Toggle light / dark theme

Its painful to bear views that make many think I’m an imbicile and dislike me. So please, if anybody has a rational argument why any of this is wrong, I beg to be enlightened. I’ve set up a diagram for the purpose that will support you to add your criticism exactly where it is pertinent. https://tssciencecollaboration.com/graphtree/Are%20Vaccines%20Safe/406/4083

(1) The National Academy’s Reviews Of Vaccine Safety
The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies has provided several multi-hundred page surveys studying the safety of vaccines, but rather than reassuring, these itemize some iatrogenic conditions being caused, and pronounce the scientific literature inadequate to say whether most others are. The 2011 Institute of Medicine (IOM) Review[1] looked at 146 vaccine-condition pairs for causality, reporting:

  • 14 for which the evidence is said to convincingly support causality, the vaccine is causing the condition.
  • 4 where the evidence is said to favor acceptance.
  • 5 where the evidence is said to favor rejection, including MMR causing autism.
  • 123 where the evidence is said insufficient to evaluate.

The 2003 IOM Review on multiple vaccines said[2]:
“The committee was unable to address the concern that repeated exposure of a susceptible child to multiple immunizations over the developmental period may also produce atypical or non-specific immune or nervous system injury that could lead to severe disability or death (Fisher, 2001). There are no epidemiological studies that address this.”
and:
“the committee concludes that the epidemiological and clinical evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between multiple immunization and an increased risk of allergic disease, particularly asthma.”

  • None of the IOM Safety Reviews[1][2][3][4] addressed the aluminum (for example whether the aluminum is causing autism), or mentioned contaminants, or discussed animal models although they had concluded as just quoted there is generally no epidemiological or clinical data worth preferring.

(2) The Aluminum.
Alum was added to vaccines back in the 1920’s, with no test of parenteral toxicity until recently[5], because it prods the immature immune system out of its normal operating range.[6] Maybe they figured aluminum is common in the environment, but injection bypasses half a dozen evolved sequential filters that normally keep it out of circulatory flow during development. Vaccines put hundreds of times as much aluminum into infants’ blood as they would otherwise get, and in an unnatural form that is hard for the body to remove.[7][8 (cfsec 4.2)][9]. The published empirical results indicate its highly toxic.

  • Bishop et al in NEJM 97 reported a Randomized Placebo Controlled(RPC) test on preemies.[10][11] Scaling the toxicity they measured to the 4000 mcg in the first six months projects the vaccine series’ aluminum as costing each recipient maybe 15 IQ points and bone density.[12]
  • Animal RPC experiments also show highly toxic[13][14][15][16]
  • The applicable epidemiology suggests its highly toxic.[8][18][19][20][21][22] Discussed more in point 8 below, basically every study that compares more to less finds less much better.
  • Numerous clinical publications, whole special issues, on ASIA (Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants)[23][24][25]
  • Any “placebo” controlled test I’ve ever found of an adjuvanted vaccine, the “placebo” contained an adjuvant.
  • Safety reviews ignore the issue. Search the pdfs. [1][2][3][4]
  • The FDA[26] cites a theory paper[27] that compares a published MRL based on dietary experiments in weaned rodents (thus completely uninformed about toxicity in early development) to a theoretical model of blood aluminum levels from the vaccines, and disdains all the above cited empirical evidence.

(3) The Safety Studies Ignore Confounding Patient Behavior
Since there are no Randomized Placebo Controlled (RPC) trials supporting vaccines, virtually all studies report on the association (or lack thereof) between vaccines and some iatrogenic condition. But parents who believe vaccines made their kids sick, stop vaccinating them, which systematically moves sick or vaccine damaged kids in the studies into the “low vaccine”, “low thimerisol”, or etc. bin. This invalidates most studies supporting safety (and the few remaining ones suck for other reasons). Numerous studies report incredible preventative effects for vaccines, presumably because of this corruption, like having more thimerisol or more MMR’s is strongly preventative of autism and other mental development issues[28][29][30], or like having more vaccines was strongly preventative of atopy, apparently even years before patients got the vaccines[31]. The fact this confounding factor is overlooked demonstrates extreme confirmation bias and is the defining factor of Cargo Cult Science according to R.P. Feynman.[32]

(4) The Animal Models
Animal models reliably and repeatably show in RPC tests (a) that vaccines at the wrong time in development damage the adult brain or behavior [33][34] and (b) that multiple vaccines cause autoimmune disease even in animals bred to be non-autoimmune[35][36]. The effects are said to be robust, and as we’ve already seen there isn’t good human data rebutting them.

