# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  Vaccinations and my daughter

## christagious

I've been reading about vaccinations and the dangers, and I've almost convinced my fiance to stop allowing the doctors to inject our 7 month old daughter with these toxins.  She still has a mentality that they must do more good than bad because they're protecting her from diseases.
Anyways, I'm really worried about my daughter and I'm going to list off her vaccination record thus far and ask for some of you help and advice.

Here's her record so far:

Vaccine			Dose				Immunization Date

DTaP-				3-				1/19/2008

Hep B-				3-				1/16/2008

HIB-				3-				1/19/2008

IPV-				3-				1/19/2008

IPV-				2-				11/20/2007

IPV-				1-				9/18/2007

HIB-				2-				11/20/2007

HIB-				1-				9/18/2007

Hep B-				2-				9/18/2007

Hep B-				1-				7/20/2007

DTaP-				2-				11/20/2007

DTaP-				1-				9/18/2007

She was born 7/20/2007, and to the best of my knowledge this is her complete shot record so far.  Since by the looks of things she's received a lot so far would it be smarter to completely stop getting the shots or would that do some harm since she's already received some?  
I'm not an expert on this subject and I want what is best for her, is there any way to reverse any affects these shots so far have had on her?  She's a very smart baby and I don't want these poisons to hurt her.  What can I do?
I live in Ohio, can I just tell the pediatrician that I no longer want her to receive the shots?  I know the doctor will try to convince me otherwise so what kind of excuse can I use?  I don't want her to get any more shots, I really need some help here.  A friend of our family has started not giving her kids vaccines and has started to take her kids to the chiropractor instead of a pediatrician because they use more holistic medicine, should I do something like this?  I"m not too worried about public schools having problems with no vaccinations because I plan on homeschooling anyways.  

Any advice will be greatly appreciated, thanks.

----------


## UnitedWeStand

Call a midwife in your area and ask her if there are any pediatricians who are willing to not immunize. She will know=) This pediatrician can answer your questions. He/she can also write you a letter making any kind of future camp/ mothers day out/ swim team etc requirements satisfied as to your shot status. 

basically you can refuse to have them on religious grounds (at this point anyway=).

A great source to look into is a magazine caled "Mothering". It has some great articles on immunizations.

----------


## pinkmandy

http://www.nvic.org/state-site/Ohio.htm

You're lucky. Ohio has a philosophical exemption. You only need say you are philosophically opposed and don't wish to discuss your child rearing practices with your pediatrician. And guess what? When you drop off the vax schedule you don't need to spend your money visiting them every few months. You are completely protected from force in Ohio.  

It's unfathomable that some people think it's okay to do this to children after learning about it. 7 months old and your sweet dd has had 12 injections of 18 different chemical compounds. I don't know any adults who would willingly submit to that, kwim? Ask your fiance if he would. Good luck and please ask questions if you need anything. My son was vaccine injured (DTaP reaction). I'd give anything for a "do over".  

If your fiance isn't on board, get him on board. He needs to do his research. The site above is a great one.

----------


## Flirple

> I've been reading about vaccinations and the dangers, and I've almost convinced my fiance to stop allowing the doctors to inject our 7 month old daughter with these toxins.  She still has a mentality that they must do more good than bad because they're protecting her from diseases.
> Anyways, I'm really worried about my daughter and I'm going to list off her vaccination record thus far and ask for some of you help and advice.
> 
> Here's her record so far:
> 
> Vaccine			Dose				Immunization Date
> 
> DTaP-				3-				1/19/2008
> 
> ...


 Hi there Christagious, 

I am begging you to not take any medical advice from the "health freedom" section on this message board. The vaccination propagandist are perhaps the most dangerous and deliberately prevaricating of all the pseudosciences. By denying your child the vaccinations you will not only be putting her life/health in danger but others in your community as well. The anti'vaccination crowd lies. And they lie big.

Do not confuse the science issue with the liberty issue. Of course the government shouldn't be allowed to mandate vaccines. Just like they shouldn't be allowed to prohibit people from killing themselves by overdosing on drugs.

But that does not change the fact that vaccines save lives and are overwhelmingly safe. You should allow your kid to get them because they work, are safe, and protect your kid from contracting and then spreading diseases to others in your community, not because the government requires you to do so. 

Your daughter is not being poisoned by vaccinations. Vaccinations do not put your daughter at risk for getting diseases (autism, flu, etc.). If you have specific questions about specific concerns please let me know and I will do my best to answer them with established science, not myths and deliberate obfuscation that is running rampant within the anti-vaccination crowd.

Again, I am begging you to reconsider. This is not fun and games. This is important for your daughter's well being as well as the people she will come into contact with in her life. Please don't believe propaganda that has been debunked exhaustively.

----------


## amy31416

> Hi there Christagious, 
> 
> I am begging you to not take any medical advice from the "health freedom" section on this message board. The vaccination propagandist are perhaps the most dangerous and deliberately prevaricating of all the pseudosciences. By denying your child the vaccinations you will not only be putting her life/health in danger but others in your community as well. The anti'vaccination crowd lies. And they lie big.
> 
> Do not confuse the science issue with the liberty issue. Of course the government shouldn't be allowed to mandate vaccines. Just like they shouldn't be allowed to prohibit people from killing themselves by overdosing on drugs.
> 
> But that does not change the fact that vaccines save lives and are overwhelmingly safe. You should allow your kid to get them because they work, are safe, and protect your kid from contracting and then spreading diseases to others in your community, not because the government requires you to do so. 
> 
> Your daughter is not being poisoned by vaccinations. Vaccinations do not put your daughter at risk for getting diseases (autism, flu, etc.). If you have specific questions about specific concerns please let me know and I will do my best to answer them with established science, not myths and deliberate obfuscation that is running rampant within the anti-vaccination crowd.
> ...


Thank you.

