Ineffectiveness of Vaccination and Unintended Consequences

[JohnDJasper]

The subject of vaccination is a particular bugbear of mine because it inevitably involves the use of force and/or deception to compel society to submit to it and represents the most egregious violation of our most valued property rights, our own bodies.  The history of vaccination is one of frequent government-enforced mandatory immunization programmes, of relentless use of superstition to raise fear among the public and of ignoring scientific evidence that clearly demonstrates the true nature of diseases, the real culprits behind epidemics, and the true human costs of vaccinations.  Even if you're firmly convinced about the necessity and safety of vaccinations, as a freedom lover, you cannot afford to overlook the associated "gun in the room."

To get past the faith and fear hype of the vaccination industry and come to a decision based on the scientific method, it is essential to include the work of Dr Scheibner. 

"Dr Viera Scheibner is Principal Research Scientist (Retired) with a
doctorate in Natural Sciences from Comenius University in Bratislava.
After an eminent scientific career in micropalaeontology during which
she published 3 books and some 90 scientific papers in refereed
scientific journals in Australia and overseas, she studied babies’
breathing patterns with the Cotwatch breathing monitor developed by her
late husband Leif Karlsson in the mid 1980s. Babies had alarms after
vaccination, indicating stress. This introduced her to the subject of
vaccination. She then started systematically studying orthodox medical
papers dealing with vaccination issues. To this day she has collected
and studied more than 100000 pages of medical papers.

Despite such extensive research of orthodox medical papers published on vaccines over the past 100 years, she established that there is no scientific evidence that these injections of highly noxious substances prevent diseases, quite to the contrary, that they increase susceptibility to the diseases which the vaccines are supposed to prevent and also to a host of related and unrelated viral and bacterial infections. Vaccines are involved in a great number of modern ills of childhood such as immunoreactive diseases (asthma, allergies), autoimmune diseases (diabetes, multiple sclerosis, lupus erythematosis), cancers, leukaemia, degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, behavioural and learning problems, to mention just the most important conditions.

Her research into vaccination has culminated so far in two books and a number of shorter and longer individual papers published in a variety of scientific and medical publications. She has also conducted frequent international lecture tours to present the results of her research to parents, health and medical professionals and anyone else who is interested. She has also provided a great number of expert witness reports for court cases relating to deaths and injuries caused by vaccines, such as so-called “shaken baby” syndrome."

 

Measles Vaccines Part I; Ineffectiveness of Vaccination and Unintended Consequences. ~ by Dr Viera Scheibner (PhD) | International Medical Council on Vaccination

Measles Vaccines Part II; Benefits of Contracting Measles ~ by Dr Viera Scheibner (PhD)

 

 

[DoubtingThomas]

Is this another instance of "we'd be better off with polio," or have I stumbled upon a more reasonable critique of vaccination?

[LovePrevails]

why do people say things like "we'd be better off with polio" still when the data clearly shows that instances of death from polio had already reduced by 90% by the time the vaccine was even mandated.

 

Why do people just keep ignoring this fact?

I bring it up time and time again and people just talk around it.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

why do people say things like "we'd be better off with polio" still when the data clearly shows that instances of death from polio had already reduced by 90% by the time the vaccine was even mandated.

 

Why do people just keep ignoring this fact?

I bring it up time and time again and people just talk around it.

 

I was unaware of this fact. Please do cite where you found this information.

 

The (rather obvious) situation is that nobody is "ignoring," your "facts," but rather they have been informed otherwise.

If you bring this kind of topic up "time and again," you would be wise to have some cited material on hand to enlighten your audience rather than attempt to brow-beat them for something that isn't common knowledge.

[LovePrevails]

 

 

why do people say things like "we'd be better off with polio" still when the data clearly shows that instances of death from polio had already reduced by 90% by the time the vaccine was even mandated.

 

Why do people just keep ignoring this fact?

I bring it up time and time again and people just talk around it.

 

I was unaware of this fact. Please do cite where you found this information.

 

The (rather obvious) situation is that nobody is "ignoring," your "facts," but rather they have been informed otherwise.

If you bring this kind of topic up "time and again," you would be wise to have some cited material on hand to enlighten your audience rather than attempt to brow-beat them for something that isn't common knowledge.