(5) The Contaminants
Studies have repeatedly found contaminants such as viruses, retroviruses, circoviruses, and human DNA in vaccines seemingly whenever tested,
and I’ve found no reason to believe off the shelf vaccines are free[37][38][39][40][41]. Reported contaminants have included SV-40 in polio vaccines which were administered even though scientists knew the vaccines were contaminated and already had hunches and experiments indicating SV-40 causes cancer[41][42]. Chimpanzee Coryza Virus became known in humans as RSV and has killed many millions of infants and hospitalizes 100,000/yr in America today[43]. Contaminated polio vaccine is plausibly also the origin of HIV[44][41]. There are discovered viral contaminants in vaccines today[38][39], with unknown long term effects, as well as I expect many undiscovered contaminants.

(6) Studies Ask Whether Some One Vaccine Damages, and Thus Miss That Many Do.
Virtually every study not reporting damage compares kids who got numerous vaccines to kids who got numerous vaccines. Such studies wouldn’t show statistically significant results no matter how much damage the vaccines are doing, unless one vaccine or vector by itself is doing comparable or more damage than the rest put together. The studies more or less test the hypothesis one vaccine is invisibly damaging, the rest are fine, and the studies are all obscured in the presence of multiple problems, much less the kind of timing and interaction effects observed in animal models. The one study[45] often touted as proving “The Risk of Autism is Not Increased by ‘Too Many Vaccines Too Soon’”[46] in fact compares patients based on antigens, and since DTP had more than 3000 antigens and no other vaccine common among the study patients had more than a handful, effectively compared patients who’d had DTP and dozens of vaccines to patients who did not have DTP (many had DTaP instead) and dozens of vaccines. The only counterexamples to this I’ve found are contrived in bizarre ways to avoid reality, such as the study that withheld the 2 month vaccines till 3 months from a group of kids, and asked the mothers, who were terrified enough a bunch insisted on changing back to the early vaccination group, to record symptoms with no doctor even consulted, identifying the placebo effect as vaccine prevention of diseases. The authors wrote it would have been unethical to give a placebo at 2 months to the kids getting the vaccine at 3 months, in order to do the experiment blind, but apparently consider it ethical to inject dozens of vaccines into your kids with zero placebo controlled testing.[47] [48]

(7) The Extensive Evidence Indicating Flu Vaccines Damage Immune Systems, Particularly in Children.

  • RPC test reported child flu vaccine recipients getting 4 times the respiratory illnesses of placebo recipients[49]
  • Children seen at the Mayo Clinic 1996–2006 were 3 times as likely to be hospitalized if they had had a flu vaccine[50]
  • Prior receipt of 2008-09 TIV was associated with increased risk of medically attended pH1N1 illness during the spring–summer 2009 in Canada[51]
  • Multiple papers report flu vaccines damage CD8+ T Cells in both children and animal models[52][53][54]
  • Flu vaccine recipients’ blood produced less IFN-gamma in response to new flu than people not previously vaccinated[55].
  • The equation they use for flu vaccine “effectiveness” counts making recipients sick as effectiveness. Mathematically, if vaccine recipients get twice as many respiratory illnesses that counts the same as if they get half as many flu illnesses.[56][57] The published evidence of “effectiveness” is published evidence of collateral damage.

(8) The Epidemiological Studies That Aren’t Blatantly Confounded
All the credible ecological or epidemiological studies comparing people who got more vaccines to less indicate damage. For example,

  • a 1/1000 increase in Infant Mortality is associated with each 7 additional vaccines in a national series regressed over the developed nations [18].
  • An extra 680 ASD or Language impaired are associated with every 1% increase in compliance regressed over the 50 US states [19].
  • High correlation between and within nations of vaccine aluminum to autism.[8]
  • Two studies in Guinea-Bisseau that showed recipients of DTP died far more frequently than non-recipients, even though the recipients were from far more fortunate backgrounds[20][21].
  • Vaccine adverse event reports are far more likely to be fatal if they follow multiple vaccinations than two[58].
  • 1 in 10 girls is reported to make an ED visit within 42 days of receiving HPV vaccine[59][60].

Every empirical study I’ve read with a methodology that’s not clearly confounded consistently indicates vaccine damage.

(9) The Consistent Anecdotal and Informal Reports
Anecdotal and informal reports actually compare vaccinated and unvaccinated, unlike the contrived and confounded studies offered to support safety.