----------


## Working Poor

I know many children who have not had vaccines and they are for the most part healthier than most other children. Unfortunately I have a nephew that was born perfectly healthy and was making all the expected advances and after having a DPT shot he started crying all the time and falling off in his development now he is called autistic...

----------


## pinkmandy

My son had a severe reaction from the DTaP at 2. His fever went high and he started seizing. Encephalitis. Read the package inserts, it is a warning and my son is proof it happens. He suffered brain damage and is still recovering. He's 7 now. 

It is outrageous to me that people think you need all those vaccinations, that young, to LIVE. Find out which diseases are deadly in a healthy person. Then if you vaccinate, do it slowly for THOSE diseases if you must. 

Vaccines have NEVER been proven safe. The inserts say that. Read them. Read the potential side effects, right from the horse's mouth. Look into how many children have been compensated for injury, how many families have been compensated for death. Look up outbreaks of diseases (i.e. polio in the western hemisphere were caused BY the vaccine), measles outbreaks among vaccinated populations. 

I do agree that you shouldn't listen to vaccination propagandists. They don't care about your individual child, they care about the herd.

----------


## allyinoh

> Hi there Christagious, 
> 
> I am begging you to not take any medical advice from the "health freedom" section on this message board. The vaccination propagandist are perhaps the most dangerous and deliberately prevaricating of all the pseudosciences. By denying your child the vaccinations you will not only be putting her life/health in danger but others in your community as well. The anti'vaccination crowd lies. And they lie big.
> 
> Do not confuse the science issue with the liberty issue. Of course the government shouldn't be allowed to mandate vaccines. Just like they shouldn't be allowed to prohibit people from killing themselves by overdosing on drugs.
> 
> But that does not change the fact that vaccines save lives and are overwhelmingly safe. You should allow your kid to get them because they work, are safe, and protect your kid from contracting and then spreading diseases to others in your community, not because the government requires you to do so. 
> 
> Your daughter is not being poisoned by vaccinations. Vaccinations do not put your daughter at risk for getting diseases (autism, flu, etc.). If you have specific questions about specific concerns please let me know and I will do my best to answer them with established science, not myths and deliberate obfuscation that is running rampant within the anti-vaccination crowd.
> ...


No one is telling him to not do it, and by his post, he seems like he really doesn't want to.  People have been telling him where to turn for advice and giving their opinions.

Do you have proof that vaccinations are 100% safe?  Do you have documentation showing what is all included in every single vaccination?  If so, please do provide this to us since you are 100% sure and KNOW that they are 100% safe.

I mean, you are telling him to not listen to others and listen to you, but why should he listen to you?  You are telling him to keep doing the shots while others are telling him to ask professionals.

----------


## fairverona

> Your daughter is not being poisoned by vaccinations. Vaccinations do not put your daughter at risk for getting diseases (autism, flu, etc.). If you have specific questions about specific concerns please let me know and I will do my best to answer them with established science, not myths and deliberate obfuscation that is running rampant within the anti-vaccination crowd.
> 
> Again, I am begging you to reconsider. This is not fun and games. This is important for your daughter's well being as well as the people she will come into contact with in her life. Please don't believe propaganda that has been debunked exhaustively.


You mean this propaganda?

First confirmed link to vaccines and autism:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/hea...tism_0306.html

Mark my words, this will NOT be the last.  

My mother went into her doctors' office about 3 weeks ago and noticed a sign on the door about a _recalled_ vaccine.  Recalled!  It was already injected into people and they had to recall it!  The sign also said that this vaccine was not the brand given to insured customers, only the uninsured.  So they're administering faulty vaccines into people who can't afford insurance!  Well hoorah.

----------


## maggiebott

Avoid these shots since autism is now 1 in 75 kids.  Eli Lilly is protected under the patriot act of being sued for wrongful death or injury.  There are still vials tainted with mercury out there.  Doctors are being lied to just as the general public are led to believe these vaccines are safe.

----------


## pacelli

> Doja A, Roberts W.
> 
> Division of Neurology, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
> 
> Because of a temporal correlation between the first notable signs and symptoms of autism and the routine childhood vaccination schedule, many parents have become increasingly concerned regarding the possible etiologic role vaccines may play in the development of autism. In particular, some have suggested an association between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism. Our literature review found very few studies supporting this theory, with the overwhelming majority showing no causal association between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism. The vaccine preservative thimerosal has alternatively been hypothesized to have a possible causal role in autism. Again, no convincing evidence was found to support this claim, nor for the use of chelation therapy in autism. With decreasing uptake of immunizations in children and the inevitable occurrence of measles outbreaks, it is important that clinicians be aware of the literature concerning vaccinations and autism so that they may have informed discussions with parents and caregivers.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum





> Autism cases in California continued to climb after a mercury-rich vaccine preservative that some people blame for the neurological disorder was removed from routine childhood shots, a new study found.
> Researchers from the state Department of Public Health found the autism rate in children rose continuously during the 12-year study period from 1995 to 2007. The preservative thimerosal has not been used in childhood vaccines since 2001, but is used in some flu shots.
> 
> Doctors say the latest study adds to evidence refuting a link between thimerosal exposure and autism risk and should reassure parents that the disorder is not caused by vaccinations. If there was a risk, they said, autism rates should have dropped between 2004 and 2007.
> 
> The findings show "no evidence of mercury poisoning in autism" because there was no decline in autism rates even after the elimination of thimerosal, said Dr. Eric Fombonne, an autism researcher at Montreal Children's Hospital, who had no role in the research.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...lif_increases/


The bottom line is that it is very important for you to do independent homework on the issue.  Get multiple opinions, search through the published research.

