"Very Threatening Calls" from Government Officials Forcing "Vaxxed" Pulled

[The One]

So I guess DeNiro and the Tribeca Film Festival were just the first to be pressured (threatened?) to not show the film "Vaxxed: From Coverup to Catastrophe," about William Thompson, Ph.D, the CDC whistleblower who claims that he and others deliberately omitted pertinent data from its study of the MMR vaccine after it found a link with autism in African American boys vaccinated before age 36 months. Apparently the following letter was written by the chairman of the Houston Film Festival to the chairman of the company distributing the film:

Dear Philippe~

Good Morning… I wanted you to know that just like DeNiro and Tribeca, we must withdraw our invitation to screen VAXXED! It has been cancelled, and there was no press release about the film… that was scheduled for today, but after very threatening calls late yesterday (Monday) from high Houston Government officials (the first and only time they have ever called in 49 years) – we had no choice but to drop the film. Heavy handed censorship, to say the least… they both threatened severe action against the festival if we showed it, so it is out. Their actions would have cost us more than $100,000 in grants.

I do hope that they did not call or threaten you. It is done, it is out and we have been censored… There are some very powerful forces against this project. It does seem a bit of overkill, as I am confident that it will be released Online soon and millions of people can see it.

My Thanks and Best regards, Hunter
Hunter Todd
Chairman & Founding Director
TEAM WORLDFEST
The 49th Annual WorldFest-Houston

Note the bolding (by me) which highlights that it was government officials who made these threats. Not quite censorship in the literal sense of the word, because the government officials issued threats to withhold funding, and thus offered the film festival a quasi-choice rather than an arbitrary order not to show the film. But very troubling nevertheless. The self-annointed "Health Ranger," Mike Adams, at Natural News calls it "financial extortion" and goes on to say:

Natural News has learned that Team Worldfest may have reversed this decision and decided to show the film anyway. We are still working on confirming this (check back for updates).

DeNiro on VAXXED: It's Not Over

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kuof2g1X-0k


A few more articles for further information/clarification:

CDC Scientist: ‘We scheduled meeting to destroy vaccine-autism study documents’

The Thompson Transcripts: Shocking Revelations by the CDC Whistleblower

Obama Grants Immunity to CDC Whistleblower on Measles Vaccine Link to Autism

Powerful forces threaten Houston film festival to pull VAXXED documentary...

[Aragorn]

When it comes to this subject, I do wish to clearly emphasize that these threats from the government have nothing to do with any purported link between autism and vaccines. No, wait, don't jump up from your chairs just yet. Hear me out first.

First of all, I am autistic, and as such, I am very well-acquainted with how my autistic neurology affects me. Secondly, I've never been given the MMR vaccine. Thirdly, I come from a scientific background, part of which was in the paramedical sector. So even though I do not exactly think of myself as an authority on anything in particular, I do think that I have at least some street credibility when it comes to discussing this particular subject.

It has already long been scientifically proven that autism is a neurological difference — not a disease, but a difference — of a purely genetic origin, but the person behind this film is none other than Andrew Wakefield, the British physician who was banned from ever practising medicine again in the UK after he was found guilty of having falsified his research and abused the "autism is caused by vaccines" myth in order to continue receiving research grants from the British government.

The "research" that this film is based upon is nothing other than just statistical research, and statistics are commonly used like a drunken man uses a lamp post: for support, rather than illumination. The threats from the US government are actually just their way of protecting the pharmaceutical industry — which is of course a whole Mafia all of its own — but unfortunately, a lot of people will be clinging onto this for keeping the "autism is caused by vaccines" myth alive.

It isn't the vaccine which causes autism, but children with autism react more violently to the vaccine than non-autistic children because their neurology is much more sensitive, and the vaccines do contain mercury and other neurotoxins as preservatives so they can be stored longer. So what you have here is once more the sacrifice of the human wellbeing for the sake of industrialization and corporate profits. And of course, the US government is entirely controlled by the corporations and their lobbyists, so naturally they will be threatening people in order to safeguard the interests of the pharmaceutical industry — one of the most lucrative industries in the world, next to the (predominantly US American) military-industrial complex.