 

I have cited the facts and shown charts to people and they have in the past completely ignored them and launched into some other argument

I think I first came across charts in the movie vaccines the hidden truth many years ago which, if I remember correctly, is worth watching, it probably explains better than this image

 

this is attributed 1)
to the population in general building immunity and 2) advances in sanitary
conditions at the time, including cleaner water and toilet facilities and also better nutrition

 

 

[JohnDJasper]

 

why do people say things like "we'd be better off with polio" still when the data clearly shows that instances of death from polio had already reduced by 90% by the time the vaccine was even mandated.

 

Why do people just keep ignoring this fact?

I bring it up time and time again and people just talk around it.

 

Unfortunately, vaccination is a multi-faceted, highly complicated subject and almost everyone seems to come to the discussion from a unique ideological base.  My flag is firmly planted in the ideology that the human body represents the current height of physiological evolution - oh if this were only true of our sociological evolution which seems poised on extinction - and we're still getting to grips with the intricacies of our organisms.  I wonder if anyone truly understands all of the complex interactions that occur under the watchful eye of the autonomous nervous system much less possesses enough wisdom to safely interfere with it?

I can almost understand the complexity of a microprocessor and have often written machine code to accomplish minor tasks as a subroutine to higher level languages.  I used the machine code in accordance with precise instructions on how those commands would affect the processor and even then couldn't relax until I'd thoroughly tested the program and confirmed that all results were correct and it was bug free.  At no time would I consider bypassing the normal programming interface and trying to alter the microprocessors behaviour by injecting substances into it, applying extremes of heat or cold to it or surgically removing parts of it.  However, I'd be perfectly happy for someone who had the requisite knowledge and skills to undertake these tasks if they would be beneficial to a malfunctioning processor.

My belief, based on my review of the history and science of innoculation, immunization and vaccination, is that all of this tinkering with the immune system is being accomplished by people who think they understand the human organism but in truth, have a very narrow view of how it works. Some patients became paralysed due to what was diagnosed as polio, so the vaccination industry set to work to stop people getting polio.  On the face of it, they claimed success eventually when people stopped being diagnosed with polio after the vaccinations began.  (I say eventually because the first unlucky vaccination recipients contracted polio and either died or became paralysed by the Salk vaccine.) Unfortunately, the true nature of their success is shrouded in confusion as many claims exist even to modern times that polio is still with us but has been rebranded to a number of alternative diagnoses GBS, MS, ME... Other claims insist that the rules for diagnosing polio changed to include only those where the patient had not been vaccinated as well as the general trend of polio decline that was occurring before the vaccine was released.  There's also a clear correlation with the rise and demise of DDT pesticide use during the mid-20th century which strangely enough is being reflected in modern times with the rise in polio in India which coincides with the increased manufacture and use of DDT products in that country.

(NB. I'm only picking on polio because it was brought up in discussion.  The basic points apply equally well to all other infectious diseases that the vaccination industry insists on saving us from.)

Leaving aside the argumental pea-soup above, let's focus on what I think are the two main arguments against vaccination.  The lesser of the two, in my opinion, is that neither Jenner (of cow-pox/smallpox fame) nor Salk had any real idea what the long term affects were of their innoculations/vaccines.  Even when their patients started dropping dead, neither they nor there successors could admit that these obvious longterm affects were unacceptable and just kept plowing on until forced to stop.  The less noticable long term affects we are probably all living with to this day.  Almost everyone accepts vaccination as a great medical success despite the research mentioned in the linked document by Scheibner indicating that vaccinated mothers were not passing on protection resulting in their children contracting whooping cough and other diseases at an earlier, more vulnerable age; despite the evidence indicating the healthy benefits associated with natural measles.  Despite the evidence, mostly covered up by the profession but sometimes glimpsed by outsiders, that the worst outcomes of cases of infectious diseases are often due to underlying health problems and/or the attempts by physicians to reduce fever.

What I think is the main argument against vaccination is the unquantifiable immediate and future health benefits that arise from allowing natural infectious diseases to take their course.  It appears to have been common knowledge that diseases such as polio and measles were minor episodes in most people's lives, never to be seen again.  Epidemics and serious cases occured during hard times such as war, famine or wherever sanitation and clean water were lacking.  Epidemics cleared up when the environmental workers got busy.  Instead of running away from measles, families would take their children to visit a measles sufferer so that they could get it out of the way.  Perhaps the same was true with polio?  The bottomline here is that the vaccination industry is based on the assumption that doctor's have greater wisdom than that contained in the human organism and are therefore warranted to tamper with the inner domain.  My view is that they don't really know what they're doing and mankind as well as our domesticated animals, are suffering because of it.