----------


## Leslie Webb

1. Read Evidence of Harm by David Kirby, a science writer for the New York Times.  The book is about parents who believe that vaccinations caused their children to develop autism.  The parents he writes about are normal middle class Americans-- a lawyer, a nurse married to a doctor, a computer expert, a financial planner, etc. -- who through their experience and study concluded that vaccinations containing Thimerosal (a preservative containing mercury) caused their children to develop autism.  Kirby covers their story well, especially the parents'  run-ins with the CDC and the CDC's refusal to release its data on vaccinations to the public.  

2.  See the lectures by Andrew Wakefield and others at  http://www.chem.cmu.edu/wakefield/
Wakefield was a gastroenterologist in England, and I believe he now works in Texas.  In England parents of autistic children came to him because these children had chronic diarrhea.  He discusses various scientific studies that point to a link between the MMR vaccine, intestinal problems, and autism.

----------


## pacelli

> Avoid these shots since autism is now 1 in 75 kids.  Eli Lilly is protected under the patriot act of being sued for wrongful death or injury.  There are still vials tainted with mercury out there.  Doctors are being lied to just as the general public are led to believe these vaccines are safe.


1 in 75, that is national?  Where is that figure coming from?  CDC has 1 in 150 but it is not a national number.





> What is the prevalence of autism?
> 
> CDCs Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network released data in *2007 that found about 1 in 150 8-year-old children in multiple areas of the United States had an ASD.*
> 
> Since the ADDM sites *do not represent a nationally representative sample, the prevalence estimates should not be generalized to every community in the United States*. Although accurate for the areas we studied, rates may be higher or lower in other areas. However, these prevalence estimates can help communities project how many children may have autism for planning and identification purposes. They can also be used to provide for more appropriate interventions for children with ASDs.
> 
> What do the ADDM network results tell us about the prevalence of ASD in the United States?
> 
> Results from CDCs ADDM network showed the *average ASD prevalence among states participating in the project was 6.7 per 1,000 children in 2000 (6 sites) and 6.6 per 1,000 in 2002 (14 sites), or approximately 1in 150 children*. 
> ...


http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/faq_prevalence.htm

----------


## pacelli

Larry King will have the family on his show on CNN tonight on the show Larry King Live:




> (AP) -- Government health officials have conceded that childhood vaccines worsened a rare, underlying disorder that ultimately led to autism-like symptoms in a Georgia girl, and that she should be paid from a federal vaccine-injury fund.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/03/05....ap/index.html

----------


## pinkmandy

1 in 75 is NJ. For some reason they have a much higher rate. 

Also, the CDC is not to be trusted. They advise US pregnant women get vaccinated for the flu. However, the vaccine manufacturers advise against it because they have not been tested for effects on fetuses and they consider the vaccines to be a Class C drug.

Also, when reading about studies which deny relationships please take the time to find out WHO backs the studies and where the interests are. If most of the scientists involved have a vested financial interest in the vaccines the findings may not be accurate. 

Autism is FAR from the only concern and thimerasol is far from the only questionable ingredient used.

----------


## moostraks

> Hi there Christagious, 
> 
> By denying your child the vaccinations you will not only be putting her life/health in danger but others in your community as well. The anti'vaccination crowd lies. And they lie big.


  WOW!!!! Most just want people to be informed and *choose* vaccinations rather than being pressured into it...There is no kick back for the individual anti-vaccine parent but there sure is a financial reward to the pharmaceutical companies and the medical establishment who pushes these products...




> Your daughter is not being poisoned by vaccinations.  This is not fun and games. This is important for your daughter's well being as well as the people she will come into contact with in her life. Please don't believe propaganda that has been debunked exhaustively.


Anyone should question the motives of the people pushing a specific agenda. Twice you have mentioned the danger to society by the non-vaccinated. One should have confidence in the products they are injecting in their bodies to perform. Therefore the danger would be to the uninoculated.

 Furthermore, studies reflect the bias of the parties seeking to formulate a specific result. Your rhetoric is one of fear mongering. The research has not been conclusively debunked, just the opposite. These vaccines contain harmful contaminants and one should be an informed consumer. If China can't ship products with additives put as perservatives in dog food, then the standard for shots should be all the greater....

Weigh the risks along with moral conscience(fetal cells are utilized in formulating many in the typical youth vaccination program) and procede informed and confident that you did the best according to your conscience rather than following fear and the herd mentality...Best wishes on your decision!!!

----------


## hopeforthefuture

www.childhoodshots.com

----------


## amy31416

I'm very torn on this issue, because of the undeniable good that vaccines have done to rid us of polio, measles, etc., but I just read this article that seems to lend some credence to the autism/vaccine link.

Staying informed is important.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...P20IgD8V87RM00

----------


## juice797

In my immediate family I ALSO have an example of DPT and MMR correlated fever, seizure and crying. Directly correlated, to the very day. And then autism was found later. This isn't rocket science. Anti-vaccine people have nothing to gain by sharing their views. They're not the ones making profits off of the vaccines. It is so personally painful to me to see healthy children suffer from preventable brain damage.

----------


## specsaregood

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...-_b_88558.html
This may be the first "vaccine/autism link" case won in federal court:

*"The Vaccine-Autism Court Document Every American Should Read"*

Excerpt:
_"ANALYSIS 

Medical personnel at the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, Department of Health and Human Services (DVIC) have reviewed the facts of this case, as presented by the petition, medical records, and affidavits. After a thorough review, DVIC has concluded that compensation is appropriate in this case.

In sum, DVIC has concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder. Therefore, respondent recommends that compensation be awarded to petitioners in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii).

DVIC has concluded that CHILD's complex partial seizure disorder, with an onset of almost six years after her July 19, 2000 vaccinations, is not related to a vaccine-injury.

Respectfully submitted, 

PETER D. KEISLER
Assistant Attorney General"_

----------


## specsaregood

I have spoken to a few pharmacists that I know peronally and they all agree that they would personally hold off on vaccinations until almost age 3 or older.

I also know a few families with autistic children and they all unanimously agree that the vaccinations had something to do with it.