Now, when an autistic (but as yet undiagnosed) child receives such a vaccine and then goes into an allergic shock, then the (incompetent) US American physicians will commonly diagnose the child with autism and blame the vaccine for it. But that's an utterly backwards way of reasoning, and it also completely ignores the actual and valid scientific research.

Fortunately, medical professionals in the rest of the world are less incompetent and can see things for what they are, but alas, there is something very insular about US American culture. This in itself has its roots in the old British imperialism and from there it spread out across all other Anglo-Saxon nations, but whereas it then also started waning from then on in these other countries, it has actually become stronger in North America, and especially so in the USA. But that's a subject for another time.

Either way, you have to stop thinking unidirectionally, people. We live in a multidimensional world. There are multiple vantages at play here, and this is no different in the case of these government threats.


And now I'm getting off of my soap box again.

[bsbray]

It won't be long before this documentary is online, if it isn't already, and then people can watch it for themselves. All of this controversy that the media is stirring up is just free advertizing.

[lcam88]

Aragorn:

So you say:

It has already long been scientifically proven that autism is a neurological difference — not a disease, but a difference — of a purely genetic origin...

and..

It isn't the vaccine which causes autism, but children with autism react more violently to the vaccine than non-autistic children because their neurology is much more sensitive...

So it is simple then, arrange a scientific test that can detect autism and then decide who to vaccinate and who not to. Right?

Except there is no such test to back any of the more than 100 psychological diagnosis', indeed the entire study of that type of "medicine" has absolutely no basis in scientifically verifiable tests. And I can't see any difference in the operating philosophy when deciding that a reaction to a vaccine is evidence of a pre-existing condition that then leads any variety of such a "witch-doctor" to suppose it is purely genetic in origin. Being able to use the general umbrella of medicine as being at least an ad-hoc type science is clearly used with all voracity possible by this industry.

Yes, I like what Jon Rappoport had to say about psychology in general.

Certainly efforts have been made to try can establish the correlation with preexisting conditions of any kind, genetic being the most favorable, especially on such an important issue; it's the only way the existing model works. But that nothing has really been circulated publicly about results of those efforts yields only the obvious question that still remains: Is the model valid?

During early vaccination research during the late 1800's, the term "allergy" was used to describe adverse reaction to the serums administered, serums that where the precursors to todays vaccination. Indeed if that evidence is considered in reference to reactions to vaccinations, one can absolutely say a correlation exists for as much as 40% of test subjects. But today the term allergy has lost all reference to serum illness; that is indeed perfect evidence that the industry's intention is the same as we see in the common alcoholic, a denial of a problem by supposing that there is no problem at all.

...and the vaccines do contain mercury and other neurotoxins

and

Either way, you have to stop thinking unidirectionally, people. We live in a multidimensional world. There are multiple vantages at play here, and this is no different in the case of these government threats.

I'm happy to know this coin has the expected flip side...

I rest my case.

[Aragorn]

Aragorn:

So you say:

It has already long been scientifically proven that autism is a neurological difference — not a disease, but a difference — of a purely genetic origin, [...]

and..

It isn't the vaccine which causes autism, but children with autism react more violently to the vaccine than non-autistic children because their neurology is much more sensitive, and the vaccines do contain mercury and other neurotoxins as preservatives so they can be stored longer. [...]

So it is simple then, arrange a scientific test that can detect autism and then decide who to vaccinate and who not to. Right?

No, it's not quite that simple at all. In order to correctly diagnose autism, there are several tests which either could or should be conducted, depending on the condition and age of the person.

