!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ADHD, 6X AutoImmune disorders, 3X Atopic disease, 3.3X Dev'p Delay, 4X speech delays

For many years, the ammo to push back on an increasingly aggressive CDC (US) vaccine schedule was limited.

But we finally have something that's likely been known for many years...A statistically significant study at Ford Health in Michigan by a premiere epidemiologist who was trying to prove vaccine hesitancy was wrong. But despite meticulous care and following the CDC guidelines on how to study vaccine safety, he and his colleagues proved the EXACT OPPOSITE.

The smoking gun? From birth to 10 years old:

17% of Unvaccinated kids had a  chronic health condition
vs
57% of vaccinated kids

Please have a look at this 3 minute clip and share it widely with parents trying to conceive or are pregnant.

User Clip: UNSAFE?: A well-designed study to REDUCE Vaccine Hesitancy in Parents PROVED Vaccines Safety SHOULD be questioned | Video | C-SPAN.org

For more independent data, that USA is headed in the wrong direction; we now rank below Cuba on infant mortality (45th) (and worsening further) yet many Americans still wrongly assume we are a leader in Children's health. Singapore is best @1.5 deaths per 1,000

For the scientifically minded, I've attached the study (unpublished because it found the "wrong" results) .

And the documentary + trailer here:

https://www.aninconvenientstudy.com/

Finally; if you have the time, full Senate hearing on this issue

What about nutrition? Healthy water? Clean air? Maternal nutrition & drug abuse?

You can see that these effects are significant as well.

Please refer to the MAP

with a range from 10.5 deaths (Baton Rouge, LA) (per 1,000) in low income polluted areas vs cleaner, higher income areas 3.7

Bear in mind even the lowest rates in the US are more than double that of dozens of countries with Singapore best at 1.7 overall.

Also, so that we don't have to rehash things unnecessarily, here are the criticisms of the study (and responses)

https://www.aninconvenientstudy.com/criticisms

That was a really well done movie about the study. That study and many others are very alarming

Have you read "Dissolving illusions" by Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk? If you are a reader, it is a very informative read. Dr. Humphries was also on a Joe Rogan interview.

We declined vaccinations in our children due to the aborted fetal cell line ingredients. As we come to learn more, we are very glad to have declined.

Informed consent would be great, if studies like this were published and available and didn't subject you to the ire of institutional medicine, friends, family, forum staff, etc.

Great post, thank you.

Hey Jackson,

Very pleased you had the time to watch! Powerful info and so glad it is easily shared.

More importantly, glad you found a way to make the best decision to try to ensure optimal health of your children!

One principle I've established (which I think permeates so many decisions), is to prioritize the most obvious solution with the lowest downside risk and lowest impact to all life on the planet.

Conventional Western medicine has so many parallels to big Ag. An extreme number of perverted incentives that are not disclosed.

Like so many, I started this journey blindly trusting the "science" & doctor's recommendations.

It didn't take much digging to realize blind trust/faith is not the path.

I wish you and your family optimal health and well-being.

Appreciate you taking the time to give your feedback!

-JP

PS I had not heard of that book, but was aware of several of the datasets. Will check it out, thanks for the recommendation!

I used to teach this stuff, and published a bit on related topics.

Among other things, the cited information neglects herd immunity.
In current North America (for now) unvaccinated children still benefit from lower risk of viral disease and complications, because most of their cohort is still vaccinated.
Once herd immunity is lost (ex. ~95% vaccination for measles; ~ %50 vaccination for flu, etc.) the unvaccinated will no longer free-ride on herd immunity.

There is conflict of interest between population level health benefits and perceived individual risk.

