to investigate, the patient had first received standard therapy.) Soon afterward, Naessens was indicted for practicing medicine and pharmacy illegally .
Denoix reported that the particles he had seen were well known by hematologists to be products of red-cell disintegration. He also concluded that microorganisms that Naessens cultivated were the result of secondary contamination of the material studied."
Neither of the other two citations given with this one addressed those criticisms.
Reply from The Daily Bell
The problem with innovative theories and treatments is that Western governments have the power to suppress such treatments and often do so in a brutal way. Now initially, we just read the links provided; but after your feedback, we Googled Naessens and found out much more - including this in a feedback page regarding Naessens treatments;
July 29, 2010 at 12:35 am
For a real eye-opener read 'The Persecution and Trial of Gaston Naessens by Christopher Bird"one more expose of the suppression of natural cancer cures by the corrupt and evil medical establishment. Declare your Independence from the insane disease industry!!!
Also it seems his treatment has been put into effect in Canada ...
(2006 correspondence below)
Comments as Manufacturer by GASTON NAESSENS ...
I will first remind you that the Special Access Programme (SAP), formerly the Emergency Drug Release Program, finds its origin in the Canadian Food and Drug Act (in particular, sections C.08.010 and C.08.011 of the Regulations). A description published by Health Canada is supplied in Schedule 5. 714X was first introduced into this nationwide emergency program on December 19, 1989 (see Schedule 6).
Some 17 years later, Health Canada has authorized 21,096 courses of 714X at the request of 1,498 Canadian doctors, from all provinces, for the use of 4,039 patients meeting the SAP's criteria. Statistics on the use of 714X under the SAP are found in Schedule 7.
According to this number of courses, to this day, 443,016 injections have been authorized (at the rate of 21 injections per course). It is to be noted that, during all these years of use, not one single report of an adverse event has been reported to the manufacturer or even testified to before the Court by representatives of Health Canada or their attorneys. I recall that the injection protocol has been tested and provides a high level of safety and effectiveness if performed as recommended: not otherwise.
Let us review an essential element of the SAP as published by Health Canada in their document entitled 'Special Access Programme (SAP) " Instructions for Making a Special Access Request
714X will soon be 30 years old. For that occasion, I am preparing a document that will synthesize the scientific path undertaken since 1949 (either in microscopy or haematology) which path led to the filing of the Somatidian Theory before the AcadeÌ쳌mie des Sciences de Paris in 1963.
The document will gather in one text all relevant evidence countering Health Canada's unfounded allegations suggesting that I have done nothing over the last several years and that I act without any development plan. Quite to the contrary, I have followed, for well over 50 years, a very precise and rigorous development plan.
At 82 years old, I continue to work with great pleasure and determination, with the firm intention of helping people.
You will understand that several steps were necessary to conceive 714X as it stands today.
I first had to fabricate a microscope and study live blood for several years. Following that, I confirmed the existence of the somatid, I isolated it, cultured it to authenticate its living nature and then established its cycle. Finally, I was able to fine tune non-toxic health products capable of acting on the somatidian cycle, 714X being the last born of these products.
Based on the experience I have gathered over the last 17 years relating to Health Canada's lack of overture to innovative and non-toxic products such as 714X, it would serve no purpose at this time to undertake a conventional homologation process.
From my understanding of these rules, it is impossible for 714X to be approved according to the existing rules. This situation is true for 714X and also for several other products. The actual homologation process must be thoroughly reviewed from top to bottom, above all the resistance of the guardians of the statu quo.
Who at Health Canada will be my 'peer in its investigation? Who at Health Canada (or at its American equivalent, the FDA) will approve 714X while at the same time ignoring or not understanding the Somatidian Theory which forms the underpinning of 714X? Who, in these regulatory agencies will have enough courage to greet new ways of addressing the origin of disease? These questions remain without any answers for now.
I conclude hoping that you will remember, in the light of Mr. Justice FrancÌois Lemieux's July 28th judgment, that compassion must characterize the SAP and that 714X will remain accessible and available to Canadians, for new patients as well as ancient patients.
From this moment onward, all attempts by Health Canada to 'diplomatically discourage Canadian doctors from using 714X for their patients can be considered disrespectful of the judgment.
Here is an extract from an article published in the peer-reviewed journal The Lancet which perfectly reflects my thoughts at this point of my life:
« We have become used to the idea that innovation is slow and expensive and must be surrounded by elaborate controls at every point to prevent possible unethical behaviour toward people or animals. We have also become used to the idea that improvements will be marginal, as in cancer or cardiovascular disease, and therefore that everything must be done on a sufficiently large scale to ensure that small advances will not be missed. The structures of government and institutional controls have ensured that the effort required to get something done has become enormous, and costs have increased extraordinarily. Those who do try to forge clinical innovation are repeatedly made to feel as though they are in some way immoral.
Again, I thank you for taking the time to read this letter, to better understand the issues encom- passing 714X and, I remain available to answer your questions.
Posted by Lyn on 01/08/11 04:05 PM
I couldn't help wondering today when I read the article at the CDC about the backpedaling now going on regarding flouride, how soon they would also be backpedaling the vaccine issue. Apparently not soon.
For those interested, their new position on flouride can be found at
Click to view link
To hear them tell it, they've been monitoring it's effects all along and just found out. So expect to see yourselves poisoned a little less.