• One such test would be a full-scale neuropsychiatric test, but given that we're dealing with babies who are only a few months old — because that is when the vaccines must be administered according to healthcare legislation — this is simply not possible. A two- or three-month-old baby cannot even communicate with words and cannot read yet. A certain intellectual maturity has to be reached before any such testing could be done. Furthermore, I myself have been tested this way, and the extent of the testing — which itself was comprised of multiple disciplines — was such that it consumed several multi-hour sessions over a period of approximately seven months. Part of that duration was of course because of the organizational and bureaucratic overhead.

• If the testing procedure as laid out in the paragraph above this one is not an option — e.g. because of the inability of the test subject to communicate verbally and/or read and write — then two complementary tests could be conducted, the first one being a brain scan, and the second one being a genetic analysis. Both of these cost a lot of money, and the brain scan would also be inconclusive in the event of a newborn infant, simply because their brain hasn't sufficiently developed yet in order to be able to adequately distinguish it from a non-autistic brain. So in that case, it would only leave the genetic analysis, which is an expensive and time-consuming procedure.

Given all of the above, it is simply not considered organizationally feasible (nor financially lucrative) to test a newborn infant for autism before deciding on vaccination, and the current healthcare legislation does not exempt any infant from vaccination under whatever circumstances. The hazards associated with vaccine-induced injuries are considered acceptable by the political establishment, because they will always favor the corporate (and thus financial-economic) interests over the wellbeing of individual subjects.

Except there is no such test to back any of the more than 100 psychological diagnosis', indeed the entire study of that type of "medicine" has absolutely no basis in scientifically verifiable tests.

First of all, autism is not a psychological diagnosis but a neurological diagnosis with psychological implications — there's a difference. Secondly, it's not that the tests don't exist, but that...

• The tests are expensive and time-consuming.

• In the case of vaccination, we are talking of newly born infants whose brain has not developed to a sufficient degree yet to allow for two of the three possible tests.

And I can't see any difference in the operating philosophy when deciding that a reaction to a vaccine is evidence of a pre-existing condition that then leads any variety of such a "witch-doctor" to suppose it is purely genetic in origin. Being able to use the general umbrella of medicine as being at least an ad-hoc type science is clearly used with all voracity possible by this industry.

The problem in that regard is that these witchdoctors are actually either unaware of the fact that autism is genetic in origin or that they are rejecting the genetic and neuroscientific research which confirms this. And that in turn then leads me to wonder how the hell they ever managed to graduate from med school.

This Anglo-Saxon peculiarity has a historic precedent, by the way. Autism research only really got started in the late 1940s, and was conducted separately by Leo Kanner in the USA and by Hans Asperger in Austria. Asperger was aware of Kanner's research, but whereas Kanner focused his research on very young infants, Asperger's research was focused on adolescents and young adults.

However, this was all in the years shortly after World War II, and given that Austria — which had actually remained a neutral country during World War II — is a German-speaking country, Asperger's research, like all German-language medical research, was rejected by the Anglo-Saxon medical community, and this in spite of the fact that Hans Asperger had actually campaigned for the rights of autistic people in the face of how the Nazis treated them in Germany. It was only in the early 1980s that Asperger's work was revisited, by a medical researcher named Lorna Wing.

Today, the diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome officially means the same thing as a diagnosis with high-functioning autism, and it is understood — at least, in the international medical community at large — that autism proper is only one phenotype of a deeper underlying neurological difference which can manifest in multiple ways, some of which are not necessarily always associated with autism, such as...

• autism proper, either high-functioning or low-functioning — the latter diagnosis is cast when there is an observable speech retardation
• AD(H)D ("attention deficit (and hyperactivity) disorder")
• dyslexia
• synesthesia
• OCD ("obsessive-compulsive disorder") and OCPD ("obsessive-compulsive personality disorder") — there is a distinction between the two
• an eidetic and/or photographic memory
• savantism
• Rhett Syndrome
• atypical autism — formerly known as PDD-NOS ("pervasive developmental disorder - not otherwise specified")

Any of the above conditions can exist simultaneously, because they are only phenotypes (i.e. observable manifestations) of the same underlying neurological genotype (i.e. genetic predisposition).