Cole's Notes:
The level of effective  vaccination required for successful herd immunity varies as the reciprocal of viral transmission potential.
For sustained pathogen transmission based upon direct infection, each infected person has to pass the infection to at least 1 other person; otherwise transmission damps out.
In an unvaccinated population a single measles case will transmit to ~ 20 other people;  hence the need for ~ >90% immunity to lower the probability of to <1 transmission per infected person, thereby damping out the epidemic, which is otherwise explosive.
The measles vaccine is highly effective; failed vaccinations are rare, but even so very high vaccination rates are needed to prevent continuous endemic measles circulation,

In contrast, depending upon the strain, influenza is much less transmissible, with each infected person passing the infection to just above 1 other person.
So for flu vaccination, which is far less effective than measles vaccine, a rate of only ~50% is still enough to damp out transmission of many strains, while lowering the risk of serious disease in infected vaccinated people.

On a corollary of the above, to maintain endemic circulating disease there are population thresholds.
Measles is so transmissible that endemic circulation is only possible with an interacting population of >~200,000 people.
In a smaller group, every one quickly gets measles, dies or recovers (sometimes with complications), and is then immune, with no further circulation, unless sufficient immuno-naive babies accumulate and another infection enters the community.

The Americas were originally populated by small groups, that filtered out the likelihood of pathogens.
Until Columbus...

Douglas Campbell wrote:Among other things, the cited information neglects herd immunity.
In current North America (for now) unvaccinated children still benefit from lower risk of viral disease and complications, because most of their cohort is still vaccinated.
Once herd immunity is lost (ex. ~95% vaccination for measles; ~ %50 vaccination for flu, etc.) the unvaccinated will no longer free-ride on herd immunity.

There is conflict of interest between population level health benefits and perceived individual risk.

We're getting measles outbreaks in the UK - particularly London at the moment due to reduced take up of vaccinations. One in 5 of the children infected have needed hospital treatment. I remember Laura Ingalls Wilder's sister was blinded by measles. It can kill.
Some people are able to make their own choice, and as you say there is a conflict of individual and society benefit.

Thank you Nancy and Douglas for joining the discussion and welcome the opportunity to discuss things, elucidate the truth.

And find a way to all come out a little wiser and with a more complete perspective of the problem and potential solutions.

Hopefully what we can have 100% agreement on is that the gold standard for medical interventions is double-blind, placebo controlled study. Can we agree on that?

Douglas Campbell wrote:I used to teach this stuff, and published a bit on related topics.

The Americas were originally populated by small groups, that filtered out the likelihood of pathogens.
Until Columbus...

Yes, I read with interest that different pathogens proliferate in different environments.  

And smallpox immunity for the European city dwellers (however achieved) was something the native peoples didn't & couldn't have.

Would agree, it's definitely something of which to be aware...

J.P. Waters wrote:Hopefully what we can have 100% agreement on is that the gold standard for medical interventions is double-blind, placebo controlled study. Can we agree on that?

I think you're probably right on that. They can have difficulty doing that sort of study due to medical ethics sometimes though.

Thanks Nancy. Here's some additional info on the subject.

It's a 66 page document that is useful for reference.

I would direct your initial attention to pages 3 & 4.

Douglas, I'd invite you to read this document (pages 3, 4 & 65) are an easy 2 minute read, so that we can have a substantive discussion without onerous time constraints. As time allows, you may be interested in the deposition (link) on page 66 of Dr. Stanley Plotkin (who you're likely quite familiar with).

JP, I appreciate the tone you've set for this discussion!

Unfortunately, in the USA at least, politics have played too large a part in those decisions, studies aside.

I grew up at the tail end of the polio epidemic and my parents had us vaccinated gladly for that and measles and a couple others I don't remember?

We allowed our own sons to be vaccinated in '75 and '78 as babies and later at school age.
My guy and I had a covid shot and one booster then stopped.
I think Herd Immunity could have worked, if again, politics had not separated the masked from the unmasked.
Neither of us have had flu shots or pneumonia shots nor all of the tests and pokes and prods deemed necessary for our age group.
I get a tetnus booster periodically as I still manage to step on a nail or somehow impail myself every five to ten years.

I don't see it as an all or nothing choice...but would like to think these things could be informed choices and not all required if politics did not play a part.

My first daughter in law grew up in an unvaccinated family and those grandsons are unvaccinated.

Our other daughter in law  feels vaccinations are important so those grandkids are.