When they drop the gun and the fear propaganda and produce solid scientific research supporting their case, only then will I think about adjusting my viewpoint.

 

Some vaccination light reading:

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/01/31/sisyphus-and-the-conjugate-vaccines/
http://www.hpa.nhs.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733756107  (NHS Measles incidence)

http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2009/09/02/measles-deaths-pre-vaccine/

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/05/20/for-the-good-of-the-herd/

Over-reporting of measles deaths in Kenya (sub-saharan) http://www.ajtmh.org/content/68/4_suppl/30.full

http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean2.html  (Swine Flu Expose)

http://www.vaclib.org/books/archive2/won/wonderfulcenturyXVIII_tex_pix.pdf

http://www.vaclib.org/books/archive1/hadwen/absurd.htm

http://www.vaclib.org/books/archive1/peebles/peebles1.pdf

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020110shelton/020110shelton06.html  (Department of Agriculture traced the epidemics of foot and mouth disease in 1902, 1908 and 1914 to smallpox vaccine.)

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020110shelton/020110shelton07.html  (CHAPTER XXIX COMMERCIAL MEDICINE - evidence of the profit motive for vaccination)

 

 

[JohnDJasper]

 

I have cited the facts and shown charts to people and they have in the past completely ignored them and launched into some other argument

I think I first came across charts in the movie vaccines the hidden truth many years ago which, if I remember correctly, is worth watching, it probably explains better than this image

 

this is attributed 1)
to the population in general building immunity and 2) advances in sanitary
conditions at the time, including cleaner water and toilet facilities and also better nutrition

 

 

 

A raft of information on this subject has been drawn together in Polio and DDT on the whale.to website.  This site contains a lot of material that you wouldn't find on many other sites so is a constant target for ad hominem attacks.  This makes it easier for people to discount or completely ignore the vaccination-related information.  This is not a place to go for conventionally-accepted ideas.

[JohnDJasper]

 

Is this another instance of "we'd be better off with polio," or have I stumbled upon a more reasonable critique of vaccination?

 

 

This is merely me reposting anti-vaccination information that I hope will bring the faithful closer to doubt and doubters closer to freedom from this tyranny.  It would be a terrible shame if we achieved a society free from the evils of government and religion only to remain locked in the chains of vaccinationism.  More than likely, the fresh air of a free market would put vaccination to a proper trial where I'm sure it would die its natural death but in any case, people could decide for themselves whether to take part.  But we cannot forgot the dogma of "herd immunity" where non-believers must be coerced into receiving vaccination for the good of the herd; where anti-vaxers are immediately found guilty of murdering children just because they've spoken out in public -  possibly stopping someone in the future from getting a live-saving vaccination. (Been there - got the T-shirt!)

[TruthahnDerRuin]

 

 

I do not understand why you posted the death rate from Polio rather than the number of people contracting Polio. I remember seeing a picture of a room with dozens of people in iron lungs. They were not dead, but they were also not healthy.

[JohnDJasper]

 

 

 

I do not understand why you posted the death rate from Polio rather than the number of people contracting Polio. I remember seeing a picture of a room with dozens of people in iron lungs. They were not dead, but they were also not healthy.

 

 

Whether intentional or not, this discussion about Polio deathrates is hijacking my thread. It's well worth reading the many documents on this subject to be found at Polio and DDT as it helps to highlight the convoluted nature of both the disease(s) and vaccination and how taking a simplistic view of either is unscientific.  If you guys want to sweat over the Polio details, please start another thread.  But if you want to discuss the gun, the coercion, the force, the scare tactics, or the psychological indoctrination from childhood to parenthood, this is the place to do it!

Don't make me call in the forum gestapo to restore order! []

[DoubtingThomas]

Thanks for the literature John, I'll take a look over it.

@LovePrevails: Where'd you find that chart? I asked you to cite, not provide props. ;-)

[Chisleu]

 

why do people say things like "we'd be better off with polio" still when the data clearly shows that instances of death from polio had already reduced by 90% by the time the vaccine was even mandated.

 

Why do people just keep ignoring this fact?

I bring it up time and time again and people just talk around it.

 

Polio crippled far more people than died of it. They got better at treating the disease so fewer people died, but there were also sociological factors at work as well. People were far less likely to have guests, stay in hotels, etc. People were scared to death to end up in a wheel chair or worse over an invisible, communicable disease.