Yes, I like what Jon Rappoport had to say about psychology in general.

Certainly efforts have been made to try can establish the correlation with preexisting conditions of any kind, genetic being the most favorable, especially on such an important issue; it's the only way the existing model works. But that nothing has really been circulated publicly about results of those efforts yields only the obvious question that still remains: Is the model valid?

The neuroscience as I have presented it here is the correct one, and has been empirically confirmed through various test vectors. The ignorance and/or rejection of this neuroscience by the Anglo-Saxon and predominantly US American medical community is another matter altogether and has nothing to do with the actual science itself. It is rather a political manifestation of a reactionary and tenaciously insular culture.

During early vaccination research during the late 1800's, the term "allergy" was used to describe adverse reaction to the serums administered, serums that where the precursors to todays vaccination. Indeed if that evidence is considered in reference to reactions to vaccinations, one can absolutely say a correlation exists for as much as 40% of test subjects. But today the term allergy has lost all reference to serum illness; that is indeed perfect evidence that the industry's intention is the same as we see in the common alcoholic, a denial of a problem by supposing that there is no problem at all.

Yes. As always in this world, corporate interests prevail over the wellbeing of the people, and political agendas prevail over truth. But in this particular case, experience has taught me that I must continue to emphasize that...

• Yes, vaccines do contain neurotoxins as preservatives, and these neurotoxins are particularly dangerous to infants.

• No, autism is not caused by vaccines, and a vaccine-induced injury is not the same thing as autism, even though it usually does occur more in autistic children than in non-autistic children.

[lcam88]

I enjoy our conversations Aragorn. Very informative post above.

Autism causing vs autism aggravating is quite an important difference indeed; we know the majority of modern western medicine is about symptom management. When symptoms are provoked by something that is supposed to be safe denial is the first recourse; it all becomes an effort of psychological management of one issues: how to continue.

Personally, and this is only my personal view: Even when vaccines do not provoke a preexisting neurological condition as serious as autism, they do provoke some type of response that may diminishes the mind in some other way, perhaps by causing the person to feel more tired than usual...

If you can consider disease as a type of "dirtiness" in pollutes the energetic of mind and body, reasoning as such it makes sense to "keep clean". Vaccines already do the opposite by introducing that "dirtiness" directly, and I'm not even referring to mercury or other toxins that get a free ride. Our logic is that our body can adapt and heal but as we both know those measures demand the body to invest energy. Energy that could otherwise be used doing something else. So my question is: Why not go for "clean" (on every level)?

[Chester]

Hi Aragorn... a few questions.

From my understanding, the instance of "autism" has dramatically risen. In the 70's and 80's it was around 1 in 2,000 and now we have about 1 in 150. Do we have any real clues as to why the increase?


If one of the causes of the increase is that more are diagnosed with what they actually have anyways and that the actual number has not increased, would this rise in diagnosed cases possibly be linked to observance of symptoms because they have become more obvious?


So then if Yes to the second question, is it possible that the Thimerosal they use in the MMR vaccine, if injected into someone predisposed for autism, that this possibly exacerbates the increased impact of that predisposition?

[RealityCreation]

Included in the article below is the video release of Del Bigtree’s (producer of Vaxxed) uncut 10 minute interview with ABC news regarding the film & his motivations for producing it.
The ABC selected & edited just several seconds of it to fit their particular bias & ignored the rest.



http://humansarefree.com/2016/04/vax...o-release.html

[Aragorn]

I enjoy our conversations Aragorn. Very informative post above.

Thank you. It was intended to be informative.

Autism causing vs autism aggravating is quite an important difference indeed; [...

Woops, I have to interrupt you there. The vaccines do not "aggravate autism". What they do is something entirely different. Concretely, they cause inflammatory responses which are known to inflict anything from serious intestinal damage all the way up to irreparable brain damage. In a worst-case scenario, the allergic reaction to the neurotoxins can even lead to death.