Personal choices.....there, as in other important areas I am 'pro choice' .

Thanks Judith! I'm doing my best.

I agree Politics has crept in, but would also say that perverse economic incentives are a larger part that are masquerading as politics.

This is not a new trend in humanity...

One thing I was unaware of, is the details of polio infection and immunity.

I think you'll find the page 65 discussion on Polio illuminating.

Hope that helps too!

I welcome your comments here and everywhere!

On page 65, they allude to DTP vaccine safety concerns and DTaP replacing it.

Here is a little more detail on the difficulties, complexities, and 'perplexities'  with vaccines.

"...our findings can be summarized in one sentence: We discovered vaccines train the immune system in ways no one expected..."



This isn't the end of a discussion on vaccines, just the beginning of a new discussion.

From the YT description:

"TEDxAarhus 2018 by medical doctor and professor in global health Christine Stabell Benn and learn how hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved every year just by using the existing vaccines smarter. Christine Stabell Benn is a medical doctor and professor in global health. By studying real-life effects of vaccines in Africa, she has found that vaccines do much more than protect against the target disease; they have so-called non-specific effects."

JPL: Here is the link to the paper cited within the presentation:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28188123/

In permaculture, we are good at finding ways around false dichotomies. Can we think of something beyond vax/no vax?

We have all decided that spraying is a bad idea. But what if a disease does exist? Then we try to make use of diversity to confuse the pestilence. We make homes for natural predators, improve the health of the soil, think holistically.

There are a lot of positive things we can do to avoid illness that aren't vaccines, but modern "society" considers the costs of vaccination, whatever they may be, to be acceptable. Modern society also considers spraying vegetables to be an acceptable cost. We don't have to accept the "spray or have a harvest failure" dichotomy rule our gardens, nor do we have to have the "vaccinate or die of infectious disease" dichotomy rule our lives & health. There are a lot of ways to be creative and try doing things differently, like staying at home through the winter and not travelling by plane.

I am reading a history of the neighboring town. In former days they had figured out that if they made a sickhouse where people could be cared for and quarrantined. Some signed up to get sick so that they could get immunity to common diseases in a relatively safe and nourishing environment. It definitely wasn't Heaven but neither is anything else. (Back in the day, or somewhat before then, people would often live into their hundredth decade hundreds.) (🤣)

I think that modern humans have difficulty realizing that life contains suffering that will happen whether they do X or Y. Worst of all, we tend to export suffering to poorer countries and poorer people (which is another discussion unto itself). Whether we vaccinate or don't people will get sick, in different ways. Spraying seems to help world food security but doesn't in the long run, it makes people sick and destroys the ecosystems that sustain us. Maybe I will write more about this, but I think that the more we realize the limits of our power, the happier we can be in our hearts and the more at peace with the world.

There definitely are ways to make things better... but my experience has shown me that all the things we do out of fear, end up coming back and hurting us in the end because fear encourages short term thinking. In some ways this is necessary and contributes to the beauty and diversity of the world, but when we lose track of the root of life, things start plummeting quickly.

So my experience. I grew up eating healthy food, wild mushrooms & vegetables, playing outside in the woods & the dirt. It's true that there were always people of weak constitution (maybe I am one of them) and some of my troubles may be related to trauma (around that time I started getting sick for worse and longer than before). Never any antibiotics that I know of. But plenty of early vaccinations--one of my earliest memories is just that. And I have had health issues all along, though varyingly, some of them definitely have to do with a bad immune system, and others possibly so. (Isn't the immune system such an important thing for us to have?)

My parents are healthier than me, which is rather alarming. My grandparents were all healthier than me for most of their lives, and some of them ate mostly frozen meals and boiled potatoes. I eat better than most of these recent ancestors of mine, and probably better than a lot of ancestors further back. It makes one think...

I can't say for certain but this seems to make things connect a little better for me.

J.P. Waters wrote:On page 65, they allude to DTP vaccine safety concerns and DTaP replacing it.

Here is a little more detail on the difficulties, complexities, and 'perplexities'  with vaccines.

