Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think that anti-vaxers may actually being onto something?

999 replies

viiz · 02/02/2019 02:38

I don't have children myself yet but I don't know what I would chose when the time comes. Most of pro vax/anti vax threads turns nasty with people not even willing to try and look at things with others side perspective. Not willing to even consider points of view different than their own and that's a very silly approach. People believed a lot of things that turned out to be false over the years and centuries. Why not to doubt a little?

I was born in early '80s and not in UK. Myself, my siblings and friends were all vaccinated at the time. I don't even remember what I was vaccinated against but had to be pretty basic. Just a few jabs throughout my whole childhood/teen years and nothing 3in1 or 10in1 or whatever they'll bring next.

Now to the point. Reading through hundreds of threads it jumps at me how many children have neurological, behavioural or emotional disorders. No one else sees it really?? I don't know even one person from my childhood including friends, extended family , neighbours etc who would have ADS or ADHD or any other issues like that. I see their children to have it though.

AIBU to consider there could be a link here??

Please be gentle. I hope to have a discussion here. I don't disrespect anyone's views and I only ask to try and ask yourself 'what if'.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
Cathmidston · 08/02/2019 09:51

Dr. Stefan Lanka, virologist and molecular biologist, is internationally
mostly known as an "AIDS dissident" (and maybe "gentechnology dissident")
who has been questioning the very existence of "HIV" since 1994. In the
past years, however, he stumbled over a breathtaking fact: Not even ONE of
the (medically relevant) viruses has ever been isolated; there is no proof
of their existence. Actually, Dr. Lanka has already stated three years ago,
in the almost "legendary" Zenger´s interview: "So for a long time I studied
virology, from the end to the beginning, from the beginning to the end, to
be absolutely sure that there was no such thing as HIV. And it was easy for
me to be sure about this because I realized that the whole group of viruses
to which HIV is said to belong, the retroviruses -- as well as other
viruses which are claimed to be very dangerous -- in fact do not exist at
all." So he was thoroughly reading the literature on those "other viruses"
again, and after he could still not find any paper which would provide the
evidence, he encouraged people not to BELIEVE him but to ask the institutes
and authorities themselves. This has actually taken place, mostly initiated
by mothers. The responses were revealing. In September 2001 the German book
"Impfen - Völkermord im dritten Jahrtausend?" (Vaccination - Genocide in
the third millennium?) by Stefan Lanka and Karl Krafeld was published in
which they state that there is still no proof of any (medically relevant)
virus.

This movement (klein-klein-aktion ~ many little actions/steps) has a German
website: www.klein-klein-aktion.de which I have taken (and translated) all
the following texts from.

For almost one year we have been asking authorities, politicians and
medical institutes after the scientific evidence for the existence of such
viruses that are said to cause disease and therefore require
"immunization". After almost one year we have not received even one
concrete answer which provides evidence for the existence of those
"vaccination viruses". The conclusion is inevitable that our children are
still vaccinated on the basis of scientific standards of the 18th and 19th
century. In the 19th century Robert Koch demanded in his generally accepted
postulates evidence of the virus in order to prove infection; at Koch´s
time this evidence couldn´t be achieved directly by visualization and
characterization of the viruses, because adequate technology wasn´t
available at that time. Methods of modern medicine have profoundly changed
over the past 60 years, in particular by the invention of the electron
microscope. And still all these viruses we get immunized against have never
been re-examined using this technology?

Several images and explanations that we were pointed to and that were said
to show resp. describe (characterize) viruses, we showed to Dr. Lanka who
gives his summarizing comments:

[The German original of the following text by Stefan Lanka you can find
here (temporarily not available for technical reasons, Jan 11, 2003)]
All these photos have in common that they, resp. the authors, can´t claim
that they present a virus, as long as they do not also provide the original
publications which describe how and what from the virus has been isolated.
Such original publications are cited nowhere.
Indeed, in the entire scientific literature there´s not even one
publication, where for "viruses in the medicine" the fulfillment of Koch´s
first postulate is even claimed. That means, that there is no proof that
from humans with certain diseases the viruses - which are held responsible
for these diseases - have been isolated. Nevertheless, this is precisely
what they publicly claim. Now, regarding the photos submitted:

  1. Many of the photos are colored. This is proof enough, that they are the
(art)work of designers, because electron microscopic photos always appear in black and white.
  1. The images of the so called HIV-, measles (Masern)- and smallpox
(Pocken) viruses clearly show, as the image descriptions partly already indicate, that these are cells wherein the viruses can allegedly be found. Thus, nothing has been isolated. The photos actually show cells and typical endogenous particles in them. These structures are well known and serve the intra- and intercellular transport. Unlike viruses of the same kind - that are always the same size and same shape (consistency) -, they differ in size and shape (consistency) and therefore can´t be isolated.
  1. In the case of the influenza- herpes-, vaccinia-, polio-, adeno- and
ebola-viruses each photo shows only a single particle; nobody claims that they´re isolated particles, let alone particles that have been isolated from humans.

These particles are partially the cellular particles mentioned above (#2)
resp. typical artifacts which means: structures that accrue after
inappropriate fixing and drying of the probes, while being prepared for the
electron microscope.

  1. The "isolated" polio viruses are artificial particles, generated by
suction of an indifferent mass through a very fine filter into a vacuum. Its structure (no characteristic structures) differ clearly from the ones of the "viruses" in the cells. Here the information is essential that a biochemical characterization of those "isolated" viruses, although "isolation" is claimed, has never been published anywhere nor has anybody even claimed such a characterization.
  1. The photo with the hepatitis B "viruses" does not show isolated
structures, but - as the image title already says, an agglutinate. This is the scientific/medical term for proteins from the blood that are clumped together, as is typical for coagulations. Typically, thereby round and also crystal structures accrue - depending on the condition of the blood sample.

In summary, it must be said that these photos are an attempt of fraud
committed by the researchers and medical scientists involved, as far as
they assert that these structures are viruses or even isolated viruses. To
what extent the involved journalists and authors of textbooks have
contributed to this fraud knowlingly or only out of gross negligence, I
don´t know. Everyone who starts a recherche in the medical literature, will
quickly encounter statements and references that Koch´s first postulate
can´t be fulfilled (i.e. Großgebauer: Eine kurze Geschichte der Mikroben,
1997 ["a little story of the microbes"]; editor: Verlag für angewandte
Wissenschaft). How these authors who claim the existence of viruses could
overlook that, remains a riddle.

Could it be that the term "Contagium" = "Gift" (poison/toxin) = "Virus"
from the 18th and 19th century was applied in the 20th century to the cell
components which were named "viruses" since the electron microscope was
introduced in 1931? And in order to hide this, the "disease causing
viruses" have often been described but never been isolated? And then they
were used as seemingly logical explanation for poisonings and adverse
affects of vaccination, as Luhmann (1995) (i.e.) writes about the
symptomatic of Hepatitis B, which was observed for the first time in 1985
following smallpox vaccinations, and 1938 following measles vaccinations?
The copies in the textbooks show only structures within cells and nothing
that looks like isolation and thus homogenous. The biochemical
characterization, which is crucial, lacks completely.

Robert Koch and colleagues, Prof. Rush, Prof. Max von Pettenkofer, Prof.
Virchow have shown, for instance by experiments and by observation of the
Henle-Koch´s rules that by transmission of bacteria, the supposed contagium
vivum, it was not possible to cause the same disease. So Robert Koch
modified (weakened) the 3rd postulate of his teacher, the German anatomist
Henle, in the form that the generation of a similar symptom in animal
experiments would be sufficient to prove this hypothesis of disease cause,
namely the hypothesis of infectious bacteria. (See Großgebauer: Eine kurze
Geschichte der Mikroben).

So it does not surprise me that Prof. Alfred Fischer writes in his book
"Vorlesungen über Bakterien" ("[academic] lectures on bacteria") from 1897
(!): "as is true for any infectious disease - the fact that it does not
only take the addition of the bacteria but also the unknown something of
individual predisposition, goes without saying."