What is true however, is that this kind of serious inflammatory reactions is statistically most prevalent in children with an autistic neurology, because their neurology is far more complex and sophisticated than that of non-autistic individuals, and by consequence also far more sensitive.

...] we know the majority of modern western medicine is about symptom management. When symptoms are provoked by something that is supposed to be safe denial is the first recourse; it all becomes an effort of psychological management of one issues: how to continue.

Personally, and this is only my personal view: Even when vaccines do not provoke a preexisting neurological condition as serious as autism, they do provoke some type of response that diminishes an mind in some other way, perhaps by causing the person to feel more tired than usual...

And here I have to correct you again... The way you are wording the above is that autism would be "a serious neurological condition". That's thought policing, courtesy of the "vaccines cause autism" crowd.

Autism is not "a condition", "a disorder" or "a disease". It is simply a neurological difference, and there are ample manifestations of an autism-style neurology in the animal kingdom. For instance, cats are known to exhibit autism-like behavioral patterns. This is not a manifestation of autism among cats. All cats are like that. It helps them be more effective as predators.

Yes, people with an autistic neurology may experience difficulty at functioning in the world as it exists today — hell, who wouldn't have any difficulty functioning in "the world as it exists today"? — but that is only because "the world as it exists today" was created by non-autistic people and for non-autistic people, just as the financial-economic system was created by greedy sociopaths and for greedy sociopaths.

For that matter, most of the great innovators and geniuses of modern history were posthumously and based upon their socially peculiar behavior diagnosed with autism — and remember that autism research didn't even exist before the late 1940s, and that autistic individuals were up until then simply considered "eccentric" at best and "insane" at worst. To list but a few...:

• Sir Isaac Newton
• Leonardo Da Vinci
• Michelangelo
• Thomas Edison
• Thomas Jefferson
• Nikola Tesla
• Albert Einstein
• Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
• Ludwig von Beethoven

"Everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish upon its ability to climb a tree, it will live its entire life feeling stupid."
(Albert Einstein)

If you can consider disease as a type of "dirtiness" in pollutes the energetic of mind and body, reasoning as such it makes sense to "keep clean". Vaccines already do the opposite by introducing that "dirtiness" directly, and I'm not even referring to mercury or other toxins that get a free ride. Our logic is that our body can adapt and heal but as we both know those measures demand the body to invest energy. Energy that could otherwise be used doing something else. So my question is: Why not go for "clean" (on every level)?

The problem is that we're talking of the pharmaceutical industry, which makes a profit out of other people's misery — call me cynical, but that's what it is; see the note — and like any other industry, it is designed to maximize profit and minimize expenses. As such, one of the principles of an industrialized world is that production is aimed at creating an overstock, both for logistics and market-technical reasons.

The above in mind, the pharmaceutical industry therefore creates those vaccines with conservation additives which allows them to be stored for a prolonged duration. Mercury and similar agents are considered ideal additives to that end, with total disregard of their effects on a newborn infant — this in spite of the fact that mercury is already considered quite toxic for adults as well — and research into alternatives which could conserve the vaccine without causing any harmful effects is considered a lossy investment, so the pharmaceutical industry simply refuses to go there.

Note: Over a decade ago, it was revealed in a report from the WHO ("World Health Organization") that the pharmaceutical industry had come very close to finding an actual cure for AIDS, but that they had abandoned that research in favor of the development of AIDS inhibitors, because a cure for AIDS would liberate the patient from their disease and thus also from their dependency upon the pharmaceutical industry, whereas an AIDS inhibitor keeps the patient hooked to the pharmaceutical industry for the rest of their life.

That is the kind of industry we're dealing with here, so the wellbeing of humanity is certainly not at the top of their list of priorities, if it even is on that list at all.

[Chester]

Hi Aragorn... a few questions.

From my understanding, the instance of "autism" has dramatically risen. In the 70's and 80's it was around 1 in 2,000 and now we have about 1 in 150. Do we have any real clues as to why the increase?