"...our findings can be summarized in one sentence: We discovered vaccines train the immune system in ways no one expected..."

This isn't the end of a discussion on vaccines, just the beginning of a new discussion.

From the YT description:

"TEDxAarhus 2018 by medical doctor and professor in global health Christine Stabell Benn and learn how hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved every year just by using the existing vaccines smarter. Christine Stabell Benn is a medical doctor and professor in global health. By studying real-life effects of vaccines in Africa, she has found that vaccines do much more than protect against the target disease; they have so-called non-specific effects."

JPL: Here is the link to the paper cited within the presentation:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28188123/

The gist of this video is as follows.

Vaccines are not good or bad, but rather it depends greatly on the type of vaccine. Dr. Benn studied the effects of various vaccines, not only on resistance to the disease in question, but upon overall health, and found that the results were surprising.

1. A live vaccine, e.g. for polio, which was not present in Guinea-Bissau, dramatically increased the survival rate of children compared to control--inexplicably, as polio is not present in Guinea-bissau.
2. Dead or non-live vaccines such as DTP (diphtheria, tetanus & pertussis, which make up the majority of vaccines in developed countries, dramaticallydecreased the survival rate of children compared to control.

Generally speaking, only the resistance to particular diseases was measured, not the effects on the overall, long-term immune system health. Benn & others found that while it is clear that all the currently in-use vaccines do increase resistance to particular diseases, non-live vaccines have a universally negative impact on survival and an increase in hospitalizations over time compared to control & live vaccines, whereas live vaccines that contain the living pathogen, universally had a tremendously positive impact on survival.

She compares the difference to a tennis coach versus a ball machine. The tennis coach (live vaccine) is a flexible organism capable of responding and teaching adaptability to the immune system whereas the ball throwing machine teaches only a single movement, getting the immune system trained in unnatural, maladaptive ways.

Benn suggested that with minor changes to the vaccination regimens and a strong emphasis on live vaccines, we could save many millions of children and prevent numerous hospitalizations and diseases. However, she suggests that the pro or anti vax politics gets in the way. The WHO is "pro vaccine" so it wouldn't listen to these suggestions, and most healthcare organizations are set on replacing all live vaccines with dead ones (the unhealthy sort). She also fears that "anti vaccine" people will not see the virtues of live vaccines.

Non-live vaccines are most common in developed countries, whereas live vaccines are often used in developing countries--likely the reason being that they are much easier to make without expensive equipment and chemicals.

Now for my commentary. I think that it is because dead vaccines are more difficult to make and easier to make a profit on, that is one reason. If you can make your own live vaccines from some home-concocted homeopathic dilution of a sick person's saliva, what medical company stands to profit from it? Capitalism is very keen on making everything predictable and dead and the same. Just like how industrial farming must have everything in straight, monocropped, weed free rows for efficient machine harvest, it cannot cope with the idea that perhaps the messy, unpredictable nature of life might actually be a blessing in disguise.

J.P. Waters wrote: Hopefully what we can have 100% agreement on is that the gold standard for medical interventions is double-blind, placebo controlled study. Can we agree on that?

Sorry J.P., I have seen some really horribly done double-blind, placebo controlled studies.

Good studies are very expensive and money is tight, and many of the people doing the double-blind studies are being done by people or institutions that have motives that simply aren't as lily-white as we'd like them to be.

One of the better studies I read years ago, the doctor clearly had a bias and when the results contradicted his bias, his response was to not only suggest that there were faults in the system, but that the placebo effect could be as high as 60% . I actually agree with this last bit. I think many things which appear as "health" problems, our bodies can fix if we improve people's nutrition and decrease the stress from all sources, and give them the emotional support to trigger a really strong placebo effect.