I'm not against vaccinations, just against pumping our children full of them at too young of an age.

----------


## thuja

i am glad pinkmandy is here. listen to her.
meanwhile, i am tying to get around canine vaccines, and it's awful.  in case you wish to travel and etc...dogs are sicker and sicker, and dying way too young.

----------


## thuja

how about www.nvic.org?

----------


## bbartlog

_Again, I am begging you to reconsider. This is not fun and games. This is important for your daughter's well being as well as the people she will come into contact with in her life._

And by implication, those who refuse vaccines hate their children and other people. There is an older thread on this forum on the topic of vaccine safety; browse it and you'll see dozens of academic citations from the anti-vaccine crowd, and hysteria and thinly-veiled accusations from the pro-vaccine people. It is worth remembering that the studies done on vaccine safety have a pro-vaccine bias simply because they don't look at long term effects. I also think listening to the CDC's advice on vaccines is rather like listening to the advice of military generals on our Iraq policy: yes, they have a ton of domain-specific knowledge - but they also have an agenda and are embedded in a culture that strongly encourages certain beliefs and conclusions.
One thread (of many) that you can follow up on if you're interested in doing your own research : vaccine advocates will claim that the link between thimerosal and autism was academically debunked. This is based on proceedings that took place at Simpsonwood; a paper was pubished, after experts had looked at a bunch of data, that affirmed that there was no evidence for a link. However, two things happened there that should make you very suspicious: first, they published a second, private report which reached somewhat different conclusions. Second, they took the data which they had used to reach their conclusion and assigned ownership to a private entity (so as to avoid having to release it under FOIA). Sound like credible behavior to you? It doesn't to me; it seems more like someone is trying to avoid a billion dollar lawsuit.
Anyway, there is a lot of information online. Anecdotally, I have three children (ages five, three and one), none of whom have been vaccinated at all. And they're extremely healthy - never had any ear infections, never had to go to doctor or hospital, neurologically normal or better in every aspect as far as I can tell.
My personal advice is to not vaccinate, period. But if you do feel you should, then I advise
 - spacing out the vaccines
 - only taking those you feel are important
 - researching the benefits and drawbacks of each vaccine individually
 - don't let anyone buffalo you just because they claim special authority (e.g., doctors), or let people intimidate you by insinuating you don't care about your kids' health

----------


## Flirple

> ...I have a nephew that was born perfectly healthy and was making all the expected advances and after having a DPT shot he started crying all the time and falling off in his development now he is called autistic...


Of course. The time that children start to naturally show signs of "Autism" (an umbrella term for a multitude of disorders) is around the time they are getting their vaccinations. This is the time when symptoms start to show  up whether they get vaccinations or not. This is why so many people (despite no science to back them up) stubbornly continue to believe there is a link when all peer reviewed research (not research done by the autism advocates themselves) has shown that there is no link.

Parents, understandably upset at their children's disease then start looking for a simple cause and effect to blame things on. It's very common and understandable confusion of causation versus correlation. It happens all the time and is why we rely on controlled studies and not emotional personal antidotes in science.

----------


## Flirple

Just a quick primer:
The vaccines have never contained methylmercury (which is the heavy metal mercury that we know causes health problems in high doses). Rather vaccines used to contain a completely different (despite being similarly named) organic ingredient called ethylmercury. Ethylmercury was the main ingredient in the preservative Thimerosal which was used in vaccinations up until 1997 but was then removed as a response to irrational activism from the anti-vaccination crowd despite there being no scientific reason to do so.

But where the vaccination crowd is officially busted is the fact that autism diagnosis has not decreased since they got their way and the harmless and minute quantities of the safe ingredient of ethythmercury was removed in 97. If ethylmercury was a cause of autism like they claimed we would have seen autism rates decline in the last decade since it was removed. 

Myth busted!

Autism so far has only been linked to genetics and there is some scant research evidence that thalidomide when present during the first 8 weeks of gestation can cause chromosome damage similar to that found with folks with autism. 

And autism doesn't appear to be increasing at all. What is  increasing is diagnosing of it and expanding the use of the term autism to include conditions which used to be called other names.

----------


## Kevlar

Sorry, but you're completely full of it, Flirple.

New study links mercury to autism:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=49094

CDC concedes that vaccines have a link to autism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV2WVbXEFWY

The doctor at the end of that clip said, before vaccines, 5000 people got brain infections from the measles each year, but there are 300,000,000 people in the United States. That would give you a 0.0016% or 1/60,000 chance of getting a brain infection. Is that worth poisoning our ENTIRE population? 

40,000 people die in car crashes every year.  That means you have an 8 times better chance of dying in a car crash than you do of dying from the measles. 

This fear-mongering crap is freaking ridiculous.

-

----------


## yongrel

There are a lot of arguments against vaccination, from what I've seen. The link to autism, while not definitive in my mind, is certainly cause for worry. However, you have to remember that vaccines are not given arbitrarily. They are meant to protect the child from various devastating diseases.

So go ahead and skip the vaccines. You have your reasons to. Just be prepared to face the potential consequences of that decision.

----------


## soapmistress

The US Government has now acknowledged a link between autism and currently used vaccines. In a recent case, they are paying damages.  The sealed case has been opened and reported on here:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/99826.php

The problem is not vaccines, it is unsafe vaccines.  They have stopped putting thimerosal (the mercury) into them, but will NOT pull the old ones out of stock.  The Drs are supposed to use up the old ones and then start using the safer ones.  Does that make any sense? It makes good money sense.