If one of the causes of the increase is that more are diagnosed with what they actually have anyways and that the actual number has not increased, would this rise in diagnosed cases possibly be linked to observance of symptoms because they have become more obvious?


So then if Yes to the second question, is it possible that the Thimerosal they use in the MMR vaccine, if injected into someone predisposed for autism, that this possibly exacerbates the increased impact of that predisposition?

I feel my 2nd reading through all your posts essentially answers my questions - Thanks, Aragorn.

[Aragorn]

Hi Aragorn... a few questions.

From my understanding, the instance of "autism" has dramatically risen. In the 70's and 80's it was around 1 in 2,000 and now we have about 1 in 150. Do we have any real clues as to why the increase?

Yes, there are several causes for the (perceived) increase in autism prevalence...

1

Up until the late 1940s, when Leo Kanner began his research into autism, the condition was simply not known, and autistic people were simply labelled anything from "retarded" over "insane" to "eccentric". As I've already mentioned higher up the thread, Hans Asperger's research — which coincided with that of Leo Kanner and was partly based upon that — was ignored by the Anglo-Saxon medical community simply because Hans Asperger was from Austria and thus spoke German. It wasn't until the early 1980s that his work was revisited, thanks to Lorna Wing. Since then, there has been more research into autism all over the world, and at the same time, the training of medical professionals also became a lot better over the years, so that they would be more aware of the condition and better capable of diagnosing it. For that matter, there has also been a great increase in the number of medical professionals.

2

The population of our planet has greatly increased over the course of the past century, and it is still increasing as we speak. By the start of the 1920s, there were approximately 2 billion people on Earth. By the mid 1970s, there were approximately 4 billion people on the planet. By the late 1990s, there were approximately 6 billion people on Earth, and today, there are approximately 7.5 billion people living on this rock already.

3

Because of the prevalence of vaccine injury, many children who are actually not autistic are being misdiagnosed with autism. This is especially the case in the Anglo-Saxon countries, and particularly so in the USA. And when these children then recover from their vaccine-induced injury, their parents claim that they have "cured their child from autism".

4

There are scientists who believe that an autism spectrum neurology could be an evolutionary thing. In a society where technology has become indispensable and in which this technology is still developing at an incredible rate, people with an autism spectrum neurology tend to be more attuned to that kind of technological development. Most of the people I personally know in the IT sector are afflicted with an autism spectrum neurology, and you will also find many auties in the field of quantum physics et al. So yes, the possibility does exist that it is an evolutionary trait.

If one of the causes of the increase is that more are diagnosed with what they actually have anyways and that the actual number has not increased, would this rise in diagnosed cases possibly be linked to observance of symptoms because they have become more obvious?

Yes, that is correct. As I wrote higher up already, before autism research really began, autism spectrum people were simply considered "retarded", "crazy", "eccentric" or "wild". It is only because this type of neurology is now more known about that people are getting diagnosed more often.

Another thing to keep in mind here is that not everyone on the spectrum is being diagnosed as such, even today. A diagnosis is a medical concept, and by consequence, it is only ever cast if there is some kind of medical or paramedical problem. Those who go through life without encountering any problems at all — as for instance on account of their school results — will simply never be diagnosed.

I personally know a lot of people like that. I can tell that they're on the spectrum because of my own experiences — and as they say, "it takes one to know one" — but those people have never been diagnosed with an autism spectrum condition because there was never any need to. They performed well in school, and they may have been regarded as "awkward" by some, but for most part they simply had no significant problems with life.

So then if Yes to the second question, is it possible that the Thimerosal they use in the MMR vaccine, if injected into someone predisposed for autism, that this possibly exacerbates the increased impact of that predisposition?

Well, as I wrote in post #9 on this thread already, it isn't the Thimerosal which "exacerbates the autism", but rather the other way around: it's the fact that these infants are autistic and thus neurologically immensely more sensitive than non-autistic infants, which causes their reaction to the Thimerosal to become much more violent.