Benevolent aren't they?
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 01/08/11 02:37 PM
"See the post above, this thread, for an entirely new hypothesis on how immunity works .."
Fascinating. All this from a man who was convicted as a fraud and charlatan. Apparently MedLine doesn't mention 'somatids'. How could such valuable "research" have escaped notice?
Somatic hypermutation on the other hand has some foundation in accepted science. I hope you weren't making an attempt to conflate the two areas of study.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Where is the "fraud and charlatan" part? We did see a scientific study that appeared to confirm both his hypothesis and treatment... But it is true, we read it quickly ...
Posted by John Diman on 01/08/11 01:54 PM
I have not had a flu shot since 1987. Guess when was the last time I had the flu? 1987!!
Within a week of getting the 'protective' flu shot I experienced fever, chills and then a sore throat that became a strep throat so bad it sent me to the hospital.
I have not been so sick since then. IMHO many of the vaccines pushed, esp. on adults, are unnecessary and actually deleterious to one's health.
FYI-I also survived unscathed the following childhood diseases: mumps, rubella/german measles, measles and chickenpox.
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 01/08/11 01:53 PM
@ N C Kamdar
"There is an upsurge in the number of younger patients with auto-immune diseases, including arthritis, diabetes and inflammatory bowel disease."
I was glad to read this, especially from another medical professional. I have been studying the immune system myself for the past few years and I've begun to focus on the mechanism of hypermutation described by molecular biologists.
Their observations support the idea that "false flag" attacks on the human immune system can and do lock our bodies into self destructive behaviors that would account for diseases like MS, Peripheral Neuropathy, Asthma, Rheumatoid Arthritis, AIDS and a host of others.
Could vaccines be responsible for hyperactive immune systems? Unresponsive immune systems? Of course. They are targeted attempts to train the immune system. That's what vaccines do. And we may well be witnessing the result of training that system to do the wrong thing. This is not a leap of faith, it is a purely rational conclusion.
Reply from The Daily Bell
See the post above, this thread, for an entirely new hypothesis on how immunity works ...
Posted by Quasi on 01/08/11 01:18 PM
Kevin's comments above remind me of a gentleman I met some years ago, Gaston Naessens. We worked with him to help develop optics for an updated version of a microscope he had developed. That led me to research how things have gone for him in the years since that effort.
Regardless of the validity of Mr. Naessens' work, the results of my quick research seem to show a pattern that may be familiar to the Bell and my fellow readers. Hopefully I have inserted the links correctly.
A link to Mr. Naessens' website with an interesting warning:
Click to view link
A reaction to Mr. Naessens work from a M.D.:
Click to view link
The most recent information found from Gaston Naessans (favorite statement is from the Lancet on the last page):
Click to view link
Perhaps there is some validity to the elves' claims of truth telling on this new-fangled intrawebs thingie.
BTW are all of the elves from non-profit (North Pole organization) groups or are some also from corporate (making cookies in a magical tree and such) backgrounds?
Reply from The Daily Bell
The elves in question are all Arctic elves. Today, they are Swiss elves ...
This is an interesting post, thanks.
PS: The links seem to include a verified scientific test that clearly supports Naessens perspective. Thus, we may have here an entirely new explanation about how the body works - along with a prophylactic that helps the body cure cancer naturally. He has produced both a hypothesis and then a treatment.
Yet he is listed in QuackWatch and the Canadian government has been adversarial to him for 25 years.
It does indeed seem to "show a pattern" familiar to Bell readers in our view. How many of these alternative explanations for how human biology works exist and have been suppressed?
Of late, we have noticed on the 'Net an explosion of alternative hypotheses. It may in fact turn out that the "accepted" body mechanics are no more valid than economic ones featuring the price-fixing of central banks. The 20th century was truly a Dark Age. Here's hoping the 21st century will provide some enlightenment.
Posted by William Barr M D on 01/08/11 11:46 AM
i am not a supporter of big pharm, by any means, nor am i in agreement with much of medicine as it is practiced today, but i practiced medicine for 40 years and am convinced that antibiotics do cure many disease processes and bacteria are causative.
if kevin ever contracted a septicemia, [an overwhelming infection in the bloodstream by bacteria ..... often fatal within 24 hours], i'll bet he would not use 'natural' treatments for long.
unless he is suicidal i believe that he would accept treatment with antibiotics.
it is entertaining to read some of the 'alternate' views, but i fail to find any with scientific credentials.
just a view from one who has been on the front line for a long time.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks: It is a confusing thing to sort through. Some in the alternative community claim vaccines do not work at all - and that it was better hygiene that depressed mortality at the turn of the century
It is on the other hand difficult to trust government perceptions about anything given the immense of amount of lying that has gone on ....
Posted by Onlyme on 01/08/11 11:07 AM
Great article but all this leads me to one specific question. Where do the Christian churches stand on this? Children are special in the Christian religion. It should follow that promote their welfare. Many religions maintain hospitals and if I am not mistaken there are many medical doctors within the Catholic clergy.
Are they not concerned? Have they undertaken any independent studies of the issue? Or is it simply that all doctors are educated under the same doctrinal limitations?
Reply from The Daily Bell
That is an excellent question!