  • Virtually all the Amish who are autistic turn out to have been vaccinated, the large numbers of unvaccinated in certain communities having no ASD whatsoever.[61]
  • The Homestead Medical Practice in Chicago’s Dr. Mayer Eisenstein reports: ““My partners and I have over 35,000 patients who have never been vaccinated. You know how many cases of autism we have seen? ZERO, ZERO.” Also he reports virtually zero asthma.[61]
  • Southern religious homeschoolers were anecdotally reported to have very low vaccination rates, and similarly virtually no autism.[61]
  • An online survey of 13000 fully unvaccinated shows them to have less than a third of the prevalence of numerous conditions from allergies to skoliosis.[62](Figure 1.)
  • More than a thousand parents, some of them Doctors, have posted Youtube reports describing why they are confident they saw their child given autism by vaccines.[63]
    Figure 1: Online survey of 13,000 unvaccinated compared to peer-reviewed survey data of the German vaccinated population[62]. The peer-reviewed data shows the vaccinated population averaging better than one chronic ailment per person, the unvaccinated report less than a third of that. The unvaccinated survey is online, selection biased, and self-reported, but there is no trustworthy data rebutting it, and 10 reasons are given in the text to believe the unvaccinated may be much healthier.
    Figure 1: Online survey of 13,000 unvaccinated compared to peer-reviewed survey data of the German vaccinated population[62]. The peer-reviewed data shows the vaccinated population averaging better than one chronic ailment per person, the unvaccinated report less than a third of that. The unvaccinated survey is online, selection biased, and self-reported, but there is no trustworthy data rebutting it.

(10) The Authorities, Big Pharma, and Media Are Demonstrably Not Trustworthy.

  • All the above 9 points and more are readily observable, but you wouldn’t learn that from the media or in med school.
  • A Senior PhD CDC whistleblower has provided numerous documents and testified to congress about an explicit cover-up within CDC of a vaccine-autism connection,[64][65] and media whitewashed it.
  • The vaccine manufacturers are exempt from any liability for vaccine damage.
  • The same companies repeatedly plead guilty to marketing and safety violations and pay billions in fines.[66]
  • They pay vast sums to media and fund the medical schools and research and give boondoggles and perks and contracts to doctors and revolving door government officials.[67][68]
  • The authorities and big pharma never publicly commented while contaminated vaccines scientists expected to cause cancer and other dire problems were administered[41][42][43].
  • The way the authorities have averted their eyes from contrary results is again the defining factor of Cargo Cult Science[32].

To summarize 10 points in two: (A) the safety literature, wherever it doesn’t outright show vaccine damage, demonstrably is bollixed to where it doesn’t show much of anything. (B) Lots of peer reviewed publications cogently report lots of consistent damage that no published evidence rationally opposes, but are ignored by authorities and media.

The vaccine safety literature is laid out in considerable detail on this TruthSift diagram https://tssciencecollaboration.com/graphtree/Are%20Vaccines%20Safe/406/4083 where readers are invited to add more pertinent citations or arguments. Anybody who thinks I am confused on any point is invited to challenge any claim above and explain why[69]. Please feel free to ask your Pediatrician or other authority, and let me know what they say. I’ve submitted to 2 medical journals so far, but been unable to obtain a substantive review, a review citing any papers or making a case I’m wrong. As I receive no substantive rebuttal, it reaffirms what I have already concluded from extensive research, none exists.

Looks to be quite fascinating…

But is anyone else annoyed by the never ending use of the word “cyber”?

*sigh*.


Tapping into the geopolitics of hacking and surveillance, Ben Makuch travels the world to meet with hackers, government officials, and dissidents to investigate the ecosystem of cyberwarfare.

CYBERWAR premieres Tuesday, July 5th, at 10:30 P EST on VICELAND.

In Russia, not all scientific projects get financial backing from the government — but teleportation does.

On June 22, a special interagency working group, along with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich, discussed the country’s scientific and technological plans drawn up by the Russian Strategic Initiatives Agency.

The document, described in detail by Kommersant newspaper, lists innovations Russian scientists plan to accomplish by 2035. Among them are a Russia-based coding language, a 5G mobile network, “smart” buildings, medical implants — and teleportation.

Read more

Always a trickle down effect on things that improve or change. Just reconfirms and reminds us organically how everything is indeed connected.


Capital tends to have greater value the more skilled and educated the workforce. Anticipating genetically enhanced workers would cause firms to want to invest more now in new equipment and buildings. Many assets, such as real estate and intellectual property, become more valuable the richer a society and so expectations of a much higher economic growth rate would cause companies to spend more buying and developing these assets so that businesses, as well as governments, will wish to borrow more when they realize the potential of human genetic engineering.

