Month: January 2021

Unvaccinated Children Are Healthier

Posted on by hk80u

The statement

“Unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated children, according to a new study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. The study — “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination” — by James Lyons-Weiler, PhD and Paul Thomas, MD, was conducted among 3,300 patients at Dr. Thomas’ Oregon pediatrics practice, Integrative Pediatric.                             ……

The study found that vaccinated children in the study see the doctor more often than unvaccinated children. The CDC recommends 70 doses of 16 vaccines before a child reaches the age of 18. The more vaccines a child in the study received, the more likely the child presented with fever at an office visit.

The study had unique data that allowed the researchers to study healthcare-seeking behavior. Unlike increases in fever accompanied by increased vaccine uptake, which is accepted as causally related to vaccination, increases in vaccine acceptance was not accompanied by a major increase in well-child visits. In fact, regardless of how many vaccinations parents decided their children would have, the number of well-child visits was about the same.

Any concerns that the non-vaccinated or less-vaccinated children would avoid the doctor are unfounded, and puts the jaw-droppingly large difference in office visits in perspective — outside of well-child visits, children who received 90 to 95% of the CDC-recommended vaccines for their age group were about 25 times more likely than the unvaccinated group to see the pediatrician for an appointment related to fever.”

Two graphs for that paper are reproduced below.  The first relates to the incidence of fever at wellness checks:

The second shows the difference in incidence of 15 diseases between unvaccinated and vaccinated children:

The source

A November 2020 study published in The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ( https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8674 )

Quoted by Alix Mayer in The Defender

 

My take on it

I share the authors’ conclusion.  How could you not?

I feel for parents.  This is a toughie.  The article refers to “The Dr. Paul Approved Vaccine Plan, developed in the US and allowing for fully informed consent and parental decision-making in vaccination choices for their children. The plan was developed to reduce exposures to aluminum-containing vaccines and to allow parents to stop or delay vaccinations if some telltale signs of vaccine injury were starting to appear. Conditions like allergies, eczema, developmental delay or autoimmune conditions are typical signs that a child’s immune system is not processing vaccines normally.  These conditions serve as early indicators to help the parent and pediatrician consider slowing or stopping vaccination.” 

That’s great if you are in a context that ensures informed consent.  Many do not. 

Whatever the context, mothers watch their children.  This constant maternal observation is precisely what drew the attention of Dr Andrew Wakefield in the UK in 1995 to the apparent association between vaccination and neurological injury in children.  And obviously the sooner you notice any adverse reactions, the better, in terms of stopping or delaying any further vaccination. But by then the damage may already have been done. 

It is my understanding that vaccine injury is greatly under-reported.  This is a fundamental flaw in the system, tilting the impacts clearly in favour of the provider and against the recipient.  A tighter feedback loop would serve the public interest, by reducing the lifetime cost of healthcare.

Masks: Deplete oxygen, damage the brain and immune system, increase infection

Posted on by hk80u

The statement

‘If you have a disease, right, Covid-19, that you can treat everybody so no-one need die, then what I am saying is, You don’t need lock-down. And if you don’t need the lock-down then you don’t need social distancing , quarantining or masks. So there is no need for the masks.

…..

But it is well known from physiology that we need oxygen to live, and the masks clearly and verifiably reduce the oxygen that you take in to dangerously low levels, but increase your carbon dioxide.

…..

The carbon dioxide level behind the masks is actually at toxic levels. So they are poisoning themselves.

…..

So I think it’s one of the worst policy decisions ever, and one of the most harmful ever for the people living in the UK.”


The source

Professor Dolores Cahill, University College Dublin.
https://www.facebook.com/ifpdolorescahill/videos/1425129044342325

The interview by Liam Galvin was posted on 30 December 2020.


My take on it

The first wealth is health.

In the context of policy responses to Covid-19, masks have been either mandated or encouraged at various times and in various places by various authorities, on the pretext of ‘stopping the spread’. Sydney is there now.

In a bare 16 minutes Professor Cahill explains logically why masks are a very, very bad policy measure. In brief, masks are unnecessary, they provide no benefit, and they are harmful to our health, particularly by reducing our oxygen intake.