I'm not saying we need mandatory vaccination, however there are many vaccines on the market that are both incredibly safe, and serve a fantastic benefit. Anti-vaccine crap is dangerous and should be treated as such.

[TruthahnDerRuin]

I think that it is safe to say that the ideal for almost everyone is eradication. I think that even people who are opposed to vaccines could agree. I do not know many people who have had a smallpox vaccine.

 

 

Whether intentional or not, this discussion about Polio deathrates is hijacking my thread.

 

Perhaps I am missing the finer points of forum etiquette. But when someone starts a thread about vaccines and I make a post about a vaccine, I do not expect to be told that I am too far off topic and should start a new thread.

[LovePrevails]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDkgTjZ2xQ0 

[JohnDJasper]

 

 

Polio crippled far more people than died of it. They got better at treating the disease so fewer people died, but there were also sociological factors at work as well. People were far less likely to have guests, stay in hotels, etc. People were scared to death to end up in a wheel chair or worse over an invisible, communicable disease.

 

 

@Chisleu,

What you describe here is the official history of polio.  If you would, compare it to the official history of the War on Terror where so many westerners believe that we're being targetted by Islamic fundamentalist who hate us for our freedoms and under that justification, we're now fighting terrorism in numerous countries around the world, mostly in the Mid-East and Africa.  Is the truth actually that the War on Terror, justified by the 9/11 attacks, is just a ruse for pushing western hegemony into sovereign states that refuse to kowtow to the dictats of the PTB?  Listening to the experts on both sides of the fence, you find extremely convincing arguments backed up by endless videos and interviews that leave the viewer torn between believing one side or the other.  Not surprisingly, most people will default to the side that they've been conditioned since childhood to trust - their own government and mainstream media.  Surely, they wouldn't lie about something so huge and important!

Arguments over disease causation and the effectiveness and safety of vaccinations are actually just as well supported on both sides but once again, people tend to err on the side that they've been conditioned since childhood to trust - doctors, the government and the mainstream media.  What's even worse is that there is so much published research in support of vaccination that once again, how could all these people be wrong!

 

I'm not saying we need mandatory vaccination, however there are many
vaccines on the market that are both incredibly safe, and serve a
fantastic benefit. Anti-vaccine crap is dangerous and should be treated
as such.

 

So, how do you know that many vaccines on the market are incredibly safe and serve a fantastic benefit?  Where did you get this information?  What evidence supports it?  How much of the opposing evidence have you reviewed?  How much trust are you putting into doctors, government and mainstream media?  Are you basing your judgement on the peer-reviewed science?

You then go on to denounce anti-vaccine arguments as crap and dangerous.  Are you sufficiently informed to make such a statement or are you just perpetuating the fear-based propaganda of the medical cartel?

 

[LovePrevails]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cphkD-9NUe8 

 

 

why do these not appear as embeds?

[JohnDJasper]

 

I think that it is safe to say that the ideal for almost everyone is eradication. I think that even people who are opposed to vaccines could agree. I do not know many people who have had a smallpox vaccine.

 

@TruthahnDerRuin, I've had several smallpox vaccinations.  At least one as a child and then repeated when I went into the military long before I woke up.  If you think that it eradication is an ideal for anyone much less everyone, you are missing the point of the evidence of your own body. If you get past the pro-vaccination hype and just understand how your body is designed to work, you will hopefully start to understand why bypassing the immune system with vaccinations is dangerous and by no means ideal.

Yes, some people opposed to vaccines would agree because they don't understand how the body works but have learned to fear the more extreme adverse affects of vaccines.  When their own children or those of their friends and neighbours become damaged, they don't have to understand the underlying processes to recognise the danger.  As I said earlier, anti-vaxers come from different starting points.  Many are actually pro-vaccination but anti-unsafe vaccines.  What they don't realise is that even the safest vaccine is bad for you or at least is of no value to you.

 

 

Whether intentional or not, this discussion about Polio deathrates is hijacking my thread.

 

Perhaps I am missing the finer points of forum etiquette. But when someone starts a thread about vaccines and I make a post about a vaccine, I do not expect to be told that I am too far off topic and should start a new thread.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong but anything that swerves widely from the OP is off topic.  I don't mind if no-one wants to discuss the OP but feel justified in complaining if the thread starts filling up over a graph posted by another member that was so poorly presented that it should have been dismissed out of hand or sent back for remedial work.