Many individuals will reduce their savings rate in anticipation of a future richer society. Today, fear that Social Security won’t survive motivates many Americans to save, but this fear and so this incentive for saving would disappear once genetic engineering for intelligence proves feasible. Furthermore, many citizens would rationally expect future government benefits to senior citizens to increase in a world made richer by genetic engineering and this expectation would reduce the perceived need to save for retirement.

Since understanding the consequences of a smarter workforce will increase the desire to borrow but reduce the wish to save, real interest rates will have to go up. These higher rates will reduce incentives to borrow while increasing the willingness to save and so will restore equilibrium to money markets. Expect to see higher interest rates as soon as markets price in embryo selection and genetic engineering.

Read more

Over 20 years ago, I was interviewed by a group that asked me about the future of technology. I told them due to advancements such as nanotechnology that technology will definitely go beyond laptops, networks, servers, etc.; that we would see even the threads/ fibers in our clothing be digitized. I was then given a look by the interviewers that I must have walked of the planet Mars. However, I was proven correct. And, in the recent 10 years, again I informed others how and where Quantum would change our lives forever. Again, same looks and comments.

And, lately folks have been coming out with articles that they have spoken with or interviewed QC experts. And, they in many cases added their own commentary and cherry picked people comments to discredit the efforts of Google, D-Wave, UNSW, MIT, etc. which is very misleading and negatively impacts QC efforts. When I come across such articles, I often share where and why the authors have misinformed their readers as well as negatively impacted efforts and set folks up for failure who should be trying to plan for QC in their longer term future state strategy so that they can plan for budgets, people can be brought up to date in their understanding of QC because once QC goes live on a larger scale, companies and governments will not have time to catch up because once hackers (foreign government hackers, etc.) have this technology and you’re not QC enabled then you are exposed, and your customers are exposed. The QC revolution will be costly and digital transformation in general across a large company takes years to complete so best to plan and prepare early this time for QC because it is not the same as implementing a new cloud, or ERP, or a new data center, or rationalizing a silo enterprise environment.

The recent misguided view is that we’re 30 or 50 years away from a scalable quantum chip; and that is definitely incorrect. UNSW has proven scalable QC is achievable and Google has been working on making a scalable QC chip. And, lately RMIT researchers have shared with us how they have proven method to be able to trace particles in the deepest layers of entanglement which means that we now can build QC without the need of analog technology and take full advantage of quantum properties in QC which has not been the case.

So, sharing these three news releases for my QC friends to share with their non-believers and the uninformed.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/googles-quantum-computer-inches…akthrough/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151030153108.htm

Read more

Government GPS now has a new backup approach.


The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency plans to demonstrate a positioning, navigation and timing system that will use very low frequency band signals as backup in case military forces lose access to GPS networks.

Lin Haas, DARPA strategic technology officer, discussed the Spatial, Temporal and Orientation Information in Contested Environments project at DARPA Demo Day, the U.S. Army said May 19.

DARPA plans to demonstrate the STOIC system by fiscal year 2018 or 2019 while an at-sea demo will be conducted this year.

Read more

All is promising for Biometrics and biometric informatics; however, the technologies to date leveraged in IoT and other environments for parsing, analysis (especially predictive analysis), as well as better presented needs to be improved to be of value. We have seen great progress in the collection of the information and for some basic identification capabilities it looks good; however, to truly be effective and of value we need a lot more work done in this space especially when you look at today’s landscape of collecting information in areas of IoT and processing/ analysis with big data.


The global biometrics market is projected to cross US $ 24.8 billion by 2021. Fingerprint recognition biometric systems are the most preferred type of biometric systems used across the globe, owing to their ease of use, low cost, high speed and accurate results.

Biometric systems are used across various public as well as private offices for enhancing the security of data and information, as these systems provide an accurate validation as compared to traditional methods such as ID cards, PINs, passwords, etc. Increasing use of biometrics in e-commerce and cloud computing solutions, coupled with initiatives taken by the government of various countries across the world to adopt biometrics systems for identification and verification purposes are some of the major factors driving demand for biometric solutions, globally.

Moreover, introduction of e-passports and e-visas, use of biometrics in criminal identification, increasing demand for smartphones integrated with biometric technologies and implementation of biometric technology in election administration are anticipated to drive the global biometrics market over the next five years.

Read more