Please watch the interview.

Professor Cahill has impressive credentials, both professionally and personally. It is perhaps a natural consequence of these complementary attributes that she would first become vice chair of the Scientific Committee of the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), a partnership between the European Commission and the drugs industry to promote new drugs; and then be asked to resign from that committee once her ‘counter-narrative’ concerns and live-saving practical advice were aired publicly.

“The first wealth is health.” Ralph Waldo Emerson penned these words recognizing that good health is essential to the prosperity of the American people. It is a perverse irony that governments should be pursuing a policy that verifiably depletes such personal wealth. And to what end?

Yet again, it all depends on what you believe, which heavily depends on who you believe. We get to choose. And those choices have consequences – for the individual, and for government.

 

Natural immunity: the free and effective default that WHO has chosen to hide

Posted on by hk80u

The statement

“Observing the operations of this evolutionary phenomenon [of herd immunity] is pretty wonderful because it increases one’s respect for the way in which human biology has adapted to the presence of pathogens without absolutely freaking out.

And the discovery of this fascinating dynamic in cell biology is a major reason why public health became so smart in the 20th century. We kept calm. We managed viruses with medical professionals: doctor/patient relationships. We avoided the Medieval tendency to run around with hair on fire but rather used rationality and intelligence. Even the New York Times recognizes that natural immunity is powerful with Covid-19, which is not in the least bit surprising.

Until one day, this strange institution called the World Health Organization – once glorious because it was mainly responsible for the eradication of smallpox – has suddenly decided to delete everything I just wrote from cell biology basics. It has literally changed the science in a Soviet-like way. It has removed with the delete key any mention of natural immunities from its website. It has taken the additional step of actually mischaracterizing the structure and functioning of vaccines.”

     ……

Take from this what you will. It is a sign of the times. For nearly a full year, the media has been telling us that “science” requires that we comply with their dictates that run contrary to every tenet of liberalism, every expectation we’ve developed in the modern world that we can live freely and with the certainty of rights. Then “science” took over and our human rights were slammed. And now the “science” is actually deleting its own history, airbrushing over what it used to know and replacing it with something misleading at best and patently false at worst.

I cannot say why, exactly, the WHO did this. Given the events of the past nine or ten months, however, it is reasonable to assume that politics are at play. Since the beginning of the pandemic, those who have been pushing lockdowns and hysteria over the coronavirus have resisted the idea of natural herd immunity, instead insisting that we must live in lockdown until a vaccine is developed.

That is why the Great Barrington Declaration, written by three of the world’s preeminent epidemiologists and which advocated embracing the phenomenon of herd immunity as a way of protecting the vulnerable and minimizing harms to society, was met with such venom. Now we see the WHO, too, succumbing to political pressure. This is the only rational explanation for changing the definition of herd immunity that has existed for the past century.

The science has not changed; only the politics have. And that is precisely why it is so dangerous and deadly to subject virus management to the forces of politics. Eventually the science too bends to the duplicitous character of the political industry.”

The source

Jeffrey A. Tucker, Editorial Director for the American Institute for Economic Research, 3 December 2020 (https://www.aier.org/article/who-deletes-naturally-acquired-immunity-from-its-website/ )


My take on it

This is a very sad day.

It is sad because of the deceit itself.  It is egregious because of the significance of that deceit.

That said, it is unsurprising, because the prevailing narrative is unsustainable so long as natural immunity is given its due.  Which of course is why it has generally been ‘missing in action’ when biocrats control the mike; and attracts such venom (to use Tucker’s words) whenever it is aired.

As I have said earlier, we get to pick our experts.   And on this topic, one might well apply the WHO script as a test of said expertise.  The subject matter experts in whom I place my trust, such as the proponents of the Great Barrington Declaration, would be appalled at this misrepresentation of science by the WHO.

Tucker speaks of the WHO ‘succumbing’ to political pressure.  The evidence would rather suggest to me that the WHO has been an instrument of that pressure, long since.