[JohnDJasper]

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDkgTjZ2xQ0 

 

@LovePrevails,

You complain that people ignore you but if this is how you regularly present information, I'm not surprised.  You obviously thought that this video was worth posting a link to but failed to even give any reason why someone should watch it.  Try posting the title of the video and a short explanation for why people should watch it.  In other words, sell it.

Although I tend to ignore such anonymous links, curiosity got the better of me and I watched it.  The title is What the Cell is Going On  by Naturopathic Doctor Gary Tunsky.  Dr Tunsky does a very good job in this video of explaining how the body works as compared to how medical doctors think it works.  His comparison between naturopaths who treat the cause of disease and MDs who treat symptoms of disease is spot on and his depiction of a cell asking a drug what it has brought that the cell needs is priceless.

Although I'm not fully in agreement with Naturopathic medicine, millions of people are apparently (according to Bad Science by Ben Goldacre) turning away from MDs to the alternative healers like them because they've lost faith in the cut, burn and poison modality (the last are my words, not Goldacre's.)

What the Cell is Going On

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDkgTjZ2xQ0]

[LovePrevails]

Thank you for introducing it for me

 

I thought it would embed

 

personally I was just putting the info out there where people might be interested, not attempting to make any arguments, that is all.

[Chisleu]

 

 

Polio crippled far more people than died of it. They got better at treating the disease so fewer people died, but there were also sociological factors at work as well. People were far less likely to have guests, stay in hotels, etc. People were scared to death to end up in a wheel chair or worse over an invisible, communicable disease.

 

 

@Chisleu,

What you describe here is the official history of polio. 

Arguments over disease causation and the effectiveness and safety of vaccinations are actually just as well supported on both sides but once again, people tend to err on the side that they've been conditioned since childhood to trust - doctors, the government and the mainstream media.  What's even worse is that there is so much published research in support of vaccination that once again, how could all these people be wrong!

 

No, what I describe is actual reality. It's simple, logical, truth. Sure some people ran around to every polio infected person and snorted lines of feces... In a time when people pooped in buckets and dumped the poop out of the window into the streets, a little bit of knowledge went a long way to preventing polio from spreading. I removed your nonsensical flamebait about the WoT.

 

 

 

I'm not saying we need mandatory vaccination, however there are many
vaccines on the market that are both incredibly safe, and serve a
fantastic benefit. Anti-vaccine crap is dangerous and should be treated
as such.

 

So, how do you know that many vaccines on the market are incredibly safe and serve a fantastic benefit?  Where did you get this information?  What evidence supports it?  How much of the opposing evidence have you reviewed?  How much trust are you putting into doctors, government and mainstream media?  Are you basing your judgement on the peer-reviewed science?

You then go on to denounce anti-vaccine arguments as crap and dangerous.  Are you sufficiently informed to make such a statement or are you just perpetuating the fear-based propaganda of the medical cartel? 

 

Because the stats prove me right. You act like 50% of studies on the effectiveness of vacines show anything but that they are effective. In fact, it's more like .1%.

Facts are facts. Vacines save lives. Not all vacines are perfect, and vacines haven't always been as safe as they are today, but not vacinating children is child abuse. I'm not for the government forcing you to do it, but I won't have my child in a school that allows unvacinated children to enrole.

I am basing my statements on my reasoned and informed research into the subject. The opposing "evidence" is and has always been shakey, unreproducable, and MANY TIMES PURPOSEFULLY FALSIFIED. I define a good study as a double blind placebo trial. Most "opposition" studies are single blind, at best, and I've found countless issues. It's not worth my time anymore.

 

Anyone reading this that has kids who have had the chicken pox vaccine... take your kid to visit someone with chicken pox. Make sure he gives him some good hugs and they play together for hours, sharing drinks. Then watch as your child doesn't get chicken pox. I did (to prove a point to my friend) and I'm done talking about it. Unsubscribing from this flamebait-riddled misinformation extravaganza.

[JohnDJasper]

 

Thank you for introducing it for me

 

I thought it would embed

 

personally I was just putting the info out there where people might be interested, not attempting to make any arguments, that is all.

 

 

And you're perfectly entitled to post it as you see fit.  I'm only pointing out that you might add greater value to your post by adorning it the extras and increasing the possibility that another reader might actually receive and benefit from the information instead of passing it by impatiently.