----------


## Kade

> Hi there Christagious, 
> 
> I am begging you to not take any medical advice from the "health freedom" section on this message board. The vaccination propagandist are perhaps the most dangerous and deliberately prevaricating of all the pseudosciences. By denying your child the vaccinations you will not only be putting her life/health in danger but others in your community as well. The anti'vaccination crowd lies. And they lie big.
> 
> Do not confuse the science issue with the liberty issue. Of course the government shouldn't be allowed to mandate vaccines. Just like they shouldn't be allowed to prohibit people from killing themselves by overdosing on drugs.
> 
> But that does not change the fact that vaccines save lives and are overwhelmingly safe. You should allow your kid to get them because they work, are safe, and protect your kid from contracting and then spreading diseases to others in your community, not because the government requires you to do so. 
> 
> Your daughter is not being poisoned by vaccinations. Vaccinations do not put your daughter at risk for getting diseases (autism, flu, etc.). If you have specific questions about specific concerns please let me know and I will do my best to answer them with established science, not myths and deliberate obfuscation that is running rampant within the anti-vaccination crowd.
> ...


Wow, what an absolutely refreshing voice of reason.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

----------


## soapmistress

I would suggest The Vaccine Book by Dr Sears

more info:

About the book:



It is not an Anti-vaccine book. Why? He said because Anti-Vaccine books only reach a limited target audience. He wanted a book that gave a balanced look at the discussion so that more parents who need to make educated decisions will have the info they need to do so. 
Discussion of problems with current vaccine schedule.
If you choose to vaccinate he tells you HOW to do it in the safest possible manner. The book includes: Safest Complete Vaccination Schedule (which means all vaccines are given, just not at the suggested time frame and no more than 2 shots given at a time to avoid Chemical Overload), and he includes a Selective Vaccination Schedule for parents who don't want to vaccinate at all but are worried about a few diseases specifically.
This book will help you pick and choose which shots to get if you choose to only give some vaccines and not others.

----------


## espot

Good thread, i have been asking myself a lot of the same questions.  Thanks to all

----------


## yongrel

> Just a quick primer:
> The vaccines have never contained methylmercury (which is the heavy metal mercury that we know causes health problems in high doses). Rather vaccines used to contain a completely different (despite being similarly named) organic ingredient called ethylmercury. Ethylmercury was the main ingredient in the preservative Thimerosal which was used in vaccinations up until 1997 but was then removed as a response to irrational activism from the anti-vaccination crowd despite there being no scientific reason to do so.
> 
> But where the vaccination crowd is officially busted is the fact that autism diagnosis has not decreased since they got their way and the harmless and minute quantities of the safe ingredient of ethythmercury was removed in 97. If ethylmercury was a cause of autism like they claimed we would have seen autism rates decline in the last decade since it was removed. 
> 
> Myth busted!
> 
> Autism so far has only been linked to genetics and there is some scant research evidence that thalidomide when present during the first 8 weeks of gestation can cause chromosome damage similar to that found with folks with autism. 
> 
> And autism doesn't appear to be increasing at all. What is  increasing is diagnosing of it and expanding the use of the term autism to include conditions which used to be called other names.


Wow, I didn't know most of that. It makes a ton of sense. So chalk the anti-vaccination hysteria up to ignorant paranoia. Lovely.

----------


## soapmistress

Again, thimerosal was removed _from manufacturing the vaccines_ but not taken out of stock.  So you literally have to ask the Dr for the vaccine packaging and lot number and informational insert to find out if you have old stock or new stock. How many parents are gonna do that?

----------


## Flirple

> Sorry, but you're completely full of it, Flirple.
> 
> New study links mercury to autism:
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=49094
> -


Lol. I'm sorry but that doesn't qualify as real scientific research (see the last sentence I wrote in the first paragraph of post #25 in this thread). The study in your linked article was done by AAPS (Association of American Physicians and Surgeons) which is nothing more than a front for the anti-vaccination crowd who were tired of not being able to point to any peer-reviewed research that supported their rejected theories. Instead of changing what they already believed to reflect the science (the cornerstone of the scientific method) they decided to simply form a fake review journal to produce "science" that supported what they already believed. This is the quintessential "red flag" in pseudoscience detection and you missed it.  I know it is tempting to Google search in attempt to data mine for research headlines that support what you already believe. But the "_Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons_" is not a scientific journal despite the official sounding name and academic looking website. You've been hoodwinked. Furthermore, why are you choosing to ignore the nearly unanimous choir of real scientific research and journals (JAMA, Nature, etc.) that is emphatically shouting that there is no link? The term confirmation bias comes to mind.

I know it can be intimidating to try to weed out the junk science from the real science especially when the MSM does everything they can to promote the junk science due to thier complete ignorance of scientific issues. For those who are interested here is a helpful little article which gives a list of fake science research institutions and journals (including the AAPS) and also gives you 9 questions you should ask before deciding if it is credible or not:  http://www.quackwatch.com/04Consumer...nonrecorg.html

The problem with all this is that the average person doesn't have time to keep up on all this and to sift through all this deliberate disinformation. And even though the anti-vaccination crowd is wrong on all fronts they continue to win in the court of public opinion. But why? Part of the reason for this is that the more the science community engages the anti-vaccination crowd in discourse it seems to lend credibility to the notion that there is a controversy with all this despite the fact that the science is *OVERWHELMINGLY* on the side of vaccines. 

A perfect example of this phenomenon is this very thread. The more I respond to these pseudo-scientific claims the more I raise the profile of this thread and this non-controversy. And no matter how well I articulate that there is nothing to the vaccine militia's claims, the mere act of a back and forth debate gives the impression to people on the fence that "both sides have legitimate points" when the anti-vaccination crowd is simply wrong and often deliberately misleading the public. And since logic isn't necessarily what leads people to believe junk science in the first place I am fully aware that logic alone is not going to get people to stop believing in the junk science that the ant-vaccination charlatans are selling. 

So my question is, to those who believe the anti-vaccination propaganda, what would make you believe that vaccinations are safe?