The horse pulls the cart, not the other way around.

[lcam88]

... The way you are wording the above is that autism would be "a serious neurological condition". That's thought policing, courtesy of the "vaccines cause autism" crowd.

Sorry, Aragorn but those ideas are inflections you are introducing into the conversation. For all I know, and all that I'm going to say about autism in general is that it may indeed be a special type of perspective or sensitivity that enables a part of the population in a way the rest aren't naturally capable, a gift. Indeed it may be the case that individuals with a form of autism that are more sensitive to vaccines could be gifted with extra-sensory type predispositions as well, predispositions that probably are permanently damaged by side effect of vaccinations.

That's thought policing, courtesy of the "vaccines cause autism" crowd.

That comment takes things to another level, it suggests intention. I am on the wall on that specific point, but I would not be surprised at all it it where true. I'm on the wall because medicine is more based on traditional practices and ideology than science and any doctor that comes forward with this type of rhetoric, especially on the topic of vaccines, is either a lunatic soon to be thrown under the bus or part of a very very small and select group.

Now...

I will accept that the term "aggravated autism" carried an inflection of mine; that what is aggravated is the condition rather than the individual. I hope that is food for thought for what I've said above. As a hint, I'm not using the term "autism" in the same way that you are.

Yes, people with an autistic neurology may experience difficulty at functioning in the world as it exists today — hell, who wouldn't have any difficulty functioning in "the world as it exists today"? — but that is only because "the world as it exists today" was created by non-autistic people and for non-autistic people, just as the financial-economic system was created by greedy sociopaths and for greedy sociopaths.

A visit to the "What is normal" issue here. I really don't know. Maybe people who are absolutely not autistic are abnormal. <shrug/>

For that matter, most of the great innovators and geniuses of modern history were posthumously and based upon their socially peculiar behavior diagnosed with autism — and remember that autism research didn't even exist before the late 1940s, and that autistic individuals were up until then simply considered "eccentric" at best and "insane" at worst. To list but a few...:

And how many of them where vaccinated

I like the Einstein quote. Makes me think your name should be added to the list.

The problem is that we're talking of the pharmaceutical industry, which makes a profit out of other people's misery — call me cynical, but that's what it is; see the note — and like any other industry, it is designed to maximize profit and minimize expenses. As such, one of the principles of an industrialized world is that production is aimed at creating an overstock, both for logistics and market-technical reasons.
The above in mind, the pharmaceutical industry therefore creates those vaccines with conservation additives which allows them to be stored for a prolonged duration. Mercury and similar agents are considered ideal additives to that end, with total disregard of their effects on a newborn infant — this in spite of the fact that mercury is already considered quite toxic for adults as well — and research into alternatives which could conserve the vaccine without causing any harmful effects is considered a lossy investment, so the pharmaceutical industry simply refuses to go there.

Note: Over a decade ago, it was revealed in a report from the WHO ("World Health Organization") that the pharmaceutical industry had come very close to finding an actual cure for AIDS, but that they had abandoned that research in favor of the development of AIDS inhibitors, because a cure for AIDS would liberate the patient from their disease and thus also from their dependency upon the pharmaceutical industry, whereas an AIDS inhibitor keeps the patient hooked to the pharmaceutical industry for the rest of their life.

That is the kind of industry we're dealing with here, so the wellbeing of humanity is certainly not at the top of their list of priorities, if it even is on that list at all.

Our point seems to converge here on what I see as common ground. It seems perfectly fair to ask: Why put faith in such a thing?

Especially when logic is dictating a very compelling contrary. Ohh the sheep, the pastor and the wolf...

[Chester]

Well, as I wrote in post #9 on this thread already, it isn't the Thimerosal which "exacerbates the autism", but rather the other way around: it's the fact that these infants are autistic and thus neurologically immensely more sensitive than non-autistic infants, which causes their reaction to the Thimerosal to become much more violent.

