“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within...”
Romans 12:2

On selective deafness.

Hilary Butler - Wednesday, August 03, 2011

Scientific America ran an article recently, about herds of cows downwind from a plastics factory, which have fertility issues, and DNA abnormalities.  The farmers say that downwind airborne particles from the factory's emissions are causing the problems and are worried about their own health as well. Of course, the plastics company Formosa, catagorically denies that the cow's health problems have anything to do with windblown plastic particulate, citing the excuse that farms directly under the factory's eaves, weren't affected.  You'd think that logic of the word "downwind" would tell them that that would be the case, ... but no.

On another, similar note, the Wall St Journal recently reported that Gardasil's manufacturer, Merck, was pinged for having charred shrink-wrap inside the vials of a range of their vaccines, including  Gardasil, chickenpox, zoster, pneumovax and MMR II.  This warning letter, was on top of being previously cited for tardiness in reporting reactions, and stainless steel particles inside vials of vaccines.

But my question is, If cows breathing in particles from a plastics factory, can show cellular DNA evidence of damage, with resulting health issues, what is the effect on children, and adolescents who might be  injected with charred shrink wrap inside a vaccine?  Merck says that injected charred shrink wrap isn't an issue stating, "there are no reports of adverse health problems, though theoretically the particles could cause a reaction at the injection site. The problem is very rare, according to the company."

(Presumably they also think that FDA shouldn't have said anything to them either.)

Persuading most doctors to report any reaction, is nothing short of a miracle.- as those of us who have watched the denials from the smoking industry, drug and vaccine peddlers for decades can attest.

The problem is the denial mentality within the systems which exists in industries who are their own judge, jury, prosecution and defence.  People who make money out of something, will never bring themselves to admit more than a few cases (to give the illusion that accountability exists).

A classic example of this, is a recent report in the Medical Journal of Australia, in the wake of numerous complaints following last years Swine Flu Vaccine fiasco.  The article came about as a result of a hissy fit, where Professor David Isaacs went and reviewed records, to prove to the naysayers of vaccines, that reactions didn't exist.  He pulled out this plum:

"We have previously argued that a Queensland child who developed transverse myelitis after receiving oral polio vaccine was an example of an adverse event following vaccination where no fault was attributable to any party.  Despite detailed epidemiological evidence that was consistent in this case with the causal criteria for an AEFI promulgated by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies in the United States, and despite laboratory evidence showing that the polio virus recovered from this child was similarly pathogenic to a polio virus that has been accepted as causing vaccine-associated paralytic polio, the polio expert committee concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support a causal relationship between the oral polio vaccine and transverse myelitis. As causality has not been accepted, this child has received no compensation."

"The general principles associated with this case raise a number of pertinent questions for Australia. First, should a child who may have been injured by a vaccine, which was endorsed and paid for by the community, be compensated by the community when the serious adverse event may be attributed to the vaccine? Second, what are the criteria for accepting an attributable relationship between receipt of the vaccine and a subsequent adverse event? Third, what is the best method for financing a compensation scheme? Each question may highlight a potential barrier to the implementation of a no-fault AEFI compensation scheme in Australia."

If there was direct proof of the vaccine virus during tranverse myelitis and the "expert committee" said it wasn't a reaction, exactly what does it take for them to see the obvious?  If they can't see the obvious,  then you can be sure that any death after a vaccine would also be considered co-incidental.  About the only thing doctors are forced to deal with, are immediate anaphylactic reactions after vaccines - in front of their eyes.  They are so dramatic, that they HAVE to deal with it.  Any mother told that such a reaction was due to the child's "breakfast" not the vaccine, would have a hard time digesting that decoy.

The mantra is that: " Temporal association of an adverse event with receipt of a vaccine does not establish causality ... "

There are a number of cases I've dealt with, where the child "reacts" after every vaccine, and after the third time, the mother is still told that the problem is nothing to do with the vaccine.  Some doctors appear to be unable to comprehend the "challenge, dechallenge, rechallenge" concept.

Of course, ignoring even one reaction, never applies to things like antibiotics.  My medic alert bracelt is crammed with them.  It would be interesting to see the look on the faces of medical people, if they were to studiously ignore all medical alert bracelets on the basis that temporal association of an adverse event with an antibiotic (or whatever) does not establish causality.

How many times would they have to see angio-edema before they twigged?

So why did David Isaacs finally cough up one case? 

Perhaps, in the face of the recent barrage of complaints and media coverage of a girl seriously damaged after the flu vaccine, he realises that he has to at least LOOK like he's being open-minded and accountable.  The real issue he faces is that there is a sea of parents out there, who, just like this boy's family, know inside themselves, that a vaccine has damaged their child.  

Finally admitting to one blindingly obvious case, isn't going to persuade all the other parents that they are wrong, and neither is admitting to one case, going to make the issue go away.

That is something the smoking industry, plastic industry and the drug and vaccine industry have yet to get to grips with yet. None of them can admit any problems beyond the tip of the iceberg, because to do so, would open them up to bankruptcy. Not to mention total loss of public trust, accompanied by world-wide anger.

Bookmark and Share

Hilary's Desk

These are some of Hilary's latest blogs:

  1. Polio: Behind the curtain. Hilary Butler 20-Sep-2021
  2. Are you thinking? Hilary Butler 18-Sep-2021
  3. No mumps jab? Stay home: school Hilary Butler 22-Nov-2017
  4. Chickenpox: A new, dreaded disease? Hilary Butler 30-Jun-2017
  5. Fake bait on a plate. Hilary Butler 18-Jun-2017
  6. Why so much hot air, Dr Lush?. Hilary Butler 17-Jun-2017