However, there are other diseases that have a lifetime impact and genuinely high risk of death - Measles and Polio being two examples. I do agree that diseases rise and fall, only to rise again. Right now, measles is ascending, and the immunization has a sold track record and many children risk permanent damage to their immune systems which personally, I think is greater than any risk from that specific immunization. That does not mean that I agree with infants receiving immunizations for 20 different diseases at 2 months of age. However, the solution could include paid maternity leave so that parents can stay home with the child rather than risk their constant exposure to other virus multiplying children in large daycares. It can be helped by honest reporting by health authorities as to which immunizations are truly critical at any time. It can be helped by people working together to come up with compromises rather than encouraging extremism and conflict. It can be helped by improving our education system, and including high school courses involving quality information about how the human body works. And it can be helped by fixing our economic system which rewards people making huge amounts of money at the expense of the population at large.

Immunizations are just one flash point in an overall system that many average humans feel is beyond their ability to influence.  Sometimes we can do more than we think we can, but at the moment, I'm going to go and influence my favorite chicken, instead of trying to influence electrons to do what I want them to.

Thanks to you both for taking the time to share your perspective M Ljin & Jay Angler.

As you might expect, I have some thoughts, but wanted to wait a bit longer before responding to see if anyone wanted to share their perspective on the (2) PDFs (Siri written testimony) that I shared, along with the documentary, or the TEDx talk.

So other folks are welcome to share their reactions to the info shared.

Thanks all!

In the Siri-Testimony PDF document, if you refer to Page 53 you will see a Reference #225  with a hyperlink the following (881 page) document:

VITAL STATISTICS RATES
IN THE
UNITED STATES
1940-1960
By
Robert D. Grove, Ph. D.
and
Alice M. Hetzel
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
Washington, D.C. 1968
National Center for Health Statistics
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402- Price $5.25 (I saved you 5 bucks! )

And if you analyze the data, you will find the following:

Disease death rates per 100,000 population:

Diphtheria (the "D" in DTP):

1900: ~40 deaths per 100,000
1920: ~15
1930: ~4
1940: ~1.5 (already collapsing before widespread DTP vaccination)
1950: ~0.4
1960: ~0.1

Whooping cough / Pertussis (the "P" in DTP):

1900: ~12
1920: ~12
1930: ~4
1940: ~2.8 (already in steep decline)
1950: ~0.5
1960: ~0.2

Measles:

1900: ~13 (wildly variable year to year — epidemic pattern)
1930s: ~1–5
1950: ~0.3
1960: ~0.2 (measles vaccine not licensed until 1963 — so this decline happened with no vaccine)

Scarlet fever — particularly telling:

1900: ~12
1930: ~2
1950: ~0.0
No vaccine was ever developed for scarlet fever. It declined to near zero purely through improved living conditions, nutrition, and antibiotics.

Smallpox: ~3.6 in 1900, essentially zero by the 1930s — largely before the mass vaccination programs of the 20th century.

I'm wondering if:
a) this is useful data in anyone's eyes
b) if data alters your perspective on vaccines and their claimed benefit
c) if any doctor shared this with you before you opted for any vaccine
d) would you have liked to have this information (that was available in 1960) before you made your decision to opt in or out of any vaccination?
e) the amount of informed consent we have in the US


So what is the risk of washing hands more often with soap and water? Chapped hands? Maybe you risk a sore neck if you are an African woman and you carry your water on your head... But if a vaccine increases the risk of all cause mortality of my baby girl by 200-500% (as that Dr reported in the TedX @ 10:10 in the video), maybe I would opt for asking volunteers to help build a well and a willow feeder and soap donations?  

Personally, the thing I am most PRO is the Hippocratic Oath. I bet I'm not the only permie to opt for diet and nutrition and exercise before a pharmaceutical. I believe that is being PRO Hippocratic oath. Hopefully, we agree. Please let me know.

M Ljin wrote:In permaculture, we are good at finding ways around false dichotomies. Can we think of something beyond vax/no vax?

We have all decided that spraying is a bad idea. But what if a disease does exist? Then we try to make use of diversity to confuse the pestilence. We make homes for natural predators, improve the health of the soil, think holistically.