Another technique that I find helpful is using the Quote button as opposed to the Reply button when generating the reply.  That makes it obvious which post you're replying to. It is perfectly permissable to edit out any of the quoted text to minimize the footprint of the post and focus attention on any specific item that you specifically want to address.

To embed video, copy the video url to the clipboard, then press the Insert Media icon on the toolbar.  Paste (or type) the complete url into the media URL box, then click Insert.

[]

[endostate]

 

Because the stats prove me right. You act like 50% of studies on the effectiveness of vacines show anything but that they are effective. In fact, it's more like .1%.

Facts are facts. Vacines save lives. Not all vacines are perfect, and vacines haven't always been as safe as they are today, but not vacinating children is child abuse. I'm not for the government forcing you to do it, but I won't have my child in a school that allows unvacinated children to enrole.

I am basing my statements on my reasoned and informed research into the subject. The opposing "evidence" is and has always been shakey, unreproducable, and MANY TIMES PURPOSEFULLY FALSIFIED. I define a good study as a double blind placebo trial. Most "opposition" studies are single blind, at best, and I've found countless issues. It's not worth my time anymore.

Hi Chisleu, I'd like to reuse your arguments in a debate but i'll need some backup .  Can you help me out and provide links or citations for these?

1) .1% of studies on the effectiveness of vaccines show anything but that they are effective
2) Vaccines save lives
3) Vaccines are safer today
4) opposing "evidence" is and has always been shakey, unreproducable, and MANY TIMES PURPOSEFULLY FALSIFIED.
5) Most "opposition" studies are single blind, at best, and I've found countless issues.

 

 

I'm not for the government forcing you to do it, but I won't have my child in a school that allows unvacinated children to enrole.

 

I'm confused by this. If your child has been vaccinated, why worry?

[TruthahnDerRuin]

 

Perhaps I'm wrong but anything that swerves widely from the OP is off topic.  I don't mind if no-one wants to discuss the OP but feel justified in complaining if the thread starts filling up over a graph posted by another member that was so poorly presented that it should have been dismissed out of hand or sent back for remedial work.

My first post was related to an issue raised in the original post. I know that I could go a little further in explaining the points that I make. But this whole post you made in response makes me think that you believe you are much more intelligent than I am. If that is true then you should be able to figure out what I was saying and how it addresses your original post.

[JohnDJasper]

 

 

My first post was related to an issue raised in the original post. I know that I could go a little further in explaining the points that I make. But this whole post you made in response makes me think that you believe you are much more intelligent than I am. If that is true then you should be able to figure out what I was saying and how it addresses your original post.

 

 

@TruthahnDerRuin,

I can assure you that I've made no assumptions about our relative IQs or knowledge levels other than to presume that we are equals with probably different views on specific subjects.  It was not my intention to "talk down" to you and if that is the way that I came across, then I must reflect on my delivery to avoid this in future.

When I spoke of really knowing how the body works, I meant as opposed to how the medical profession views us.  In their world, we are born to suffer and die and its only with the assistance of these learned men that we have any real chance of making it out of infancy much less survive to retirement age.  The evidence of our physiology shows that we are actually born to live healthy and long lives as long as we provide the body with what it needs to operate and thrive and none of that involves vaccinations.

I hope that this clears up any confusion. []

[TruthahnDerRuin]

 

If you get past the pro-vaccination hype and just understand how your body is designed to work, you will hopefully start to understand why bypassing the immune system with vaccinations is dangerous and by no means ideal.

...

What they don't realise is that even the safest vaccine is bad for you or at least is of no value to you.

I do not understand why you say that vaccines bypass the immune system. What I have heard is that vaccines are only supposed to trigger the immune system to start producing antibodies without the person needing to be infected.

Saying that vaccines are only bad and are of no value is a really strong statement that I do not think is justified.

[JohnDJasper]

 

I do not understand why you say that vaccines bypass the immune system. What I have heard is that vaccines are only supposed to trigger the immune system to start producing antibodies without the person needing to be infected.

Saying that vaccines are only bad and are of no value is a really strong statement that I do not think is justified.

 

Sorry! I should have said "bypass part of the immune system."  Our immune system starts at the skin and mucuous membranes and injecting viruses inside the body bypasses the 1st line of defence.  Once in the system, the body is then faced not only with any viruses injected but also all other materials included.  There's every reason to believe that vaccination teaches our bodies to react allergically to various proteins resulting in allergies to eggs, chicken and other mediums that are used to culture the viruses.  There are also studies that show that there is no correlation between titers/antibodies and immunity. Indeed one indicated an apparent relationship between antibodies and fatality immediately after vaccination.  I'll have to dig out the link for that one but the important point is that there's nothing cut-and-dried about this subject but there's plenty of reason to be suspicious of the industry claims.