Stefan Lanka, Dec 2001
(Translation Juergen Faas, Dec 2001) (minor changes on March 2, 2002)

Dutch1e · 08/02/2019 09:53

@marcopront, thanks, I thought it was clear as well but it is easy to miss stuff on a forum

marcopront · 08/02/2019 09:57

thanks, I thought it was clear as well but it is easy to miss stuff on a forum

I think it is significant the people who missed it are anti-vaxers. It makes you wonder what else they missed.

PhilomenaCunks · 08/02/2019 10:07

Like I said, Cathmidston, an example of one who isn't a crackpot. This is the guy who thinks measles is psychosomatic. I can see why you were reticent to post this rubbish. He's also not actual backing up any of the claims he's making about the photos, instead just throwing out wild accusations. It's also worth noting that images alone are not the only evidence of isolation.

Evidence of virus isolation;

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22528151
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5619698/
aidsinfo.nih.gov/news/528/the-evidence-that-hiv-causes-aids
www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0074-02761996000600017

Gilead · 08/02/2019 12:06

Cath, this is nonsense, it's been shown to be nonsense. Try looking at the BMJ article instead.

Lweji · 08/02/2019 13:27

Dear god. You can't even read.

The article was a reference to the original research on AIDS, 1984, when it was isolated for the first time.

By 2014 we know a lot more about HVI. (30 years later...)

And anyone who disputes that HIV causes AIDS is either a big troll or very stupid indeed.

Go and do some learning.

bruffin · 08/02/2019 13:33

this is very interesting article

Lweji · 08/02/2019 13:38

Viruses can't replicate outside cells, but the particles that are isolated outside can be used to infect new cells to produce the same particles in the original cells and with the same DNA or RNA.

But saying the opposite sells books among the most gullible and hard of thinking.

Lweji · 08/02/2019 13:41

But these crackpots are dangerous when they influence governments, like in South Africa.
They should be criminally charged.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/26/aids-south-africa

greathat · 08/02/2019 13:49

I despair of some of the delusional idiocy I see here. HIV is a virus, it infects cells of the immune system. This can lead to AIDs as certain cells of the immune system are damaged. To suggest otherwise is shit and I would imagine anyone doing so to have an ulterior motive.

BlingLoving · 08/02/2019 13:54

What was really annoying about Thabo Mbeki's statements and policy, is that he was partially right. Obviously, completely wrong in that HIV clearly is the first step to AIDS. But research has shown that poor nutrition, poverty etc, make the virus far more likely to turn into full blown AIDS. A slightly more nuanced approach would have got his people the DRUGS they needed AND potentially have really shone a light on why AIDS spreads so quickly in places like Africa.

I read some of the most terrifying things, admittedly about 20 years ago so not sure how relevant this particular one is today, in which they were trying to understand why HIV spread so much quicker in certain African communities, and in particular why women seemed to get it so much quicker and more easily than in other parts of the world. One of the main reasons was because so many of these women had vaginal sores as a result of a conscious decision to make sex "better" for their (migrant*) partners. As a result, those open sores were how the virus was getting in and taking hold so quickly. It was just horrible.

*the migrant labourer piece is relevant because these men were sleeping with multiple women as they travelled around for work.

greathat · 08/02/2019 13:54

I like this on vaccination m.youtube.com/watch?v=IuLQ2GDVOHA

greathat · 08/02/2019 13:55

Sorry this one m.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

WarpedGalaxy · 08/02/2019 14:00

Gilead
“Cath, this is nonsense,”

Pretty much the mantra of the last several pages of this thread, surely? Not that it doesn’t bear repeating, mind. Grin

Lweji · 08/02/2019 14:09

Cath, why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

Go and share blood with an HIV+ person. Then in 10 years we have a little chat. Maybe sooner.

Cathmidston · 08/02/2019 14:22

That article is laughable... even going on about how they can test for AIDS even before someone is showing symptoms ....AIDS are the symptoms... the retro virus is what they’re supposed to be testing for Hmm a complete misunderstand of even the basic hypothesis. Even Gallo is quoted as saying they haven’t truly isolated the virus... no shit..