There are a lot of positive things we can do to avoid illness that aren't vaccines, but modern "society" considers the costs of vaccination, whatever they may be, to be acceptable. Modern society also considers spraying vegetables to be an acceptable cost. We don't have to accept the "spray or have a harvest failure" dichotomy rule our gardens, nor do we have to have the "vaccinate or die of infectious disease" dichotomy rule our lives & health. There are a lot of ways to be creative and try doing things differently, like staying at home through the winter and not travelling by plane.

I am reading a history of the neighboring town. In former days they had figured out that if they made a sickhouse where people could be cared for and quarrantined. Some signed up to get sick so that they could get immunity to common diseases in a relatively safe and nourishing environment. It definitely wasn't Heaven but neither is anything else. (Back in the day, or somewhat before then, people would often live into their hundredth decade hundreds.) (🤣)

I think that modern humans have difficulty realizing that life contains suffering that will happen whether they do X or Y. Worst of all, we tend to export suffering to poorer countries and poorer people (which is another discussion unto itself). Whether we vaccinate or don't people will get sick, in different ways. Spraying seems to help world food security but doesn't in the long run, it makes people sick and destroys the ecosystems that sustain us. Maybe I will write more about this, but I think that the more we realize the limits of our power, the happier we can be in our hearts and the more at peace with the world.

There definitely are ways to make things better... but my experience has shown me that all the things we do out of fear, end up coming back and hurting us in the end because fear encourages short term thinking. In some ways this is necessary and contributes to the beauty and diversity of the world, but when we lose track of the root of life, things start plummeting quickly.

Thank you! It's very nice to be on permies!

Jay Angler wrote:

J.P. Waters wrote: Hopefully what we can have 100% agreement on is that the gold standard for medical interventions is double-blind, placebo controlled study. Can we agree on that?

Sorry J.P., I have seen some really horribly done double-blind, placebo controlled studies.

Good studies are very expensive and money is tight, and many of the people doing the double-blind studies are being done by people or institutions that have motives that simply aren't as lily-white as we'd like them to be.

One of the better studies I read years ago, the doctor clearly had a bias and when the results contradicted his bias, his response was to not only suggest that there were faults in the system, but that the placebo effect could be as high as 60% . I actually agree with this last bit. I think many things which appear as "health" problems, our bodies can fix if we improve people's nutrition and decrease the stress from all sources, and give them the emotional support to trigger a really strong placebo effect.

However, there are other diseases that have a lifetime impact and genuinely high risk of death - Measles and Polio being two examples. I do agree that diseases rise and fall, only to rise again. Right now, measles is ascending, and the immunization has a sold track record and many children risk permanent damage to their immune systems which personally, I think is greater than any risk from that specific immunization. That does not mean that I agree with infants receiving immunizations for 20 different diseases at 2 months of age. However, the solution could include paid maternity leave so that parents can stay home with the child rather than risk their constant exposure to other virus multiplying children in large daycares. It can be helped by honest reporting by health authorities as to which immunizations are truly critical at any time. It can be helped by people working together to come up with compromises rather than encouraging extremism and conflict. It can be helped by improving our education system, and including high school courses involving quality information about how the human body works. And it can be helped by fixing our economic system which rewards people making huge amounts of money at the expense of the population at large.

Immunizations are just one flash point in an overall system that many average humans feel is beyond their ability to influence.  Sometimes we can do more than we think we can, but at the moment, I'm going to go and influence my favorite chicken, instead of trying to influence electrons to do what I want them to.

Thank you too Jay, we agree far more than we disagree! Hope the chicken work went well! <3

J.P. Waters wrote:In the Siri-Testimony PDF document.....

I recall similar statistics in the book I referenced above. It is a hard copy so I do not have the ability to copy and paste. The link was similar in that the statistics showed a direct link to increased sanitation - reduction of disease, not vaccines. Large population centers were where the issues were for the most part. There were some statistics juxtaposing villages with little to no vaccination but good sanitation verses larger population centers with vaccination and poor sanitation.