I fully respect your position that you don't think my statement is justified.  It does depend on your philosophical view of medicine and human health and unless you can be persuaded to adopt my philosophy, you're unlikely to accept my point of view.

It's after midnight here so I'll attempt to post my sources tomorrow!

[LovePrevails]

It is a serious problem if there are  toxins in vaccinations because the blood cannnot "puke up" the way other aspects of our body can.

There is enough evidence certainly, that some of the ingredients in these vaccinations are toxic, and if they are they are very hard to remove from the body.

[JohnDJasper]

 

Sorry! I should have said "bypass part of the immune system."  Our
immune system starts at the skin and mucuous membranes and injecting
viruses inside the body bypasses the 1st line of defence.  Once in the
system, the body is then faced not only with any viruses injected but
also all other materials included.  There's every reason to believe that
vaccination teaches our bodies to react allergically to various
proteins resulting in allergies to eggs, chicken and other mediums that
are used to culture the viruses.  There are also studies that show that
there is no correlation between titers/antibodies and immunity. Indeed
one indicated an apparent relationship between antibodies and fatality
immediately after vaccination.  I'll have to dig out the link for that
one but the important point is that there's nothing cut-and-dried about
this subject but there's plenty of reason to be suspicious of the
industry claims....

...It's after midnight here so I'll attempt to post my sources tomorrow!

 

As promised, here are my sources to back up the previous assertions.

Concerning the relation of antibodies and immunity (extract from The Blood Poisoners by Lionel Dole)

Another equally authentic report is worth noting, more particularly because of its source—the Pasteur Institute at Teheran (see W.H.O. Bulletin, 1955, Vol. 13, No. 5). The laboratory report on five cases out of 17 all of whom were badly bitten by a really big bad wolf which also bit 12 other persons, 6 cows and a horse in one night, and was presumably not quite normal, is clear and concise. The purpose of the whole report was to advertise a new serum, and so the 17 worst cases, with head injuries, were divided into three groups. Six patients were given two or more shots of the new serum; none died. Six others got only one shot; one died. The remaining five got no serum; three died. Needless to say, all the cases were treated surgically and with antibiotics, etc., and all had 21 days of the Pasteur vaccines.

The report might be said to make out a case for the new serum as a protection against the Pasteur vaccines, although we could suggest a better, cheaper and quicker way of dealing with them. This, however, is what it says about the five patients whose fate had to depend on them:

    "Series C.—The five patients in this series received a course of vaccine but no serum, and none showed antibodies before the 19th day. However, three developed definite titres between the 21st and 25th days. Two of these three patients died. Two other patients failed to develop any demonstrable antibody during the period of observation. One of these died of rabies; the other survived. The two highest levels of antibody in this group were obtained from fatal cases shortly before death." [emphasis added - JJ]

That should be enough about antibodies!

I highly recommend reading the above reference, The Blood Poisoners, completely.  Then review the series of graphic tables provided by Raymond Obomsawin, PhD which dramatically challenge the widely held assumption that vaccines have historically benefited humanity throughout the world. You might also want to read more about the antibody theory. 

But whatever you do, don't miss the great insight into disease causation especially as it relates to polio in Franklin D. Roosevelt At Campobello.

[JohnDJasper]

 

As promised, here are my sources to back up the previous assertions.

 

Further to this discussion, here is more detail concerning the actual history of polio and the polio vaccination.

Suzanne Humphries, MD, Internist and Nephrologist speaking on Polio at the Association of Natural Health Conference,  November 2012.

Dr Humphries discusses polio and:

• the increased use of evaporated milk and formula for infants
• its relation to tonsillectomies
• the increased use of refined sugar
• its relation to DDT and arsenic
• Sister Kenny, the use of over-immobilization and the real tragedy of the iron lungs.
• The modern day "iron lung"
• 
  Changes in diagnostic criteria for polio since 1955

 [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Twch-T-n8Ns]

 

[mythness]

 

 

I'm not for the government forcing you to do it, but I won't have my child in a school that allows unvacinated children to enrole.

 

I'm confused by this. If your child has been vaccinated, why worry?