----------


## yongrel

> Lol. I'm sorry but that doesn't qualify as real scientific research (see the last sentence I wrote in the first paragraph of post #25 in this thread). The study in your linked article was done by AAPS (Association of American Physicians and Surgeons) which is nothing more than a front for the anti-vaccination crowd who were tired of not being able to point to any peer-reviewed research that supported their rejected theories. Instead of changing what they already believed to reflect the science (the cornerstone of the scientific method) they decided to simply form a fake review journal to produce "science" that supported what they already believed. This is the quintessential "red flag" in pseudoscience detection and you missed it.  I know it is tempting to Google search in attempt to data mine for research headlines that support what you already believe. But the "_Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons_" is not a scientific journal despite the official sounding name and academic looking website. You've been hoodwinked.
> 
> I know it can be intimidated to try to weed out the junk science from the real science especially when the MSM does everything they can to promote the junk science due to thier complete ignorance of scientific issues. For those who are interested here is a helpful little article which gives a list of fake science research institutions and journals (including the AAPS) and also gives you 9 questions you should ask before deciding if it is credible or not:  http://www.quackwatch.com/04Consumer...nonrecorg.html
> 
> The problem with all this is that the average person doesn't have time to keep up on all this and to sift through all this deliberate disinformation. And even though the anti-vaccination crowd is wrong on all fronts they continue to win in the court of public opinion. But why? Part of the reason for this is that the more the science community engages the anti-vaccination crowd in discourse it seems to lend credibility to the notion that there is a controversy with all this despite the fact there is not. 
> 
> A perfect example of this phenomenon is this very thread. The more I respond to these pseudo-scientific claims the more I raise the profile of this thread and this non-controversy. And no matter how well I articulate that there is nothing to the vaccine militia's claims the mere act of a back and forth debate gives the impression to people on the fence that "both sides have legitimate points." And since logic isn't necessarily what leads people to believe junk science in the first place I am fully aware that logic alone is going to get people to stop believing in the junk science that the ant-vaccination charlatans are selling. 
> 
> So my question is, to those who believe the anti-vaccination propaganda, what would make you believe that vaccinations are safe?


I was never terribly worried about vaccinations, but I assumed that there were some actual issues being raised by them. Your posts have caused me to investigate the matter, and I have found that you are absolutely right. Thanks for bringing this tomfoolery to light.

----------


## Flirple

> I was never terribly worried about vaccinations, but I assumed that there were some actual issues being raised by them. Your posts have caused me to investigate the matter, and I have found that you are absolutely right. Thanks for bringing this tomfoolery to light.


I sincerely appreciate that. And I love the word "tomfoolery".

----------


## Man from La Mancha

Am glad there are so many of you that are willing to experiment with your children's and your bodies. I will wait 50 or more years to see how you do before I will subject my children and myself to poisonous agents the medical gods deemed safe. (how many times they have been wrong?). Thanks so much for being the Guinea pigs. The body can take care of itself if feed right of foods unprocessed and manly raw. There is no proof that small pox vaccines worked in fact every time they were used the cases of small pox went up.

http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html.....  Vaccine Ingredients

http://www.relfe.com/vaccine.html  .... Vaccination Myths

http://www.naturodoc.com/library/bio...x_outbreak.htm .... Smallpox Outbreak

http://www.educate-yourself.org/vcd/index.shtml  ....Vaccine Dangers Links

.

----------


## yongrel

> There is no proof that small pox vaccines worked in fact every time they were used the cases of small pox went up.


Wait.. WHAT?!

No proof that smallpox vaccines worked? You mean besides the total eradication of smallpox, right? Right?!

----------


## ItsTime

1/150 chance of autism be from themarsol (sp) or just the out right bombardment of the childs body and mind with chemicals. 

0/300,000,000 chance of getting small pox
0/300,000,000 chance of getting polo

----------


## amy31416

> Wait.. WHAT?!
> 
> No proof that smallpox vaccines worked? You mean besides the total eradication of smallpox, right? Right?!


Yeah. Gotta agree here, that was one of the greatest modern medicine accomplishments.

I think people get desperate for answers and lose their ability to think straight about some of these things. When my dad was dying from a rare auto-immune disease, even though I'd been researching it for years at that point, when it became apparent that he was going to die, I was willing to try or believe in anything.

I'm not going to comment on whether or not the vaccines have any link to autism, because I simply have not done the necessary research. And the possible consequences of not vaccinating your child could be disastrous and perhaps deadly.

----------


## ItsTime

I agree with you, but then again what stopped the black plague? I did not know they immunized back then..




> Wait.. WHAT?!
> 
> No proof that smallpox vaccines worked? You mean besides the total eradication of smallpox, right? Right?!

----------


## Man from La Mancha

> Wait.. WHAT?!
> 
> No proof that smallpox vaccines worked? You mean besides the total eradication of smallpox, right? Right?!


We are setting the stage for a health disaster unlike anything we have seen before in America, and it will be of our own doing.  World health records (from England, Germany, Italy, the Philippines, British India, and more) document that devastating epidemics have followed mass vaccination.  The worst smallpox disaster occurred in the Philippines after a 10-year compulsory U.S. program had administered 25 million vaccinations to this population of 10 million, resulting in 170,000 cases and more than 75,000 deaths from smallpox, in a country that saw only scattered cases in rural villages prior to the onslaught of vaccines. [xv]


[xv]  Physician William Howard Hay's address of June 25, 1937;  printed in the Congressional Record.  New Medical Awareness Seminars, 14761 Pearl Road, Box 263, Strongsville, OH  44136, phone: (440) 268-0897

----------


## Man from La Mancha

> I agree with you, but then again what stopped the black plague? I did not know they immunized back then..


Good point, it was better sanitation and the same thing works with a small pox out break.  Since the USA except for illegals that aren't screened, we will not have these epidemics because of our sanitation and cleanliness.