I think the most shocking chapter of that book was on baby formula. I had no idea there was such widespread use of it in 1940s-1960s. The statistics and information in that chapter about antibodies for diseases being passed on from generation to generation verses no antibodies in formula and the implications of that were something I had never been exposed to. In a small scale way, through the birth and nursing of our 6 kids, I have seen this first hand. One of the older kids will get sick and it'll get passed around to the other kids and myself. But my wife and the new baby that is being nursed, do not get whatever it is that we have. It is amazing.  

Our culture, being what it is, usually signals to us the things our family should research more before deciding on a course of action. The signal I see is that if most people are doing something, we should probably check into it. I would imagine that most people on the forum have come to realize this about conventional farming/animal husbandry.

Anyway, it is not a simple black and white issue and I wouldn't say everyone should not vaccinate and nurse their babies. I like the dialog and let each person be convinced in their own mind. Hopefully that is the attitude of both sides of the argument.

Thanks Jackson, I did want to work out the stats directly from the source data myself, although it had been verbally said to me.

I do think it is a useful exercise. Plots are helpful too and they are in the Siri written testimony as well.

My main reason for posting  is because (accoring to the Nuremburg code) this combination of info should be available to each person presented with the opportunity to vaccinate.

After the tragendies of WWII, it seems we (as the human race and especially in the US) are backsliding as a people.

Overview of the Nuremberg Code
The Nuremberg Code is a set of ethical principles for human experimentation established after World War II. It emerged from the Nuremberg Trials, specifically the trial of Nazi doctors who conducted inhumane experiments on concentration camp prisoners.

Key Principles
The Code consists of ten essential points that outline the ethical standards for conducting medical research on human subjects. These principles emphasize the importance of voluntary consent and the welfare of participants.

The ten points are:

Point Description
1 Voluntary consent is essential. Participants must have the legal capacity to consent and be able to make informed decisions without coercion.
2 The experiment should yield fruitful results for society.
3 The experiment should be designed to avoid unnecessary physical and mental suffering.
4 The risks should not exceed the benefits.
5 The experiment should be conducted by qualified individuals.
6 Participants should have the right to withdraw at any time.
7 The experiment should be stopped if it poses a risk to participants.
8 Proper precautions should be taken to protect participants.
9 The experiment should be conducted in a way that respects the dignity of participants.
10 The results should be made available to the public.

Significance
The Nuremberg Code has had a lasting impact on medical ethics and research practices worldwide. It laid the groundwork for subsequent ethical guidelines, including the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Code of Medical Ethics. Although it is not legally binding, it remains a crucial reference for ethical standards in human research.

Sources: Wikipedia, jamanetwork.com

Opinion alert: It's my opnion that this is NOT a political issue. It's much deeper.

This is the truth as best and I can elucidate it. And eager to discuss with anyone wanting to discuss the verifiable facts and to willingly and proactively distinguish between facts and opinions.  

It's important to remember that vaccines are given to healthy newborns often on the 1st day of life. They cannot choose for themselves, we need to think deeply about this issue with ALL THE FACTS AVAILABLE and in accordance with the Neuremberg Code.

It's obvious that the safety standard for vaccines should be much, much higher than (for instance) oral pharmeceuticals for adults; but because of Govt interference (National Childhood
Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 - socializing the substantial risk and hazards of manufacturer incompetence and negligence, but privatizing the profits), they are MUCH, MUCH, MUCH lower safety standard for vaccines and often non-existent. (please see Page 6 of the Siri-testimony.PDF (above))

For instance the HEPB routinely given to neborns on their first day of life in the US (but not in Singapore) shot was monitored for SAFETY FOLLOW UP AFTER INJECTION for FIVE DAYS. (see the attachment that drugs have safety follow-up durations of up to SEVEN YEARS). It should be obvious that any person or entity claiming this product (HEPB)  is safe and effective is not being honest nor ethical and reflects a COMPLETE FAILURE of our regulatory framework.

Like everthing else, when we are trying to affect change, we need to vote with our wallet.

And even is a product is free, we can still decline it to vote NO on the process used to offer it and condemn the entire framework that brought it to our feet.