The horse pulls the cart, not the other way around.

Maybe my words fell short - what I meant was exactly what you are saying... that those with the predisposition run greater risk of negative effects.

De Niro suggests that vaccines could maybe be made more safe by more honest testing without consideration to the financial interests of the lovely pharmaceutical industry.

An assumption: I see this as all lumped under the likely fact that people born into this planet today are (in almost all cases) placed into positions that they (we) must trust many, many others. Others can be individuals, groups, or the mass opinion often referred to as "everyone."

If this assumption is largely true then the sad fact is that in some cases when we trust others (when we believe what they are telling us and that they have our best interests in mind) then sometimes we get burnt. Yet I also have attempted to imagine a world like ours - 3D physicality with one planet (as an example) where seven billion dominant class beings (of one particular species) which pretty much determine the experience of all other life on that planet without the need for a single individual experiencer to not be able to at least sometimes trust another single experiencer and frankly... that idea is pure fantasy.

And yet - that is what I found at the heart of the Ruiner game. My message to Shane is simple. A world where we CAN trust each other to be truthful would be a lot better than one where we can't.

My latest blog post was inspired by Shane's logic -

http://merlynagain.blogspot.com/2016...lieved-me.html

And along these lines, I would like to point out all and only an opinion.

Regarding those who gain a higher level of public recognition which do so using a process of lying where in the case of a few vulnerable (those who desire to live in a world more trusting... a world where we CAN believe each other because we have grown out of the need to lie and to deceive), if others support these liars, then I hope you enjoy the world you are creating as you are also responsible regardless of whether you have been harmed directly or not.

Speaking just for myself, it is sad how some actually appear to enjoy blowing apart relationships.

Hint: relationships are the building blocks of a happier, more cooperative and productive world, for all... not just the last one left laughing - as one day his laughter will also cease.

[bsbray]

This is what the effects of mercury alone can be:

Mercury has no value to the human body and is best thought of as poison. The effects of mercury exposure vary depending on the form and level of exposure. Acute exposure to mercury vapor can produce serious effects on the nervous system including psychotic reactions, hallucinations, suicidal tendencies and delirium. Continued exposure can produce violent muscular spasms and even death. When it enters the body, it is stored in the kidneys, blood, spleen, brain, liver, bones and fatty tissues.

http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/n...o-your-health/

Normally if you eat something poisonous it's buffered by the digestive system before it reaches your blood stream. In the case of a vaccination, all of that stuff is injected straight into your blood stream without any kind of protection at all. And mercury isn't the only bad thing in the vaccines.

[TimeLab]

I think a discussion about autism and many other neurological disorders is not complete without taking the ISCHEMIA factor into account as detailed by Dr. Moulden. I urge anyone not familiar with the whole picture as he presents it (taking the environmental and food toxins factors into account as well), to read the 4 parts at this site: http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/dr-...produces-harm/

Intro: Have You or Your Children Been Damaged by Vaccines?
Part2: Every Vaccine Produces Microvascular Damage
Part3: Moulden Anoxia Spectrum Syndromes (MASS)
Part4: Learning to Identify Vaccine Damage

The basic idea:
When a person receives a vaccine, white blood cells are released as part of the immune system response to the injection of foreign material into the body.

Capillaries are so small that they can only be seen under a microscope and red blood cells must squeeze themselves through them in a single file row. If there are too many white blood cells in circulation, then they can block the opening to large numbers of the smallest capillaries, which are not large enough for them to pass through. When this happens, oxygen delivery can be impaired to watershed areas. Babies capillaries are especially vulnerable.

Whichever cells in what part of the brain die due to lack of oxygen, produces the various neurological disorders sids, autism, schizophrenia, and many, many more. This lack of oxygen called ischemia always causes small to large strokes.

The telltale signs of having had a stroke are loss of facial symmetry/drooping, and especially one eye becoming slightly cross-eyed.