So let’s watch Vaxxed.

Good afternoon, Class.  We’ll be discussing Vaxxed today.

If you haven’t already seen it then I expect you to go watch it before reading because you aren’t sheeple who don’t think for themselves.

Anyway, let’s get on with the film which is apparently Cinema Libre and Gaia Stuides.    I don’t know much about either of them so you’ll need to look them up if you’re that interested.

Never mind that for now though – let’s watch the thing.

It starts accurately enough with a comment about the worst measles outbreak in California in 15 years.   And more comment about the measles – fair enough.   This seems sensible so far.

00:25:  The first LIE in the film.  SB277 does not at all BAN exemptions. What it does is abolish RBE/PBE exemptions.   It does absolutely  NOTHING with regard to medical exemptions so no, it doesn’t ban them at all.  Urgh.  This is why you get your science from science and not from headlines and why you get your law from the law and not from the headlines.

00:26-1:43:   Oh hello, Paul Offit/Paul Profitt/Paul OFF-it.    There, now that I have made juvenile puns on his name, I trust the others won’t feel the need to.   Oh and here is Paul Offit’s 10,000 vaccine paper.

So now that you have read it for yourself (again, you aren’t sheeple who rely on what, say, AOA told you), could you explain something for me?

“Studies on the diversity of antigen receptors indicate that the immune system has the capacity to respond to extremely large numbers of antigens. Current data suggest that the theoretical capacity determined by diversity of antibody variable gene regions would allow for as many as 109 to 1011 different antibody specificities.38 But this prediction is limited by the number of circulating B cells and the likely redundancy of antibodies generated by an individual.

A more practical way to determine the diversity of the immune response would be to estimate the number of vaccines to which a child could respond at one time. If we assume that 1) approximately 10 ng/mL of antibody is likely to be an effective concentration of antibody per epitope (an immunologically distinct region of a protein or polysaccharide),39 2) generation of 10 ng/mL requires approximately 103 B-cells per mL,39 3) a single B-cell clone takes about 1 week to reach the 103 progeny B-cells required to secrete 10 ng/mL of antibody39 (therefore, vaccine-epitope-specific immune responses found about 1 week after immunization can be generated initially from a single B-cell clone per mL), 4) each vaccine contains approximately 100 antigens and 10 epitopes per antigen (ie, 103 epitopes), and 5) approximately 107 B cells are present per mL of circulating blood,39 then each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time (obtained by dividing 107 B cells per mL by 103 epitopes per vaccine).”

In other words, it simply states that an infant’s immune system can respond to the antigens in up to 10,000 vaccines.  And no, 100,000 antigens =/= 100,000 vaccines.   So please do explain what’s wrong in that paper.  What in the above calculation is wrong? Is it the biology? The assumptions? The maths? State clearly what is inaccurate in that calculation.

In other words, take the challenge. Put up or shut up.

There.  Now that we have addresed Paul Offit, I trust we can move on.

~1:14:    This is my answer to that part:

~1:20:  No, the bill does not require children to be vaccinated.   You can still homeschool them.

Let me just add a few things that need to be made crystal clear at this point.

No, nobody expects you to set your child on fire in order for them to have an education, as I suspect you would put it – when it’s actually schooling – that is why MEDICAL EXEMPTIONS exist and are allowed in SB277.

No, SB277 does not deny your child an education: It affects schooling. If you decide to homeschool your child rather than vaccinate like SB277 says then you have made a choice that vaccination requirements are so onerous that you would rather find an alternative way of educating your child.

No, SB277 does not take your choice away. You are still free to choose but you are not free from the consequences of your choice.

No, the rest of California does not have any ethical obligation to you to fund this – you are the one that made a choice to homeschool your child via deciding that your beliefs about vaccinations were more important to you than their education in school. We can argue over whether we have an ethical obligation to support your child in spite of your bad decisions but not you.

