Oregon Public Broadcasting

1st congressional district 2012 election 2012 session agriculture art arts author beer births books budget business central oregon college congress crime culture death penalty eastern oregon economy education employment energy environment eugene fishing food gangs gay rights health health care high school history homeless housing jobs law legislature literature living media mental health military movies music native americans obama occupy portland occupy wall street onthejob oregon our town outdoors parenting police politics portland portland business journal portland mayor pregnancy prison public health race rebroadcast recess recession religion republicans rural schools science shooting sports supreme court talking business technology teen theater unemployment union university of oregon washington water weekend women youth

It's a distinction without a difference if the only vaccines available to you have mercury in them.

Also, I have a Master's in research, and do believe in evolution. My point about #3 should be clear to you of all people. Aren't you the one who wrote:

"Before you make that decision, go talk to the parents of a fourth-grader who couldn't relearn the alphabet after getting measles and a 107-degree fever."

Wasn't that fourth grader vaccinated? If they were, why did they get measles? If not, what was your point? Or are you saying that some unvaccinated child became the breeding ground for a mutant form of measles? Kind of a stretch!

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

I am the father of a child who was developing normally. Jordan could talk when he was two. He became very sick with a high fever after getting a series of shots. He has not been able to talk since then and was diagnosed with autism. Blood tests showed that he had high levels of mercury in his system, and a check of the lot numbers proved that his vaccinations contained mercury. He is eleven now and is the first named plaintiff in one of the current class actions before Vaccine Court.

There are a few things that seem to get left out of many of these discussions in the media:

1) There is still mercury in vaccines. Most flu shots that are available have mercury in the same concentration that led to a recommendation to remove it years ago. It was removed from some vaccines, but some researchers have tested supposedly mercury-free vaccines and found mercury in them. In addition, the flu vaccine schedule was increased to twice a year starting at age six months, so kids are still getting mercury in their shots. In fact, kids are getting mercury in utero because pregnant mothers are also given flu shots.

2) Many people state that the the rate of diagnosed cases of autism has not dropped after the removal of mercury, and that proves that mercury does not cause autism. But, as I pointed out in 1., it was never completely removed, so that proof falls apart.

3) Many media stories treat parents' concern about vaccine risks as irrational. That makes little sense. Whenever you take a child to get a vaccination, you have to read and sign a statement that explains that there is a real known risk of several adverse reactions to vaccines, including brain inflammation, seizures and death. In fact, Vaccine Court exists because we know that a certain number of people will have these reactions. Over a billion dollars has been awarded to people injured by vaccines in this court. Even the federal government admitted this when they awarded compensation to Hannah Poling's family. (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHxqTyAxZZE)

3) One of the current arguments being used to cow parents into getting vaccines is that if they don't get them, they are putting other children at risk of getting childhood diseases like measles. But wait, if they got the vaccinations, isn't that supposed to protect them from the disease? Or is the pharmaceutical industry admitting that the vaccinations don't actually protect them?

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context