----------


## bbartlog

Flirple's post seems worth deconstructing as a nice and really all-too-typical pro-vaccine argument:

_The vaccines have never contained methylmercury (which is the heavy metal mercury that we know causes health problems in high doses). Rather vaccines used to contain a completely different (despite being similarly named) organic ingredient called ethylmercury._ 

Now here's an interesting sentence. First we have the adjective 'organic' used to describe ethylmercury (but not methylmercury). They are of course both organic compounds in the chemical sense being used here; but using the word only to describe the second compound looks like an attempt to influence people who might attach positive connotations to the word (not realizing that in this context 'organic' doesn't mean what they might think).
Second, a naive reading of this sentence might lead someone to think that only methylmercury caused health problems in high doses. Being injected with *any* mercury compound will cause health problems in high doses. 

_Ethylmercury was the main ingredient in the preservative Thimerosal which was used in vaccinations up until 1997 but was then removed as a response to irrational activism from the anti-vaccination crowd despite there being no scientific reason to do so._

Here you assume what you are trying to prove. Very cute; also a classic logical fallacy.

_But where the vaccination crowd is officially busted is the fact that autism diagnosis has not decreased since they got their way and the harmless and minute quantities of the safe ingredient of ethythmercury was removed in 97. If ethylmercury was a cause of autism like they claimed we would have seen autism rates decline in the last decade since it was removed._

First of all, there are alternate theories concerning vaccine safety (or lack thereof) which do not rely on the toxicity of thimerosal. So proving that it is safe would not be sufficient to allay all doubt regarding vaccines. 
Second, your claims regarding increased diagnosis as a primary factor in the large number of autism cases don't allow for any specific conclusion. If better diagnosis drove the original increase, even more aggressive diagnosis would allow for a continued increase in reported cases even if the actual incidence were declining. 

_Autism so far has only been linked to genetics and there is some scant research evidence that thalidomide when present during the first 8 weeks of gestation can cause chromosome damage similar to that found with folks with autism._

Now you're just talking out your ass. Autism has indeed been linked to certain genetic variants. But these are not 'chromosome damage'. If you could provide a citation or link for the 'chromosome damage' found in autistics, I'd love to see it. Further, the genetic link is not mutually exclusive with an environmental explanation (e.g. vaccines); if everyone is vaccinated, but 1% of the population has a mutation that renders them especially susceptible to negative reactions to thimerosal, how would we characterize the primary cause of their problems? It would be a matter of semantics.

_And autism doesn't appear to be increasing at all. What is increasing is diagnosing of it and expanding the use of the term autism to include conditions which used to be called other names._

On the contrary, it does *appear* to be increasing. Some of that is no doubt due to increased diagnosis, but how in the world could you be certain that that accounted for all of it? See also your previous comment regarding the lack of decrease in autism since thimerosal was removed; if changes in diagnosis account for so much, how could you be sure it wasn't decreasing, either?

----------


## yongrel

> I agree with you, but then again what stopped the black plague? I did not know they immunized back then..


The end of the Black Plague is often attributed to the Great Fire of London in 1666, though there are many other epidemiological explanations for its disappearance.

----------


## Man from La Mancha

These studies suggest that the goal of complete immunization is actually counterproductive, a notion underscored by instances in which epidemics followed complete immunization of entire countries. Japan experienced yearly increases in small pox following the introduction of compulsory vaccines in 1872. By 1892, there were 29,979 deaths, and all had been vaccinated. [20]

Early in this century, the Philippines experienced their worst smallpox epidemic ever after 8 million people received 24.5 million vaccine doses; the death rate quadrupled as a result. [21] In 1989, the country of Oman experienced a widespread polio outbreak six months after achieving complete vaccination.[22] In the U.S. in 1986, 90% of 1300 pertussis cases in Kansas were "adequately vaccinated." [23] 72% of pertussis cases in the 1993 Chicago outbreak were fully up to date with their vaccinations.[24]

(20) Trevor Gunn, Mass Immunization, A Point in Question, p 15 (E.D. Hume, Pasteur Exposed-The False Foundations of Modern Medicine, Bookreal, Australia, 1989.)

(21) Physician William Howard Hay's address of June 25, 1937; printed in the Congressional Record.

(22) Outbreak of paralytic poliomyelitis in Oman; evidence for widespread transmission among fully vaccinated children Lancet vol 338: Sept 21, 1991; 715-720.

(23) Neil Miller, Vaccines: Are They Safe and Effective? p 33.

(24) Chicago Dept. of Health.

----------


## Cinderella

http://www.whale.to/a/bystrianyk3.html

check this link out....very informative....

Back in 1924 Mark Twain was quoted as saying, “There are three kinds of lies — lies, damned lies, and statistics.”  When Mark Twain made this statement, his point was that numbers could be manipulated by the unscrupulous to misrepresent facts, to justify a particular bias, or fulfill a particular agenda.  It is an unhappy fact of modern life that anyone with an idea can support that idea with statistics. The less the public knows about the source of the statistics, the more possible it is to have misinformation posing as scientific results.

Simple statements, such as “in the 1920s, over 10,000 people a year died from diphtheria”, although accurate are very misleading.  Providing a piece of historical fact without any real context and mixing it with statements on how vaccines helped cure these diseases leads the reader to erroneously conclude that vaccines were instrumental in the massive declines of deaths from these diseases.

The CDC’s statements on vaccines only provide a few facts and then draw a conclusion on this limited information.  To understand the role of vaccines, we must use the raw information and analyze it over a long period of time.  The Vital Statistics of the United States provides the most accurate information of death rates from various causes starting early in the 1900s


Figure 1 is a graph of the death rates from measles, typhoid, scarlet fever, whooping cough (pertussis), and diphtheria.  Both the pertussis and diphtheria vaccines were made widely available in 1949 and the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963.
http://www.whale.to/a/image/gr1.html


figure 2 Death rates from Diphtheria
http://www.whale.to/a/image/gr2.html


Figure 3. Death rates from Measles
http://www.whale.to/a/image/gr4.html


Because death rates were declining, it is impossible to say whether vaccines had a real effect or if that the same forces that caused the majority of the decline would have continued to have a positive impact.  Those forces were primarily that of improved sanitation, proper personal hygiene, improved diet, and the natural cycles of disease.