And before you bother with the “Poor single mom will be forced into vaccinating” trope, you’ll need to remember this – at this point, it has come down to this choice:

Option A:

Starting conditions: immunoomprised child of Poor Single Mom has to be homeschooled.

Resourceful status of this single mom: Unknown.

Consequences if we make them homeschool: Child might be denied an education as is their right under FAPE/ADA or similar laws that I’m too lazy to look up right now.

Option B: Child of anti-vax Poor Single Mom has to be homeschooled.

Resourcefulness Status of this poor single mom: Smarter than every government in the world, every major health org in the world, 99% of all the chemists, toxicologists, biologists, microbiologists, epidemiologists, doctors, medical and scientific researchers etc in the world plus smarter than all the evidence plus smarter than the 2-century-long consensus on vaccines as a function of GLOBAL scientific and medical consensus. They might even be smarter than various special needs experts too!

Consequences if we make them homeschool: Hmm…the child will be denied schooling.

I prefer Option B since it doesn’t deny anyone an education.
Great, now we can move on.

Circa the 1:30 mark, the CDC is mentioned.   So please do go and read the Willam Thompson documents for yourself – they can be found here  And then you can explain what fraud was committed having read the CDC documents for yourself.  No, what AOA, Ntural News, Vaxtruth, Infowars et al told you  that they said does not count.






hierarchy of scientific evidence, randomized controlled study, case, cohort, research design

sometimes there is no real middle ground

~02:05 – ~02:11:   No, not ‘We’. You, Wakefield, were involved in deceiving millions  of people about negative side effects.   Not ‘We’.  You.     You, Wakefield, lied and deceived millions.

This is all a matter of public record.  Sheldon101blogspot has kindly ordered all the GMC transcripts in day order for us.  

As for the CDC not being able to be trusted on vaccine safety, it is just as well that we have other countries in the world that can be checked then, isn’t it?  Go see what the rest of the world has to say.

Start with the UK and remember that as a green country, it has a financial incentive to find problems with vaccines and not hide them.



More complaints about the CDC – what we’re looking for here is some evidence that applies to all of the vaccine studies worldwide.    CDC controls America so nothing so far … still, there is a lot of the film to go through yet.      U.S doesn’t help when the case for vaccines reaches far further than that.

~03: 31 Brian Hooker, still an American.  Now, there is nothing wrong with this per se but the problem is that in order for this global conspiracy to be carried out then other countries will really need to get involved at some point.

Now, Andrew Wakefield is another matter  since he certainly ought to know that there are other countries in the world given that he is from a different country, to begin with, namely England as in one country in the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland..  Here is some information on him.   And no,  Walker-Smith is not the same person as Wakefield.  Seriously, read the original Walker-Smith appeal for yourself.

If you have some information otherwise, then great, please present the full original decision exonerating Wakefield.   That’s the full [as in, not cherry picked or quote mined] original [as in, not Mike Adam’s or John Stone’s or anyone else’s interpretation of it] decision exonerating Wakefield [as in it should exonerate Andrew Wakefield and not Walker-Smith or anyone else.].    Got that?   A full original decision exonerating  Andrew Wakefield.   If so, great.   If not…well, you don’t have any evidence then.

And yes, I am watching the film  – that is why I can state problems with specific timestamps in the film.  Yes, I am aware that the CDC whistleblower documents aren’t in the film nor is the GMC transcripts but the thing is?  I am saying that that is precisely the problem –they should be!

About 4 minutes in, there is mention of after 15 month vaccinations–>lost all eye contact.  I hope there is more evidence than a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.  ‘After’ is not a synonym for ‘because of’.

Ah, the CDC again.   “The truth is, however, that while maybe not perfect in manufacturing and distribution, vaccinations have the support of a global medical community — not just those in the U.S. who stand to potentially profit from vaccine distribution.”

And these are the problems I identified just up until the 3 minute, 50 second mark.

4 thoughts on “So let’s watch Vaxxed.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.