 

 

Nice catch.

[Chisleu]

 

 

 

I'm not for the government forcing you to do it, but I won't have my child in a school that allows unvacinated children to enrole.

 

I'm confused by this. If your child has been vaccinated, why worry?

 

 

Nice catch.

 

Thanks. I'm not going to bother to respond further. People are explaining how the blood is incapable of removing the poison vaccines from your body. I'm done with the conversation.

 

Dangerous talk is dangerous.

[Arius]

"when it comes to people over the age of 65, this year’s vaccine has a dismal 9 percent success rate combating this year’s most prevalent strain of flu"

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/morning_call/2013/02/cdc-flu-vaccine-just-9-percent.html

 

 

[JohnDJasper]

 

Thanks. I'm not going to bother to respond further. People are explaining how the blood is incapable of removing the poison vaccines from your body. I'm done with the conversation.

 

Dangerous talk is dangerous.

 

 

This seems to be a strange place for someone worried about dangerous talk considering that freedomainradio.com is very much about undermining the support for the political power structure - those people with the heavy artillery, courts, prisons and all the money they can print.  Perhaps less panic and more calm discussion would be a better approach to any of these subjects.

In the old days, doctors thought it proper to treat patients with regular doses of arsenic.  How many people suffered and/or died before someone finally stood up against this practice? 

Austrian-Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis discovered the link between poor hygiene and the spreading of infection between patients and campaigned to get doctors to wash their hands between patients.  For this life saving discovery, he was hounded out of the medical profession.  Unfortunately, doctors learn these lessons very slowly and the general adoption of handwashing between patients didn't occur for another 20+ years.

I suggest that nothing has changed in that respect as doctors still hold fast to entrenched beliefs and pay scant attention at best to the opinions of any experts outside of their profession much less their patients.  I've seen the results that come from trusting doctors too much; talk about dangerous!

 

[LovePrevails]

 

 

Thanks. I'm not going to bother to respond further. People are explaining how the blood is incapable of removing the poison vaccines from your body. I'm done with the conversation.

 

Dangerous talk is dangerous.

 

 

This seems to be a strange place for someone worried about dangerous talk considering that freedomainradio.com is very much about undermining the support for the political power structure - those people with the heavy artillery, courts, prisons and all the money they can print.  Perhaps less panic and more calm discussion would be a better approach to any of these subjects.

In the old days, doctors thought it proper to treat patients with regular doses of arsenic.  How many people suffered and/or died before someone finally stood up against this practice? 

Austrian-Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis discovered the link between poor hygiene and the spreading of infection between patients and campaigned to get doctors to wash their hands between patients.  For this life saving discovery, he was hounded out of the medical profession.  Unfortunately, doctors learn these lessons very slowly and the general adoption of handwashing between patients didn't occur for another 20+ years.

I suggest that nothing has changed in that respect as doctors still hold fast to entrenched beliefs and pay scant attention at best to the opinions of any experts outside of their profession much less their patients.  I've seen the results that come from trusting doctors too much; talk about dangerous!

 

 

Yes of course, this is just rhetoric, there is no actual argument or evidence in the pos

 

what it's say is "I am right, vaccines a safe, and to question their safety is dangerous."

 

Of course, if she is wrong, and vaccines happen not to be safe, the it's to shut down questioning their safety which is dangerous.

 

[JohnDJasper]

 

Yes of course, this is just rhetoric, there is no actual argument or evidence in the pos

 

what it's say is "I am right, vaccines a safe, and to question their safety is dangerous."

 

Of course, if she is wrong, and vaccines happen not to be safe, the it's to shut down questioning their safety which is dangerous.

 

 

I agree, @Love Prevails.  The following quote from Dr. R.T. Trall from 1860 shows that we're still fighting the same battle all these years later.

In no class of diseases are the incomparable safety
and superiority of hygienic medication more strikingly manifested
than in the eruptive fevers--smallpox, measles, scarlet fever,
erysipelas, etc." The "old fashioned" practice
of keeping smallpox patients in close, heated rooms, denying them
water to drink and drugging them to death was the real cause of
the high death rate. Let us always bear in mind the fact that
the high death rate in smallpox was due to barbarous treatment.
Physicians knew nothing better than heroic drugging and keeping
the patient shut up in a foul atmosphere, denying him even the
simplest gratification of his senses, literally letting him die
for lack of a single drink of cool water. In those dark ages death
was the most common result of medical treatment.