Meanwhile....
www.whale.to/a/lanks14.html

Like I said earlier, anyone who is remotely interested should read
www.amazon.co.uk/Virus-Mania-Continually-Epidemics-Billion-Dollar/dp/1425114679/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=virus+mania&tag=mumsnetforum-21&ie=UTF8&qid=1549635522&sr=8-1
Try to expand your mind slightly before you start randomly labelling these scientists as lunatics without knowing anything about what they are postulating

PhilomenaCunks · 08/02/2019 14:55

Meanwhile....
www.whale.to/a/lanks14.html

That's an article written by the same crackpot, spouting the same rubbish that's notably not actually been published by an reputable journal.

Even Gallo is quoted as saying they haven’t truly isolated the virus... no shit..

You got a citation on that? Because as has been pointed out extensively previously in the thread, there is a plethora of evidence on HIV being isolated.

Try to expand your mind slightly before you start randomly labelling these scientists as lunatics without knowing anything about what they are postulating

The hypocrisy in that statement is genuinely stunning. We're fully aware of what they're postulating, and based on the stuff you've posted about this hypothesis, we know they're postulating complete rubbish that has absolutely no grounding in good quality evidence.

bruffin · 08/02/2019 14:55

Your quoting "whale " now! First person to banned from wikki because of his nonsense

Cathmidston · 08/02/2019 15:08

So PhilomenaCunks what is it exactly that you disagree with in Lanka’s article? Anything specific?

If you read the expanded content of that drivelly article that was posted, Gallo is quoted in that ....

Heronymous · 08/02/2019 15:13

bangs head against brick wall..

This explains a lot. You want to stop doing that or the last two brain cells you have rattling around in your skull will go the way the rest of them clearly have.

Cathmidston · 08/02/2019 15:14

This explains the issue slightly more simply for those struggling
www.theperthgroup.com/FAQ/question7.html

Lweji · 08/02/2019 15:16

I'll ask my virologist colleagues, shall I?

Oh, no need. Those are indeed lunatics (not lunatic scientists).

And, btw, AIDS is not only the symptoms:

"To be diagnosed with AIDS, a person with HIV must have an AIDS-defining condition or have a CD4 count less than 200 cells/mm3 (regardless of whether the person has an AIDS-defining condition)."

aidsinfo.nih.gov/understanding-hiv-aids/glossary/3/acquired-immunodeficiency-syndrome

Definitely DO some LEARNING.

Heronymous · 08/02/2019 15:18

And here’s a BMJ article on the ways in which AIDS deniers The Perth Group gets it wrong, for those who prefer their facts to be scientifically credible and peer-reviewed: www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/perth-group-misinterpretations-and-hiv-apoptosis

PhilomenaCunks · 08/02/2019 15:21

So PhilomenaCunks what is it exactly that you disagree with in Lanka’s article? Anything specific?

Yes, quite a bit, *Cathmidston. He cites;

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7763673

Claiming that it says the study says that there's no proof of the HI virus, which is false. That study is about specific issues with the western blot method, which is not the only method used for identifying HIV;

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2095005/

It then tries to use another of Stefan Lanka's crackpot papers as evidence to suggest retrovirus' none-existence;

cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0783/4779/files/HIV.pdf

Which has the same problem as had been pointed out before; accusations without evidence to back it up. The paper's premise is based on misinterpreting real papers, and then using the author's own rubbish papers to try and make a larger claim.

They're trying to write a paper in the same style as a proper scientific study so as to appear authoritative to those who can't tell, and putting rubbish in so no-one will notice.

If you read the expanded content of that drivelly article that was posted, Gallo is quoted in that

Which article?

Lweji · 08/02/2019 16:05

Why are we discussing early 1990s articles, when things have moved on regarding knowledge of virus and how we work with them?

Look, Cath, "isolation" is semanthics.

Nobody can isolate viruses like we isolate bacteria because viruses can't replicate outside a cell. We can't have colonies of viruses, by definition.
But we can isolate viral particles and use them to infect new cells.

Discounting that viruses don't cause diseases because they can't be isolated (grown outside cells) is, well, stupid.

I do dare you to get some HIV infected CD4 T-cells and inject yourself with them if you don't believe HIV causes AIDS.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.