There are many evils in the world and many contradictions in the way the system is run. I feel that the whole system we live under is at times very inhuman, and that the best rebellion is to live our own lives warmly and humanly, embracing the small and the humble and bringing ourselves into peace with the universe, and living free from fear despite the chaos raging on around us--for one person to be at peace with/in themself is a precious thing.

Is it possible however to be at peace with the situation now, and still think forward towards looking for solutions or ways to fix things at the human scale, with the power that we have by nature? For instance, can we somehow reset or rewire our immune systems to become more natural after the damage done by improper vaccination procedures? What about making our own live, natural vaccines from the contagion that are safe to ingest and use (which is quite a balance, I think)? Power over nature is very tempting, and asking people to give it up is difficult, even if it is hurting us in the process; but what if we instead tried to think together to discover and share methods of working with nature to stay free of infectious and inherent diseases?

Maybe this needs to be another thread... but I think that however much harm has been done we can find ways to move forward and find more harmonious and human ways of living. Maybe, as JP described earlier, sanitation is a major issue still. It seems to me that with recent knowledge coming to light, it's more important to have lots of the good bacteria, or have an antibacterial, fresh-smelling environment rather than wiping out the microbiota of environments with antibiotics, antiseptics, and other nasty things. My guess is also that reducing artificial surfaces such as plastic and replacing them with fragrant coniferous woods and other antiseptic materials would be more sanitary. Other things we could do might be living in tighter knit communities, travelling less/having less contact with people who might be carrying disease, reducing pressure children & adults to go to school/work while sick (umm... permaculture...), and supporting/taking care of ourselves with good food and a hospitable, human-centric environment.

A podcast I heard once mentioned that you do not get someone to stop drinking and smoking by telling them it's bad for them, because that does not address the core issue of why they are drinking and smoking. Knowing that something is bad for you is one thing, but stopping is another. The reason why people go to drinking or smoking despite the health issues is because it does something for them that adds enough value to their lives that they keep doing it. In general, they use smoking and drinking to reduce stress and anxiety, which are rampant in society today. Finding ways that people can reduce & cope with stress in ways that aren't daunting, will by far make the greatest impact on a person's addiction (according to the podcast). My experience with de-addicting and quitting chocolate (the only addictive drug I am familiar with!) has been promising. What I mostly did was took a day or three--as long as needed--to settle down and rest myself with the understanding that things would not be the same and I might not get the energy I normally had gotten from eating chocolate, but that once I had rested myself and recovered the innate strength to go through my life unaffected without eating chocolate, I would feel normal again and it would be more liberating.

To connect the metaphor, the reason for wanting vaccines has nothing to do with autoimmune, allergies, or other chronic, non-infectious diseases. It is because they are effective in building immunity to particular, living pathogens or germs which can invade the body and cause damage. Talking to someone about an autoimmune disorder that could be caused by certain kinds of vaccines, is not likely to make the person any less afraid of getting tetanus. So focusing on effective remedies and preventative measures for these very terrifying diseases, seems relevant...

So back to the chocolate. Sometimes when we want to change, we actually have to slow down, not get moving. When I was trying to quit chocolate, the first few times I couldn't succeed because I was pushing myself too much. I couldn't expect that my state of mind & discipline while active were the same when low energy. So minimizing energy expenditure and stress was what allowed me to adapt and reshape the way my mind & body were functioning. Now I am happily without any form of caffeine or any stimulants & depressants which prove so addictive to people... So if we want to make a change, we can't always just get moving, even though that seems like the best way--superficially. It can prove necessary that when we get to a sticky problem, slowing down is the better option--slowing down, looking around, reducing stress and being gentle on ourselves until we find a way. Sometimes we need to be in a "lantern awareness" that we don't get into until we slow down, sometimes we need to go there, let the world captivate us, be playful, and that way new solutions and good ways forward come with less resistance.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts MLin!

Your perspective helps me think about it all in a new way, so thank you! I'm grateful for your perspective.

I'm marinating on your thoughts and hope to come back with something useful in the coming days.

In the meantime, hopefully others can share their perspective and let us know if the stats were useful.

Cheers!