Based on our knowledge that proper sanitation, improved living conditions, and improved nutrition were the key factors that caused declines in these diseases, we can ask the question: are the present deaths and complications from these diseases in people of poor socioeconomic or compromised nutritional status?  Is it possible that the focus on mass vaccination programs diverted attention from continued improvements in sanitation and nutrition that could have further reduced or eliminated disease deaths and complications?

It would seem that the people who recognized the underlying cause of diseases and instituted better living conditions, proper water and better sanitation should be recognized for their remarkable achievements, not the inventors and promoters of vaccines.  This analysis, which is based on historical and scientific studies, is a far different picture than the one alluded to by the CDC in their vaccine literature.

Because the focus has predominantly been on medical intervention, the history of what really caused the decline in disease mortality is “largely unknown” and “rarely taught”.  The information that disease death declined before vaccination is important in the present day because we need to pay attention to these underlying causes of infectious disease.  We must be ever vigilant to avoid returning to those disease-causing conditions and to examine these conditions when disease outbreaks occur.  It is an important lesson in how we should approach disease prevention in third world countries.  We should not forget the words of George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

.......................i really hope this helps and i hope u all took the time to read this........................

----------


## amy31416

Cinderella, et al, I've read and am keeping an open mind on the anti-vaccination threads, but also keep in mind that the reason we don't have polio as a real issue any longer is due to vaccinations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio#Prevention

----------


## yongrel

> Cinderella, et al, I've read and am keeping an open mind on the anti-vaccination threads, but also keep in mind that the reason we don't have polio as a real issue any longer is due to vaccinations.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio#Prevention


Exactly. When my grandfather was a boy, 1 out of every 3 kids in his neighborhood got polio, including himself. Thanks to vaccines, polio is almost entirely nonexistent.

----------


## Cinderella

it is important to ask this question: If all the other children are vaccinated and vaccination gives immunity to the disease, how could an unvaccinated child put any of these other children at risk? Only the child himself could be at risk for the disease, and that should be the business of that particular child and his or her parents. It should be virtually impossible, if vaccinations actually work, for an unvaccinated child who may get a particular disease, to give it to other children who have been vaccinated.

Polio is virtually non-existent in the United States today. However, there is no credible scientific evidence that the vaccine caused polio to disappear. Before the Salk polio vaccine was introduced in 1953, the polio death rate in the United States had already declined by 47% on its own. It had also declined by 55% in England. Other European countries also showed a similar decline. When the vaccine did become available, many European countries questioned its effectiveness and refused to inoculate their citizens. Yet polio epidemics also ended in those countries.

The number of reported cases of polio after mass inoculations with the vaccine was significantly greater than before mass inoculations. And in many states the incidence of polio more than doubled after inoculations were introduced. In Rhode Island there was a 450 % increase, and in Massachusetts almost a 650 % increase in polio cases after the introduction of polio vaccinations.

After the vaccine was introduced, cases of polio were often reported under another name, aseptic meningitis, rather than as polio, even though they were counted as "polio" before the vaccine was introduced.

In 1976 Dr. Jonas Salk, creator of the killed virus vaccine that was used throughout the 1950s testified that the live virus vaccine produced by Dr. Sabin, and which was used almost exclusively in the United States since the early 1960s, was the "principle if not sole cause" of all reported cases of polio in the United States since 1961. According to the Centers for Disease Control figures, 87% of all cases of polio in the United States between 1973 and 1983 were caused by the vaccine. It is now admitted that since 1979 virtually every case of polio in the United States has been CAUSED by the vaccine. 

The same situation holds true for nearly all other diseases including diphtheria, measles, rubella, mumps and whooping cough. In virtually all of these diseases, the incidence was dropping dramatically before the introduction of the vaccine. 

It is not a mystery as to why vaccinations are not effective. First, the natural immunity mechanism in the human body is designed to work when the disease develops in its natural way. When the normal route of immune system stimulation is bypassed by injection of the microorganism (bacteria or virus) through the skin, then effective immunity against the disease does not develop. One obvious factor proving that vaccinations are not effective is that an individual has to keep getting booster shots. If a person develops polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough or any other contagious disease, he has virtual lifelong immunity from one episode of the disease. But when an individual is vaccinated, he must keep getting "booster" shots at regular intervals. 

One of the earliest vaccines introduced for general use in the United States was the pertussis vaccine for whooping cough, which was put into general use during the 1940s. Autism, a form of childhood schizophrenia, characterized by mental retardation, muteness (an inability to speak) and lack of responsiveness to human contact, was not known or described until 1943, about the same time that vaccinations were introduced. 

The bottom line is that the best way to develop natural immunity is to build a healthy immune system by the proper diet and lifestyle. Fresh air, exercise, plenty of rest and relief of stress are essential for health. This is the only effective way to remain free from disease. It is impossible to get sick if your immune system is functioning properly. Bacteria and viruses do NOT attack a healthy body, just as insects and plant diseases do NOT attack healthy plants.

This is startling information for a population brought up to believe that vaccinations are not only safe but life-saving. They're considered by most of the population as "American" as apple pie. How we have been deluded! But there is hope. Waivers for vaccinations are still available and you can investigate them by calling your public health department or, if that is unsuccessful, educate yourself by ordering a pamphlet called "Vaccine State Laws and Vaccine Exemptions"

----------


## yongrel

> it is important to ask this question: If all the other children are vaccinated and vaccination gives immunity to the disease, how could an unvaccinated child put any of these other children at risk? Only the child himself could be at risk for the disease, and that should be the business of that particular child and his or her parents. It should be virtually impossible, if vaccinations actually work, for an unvaccinated child who may get a particular disease, to give it to other children who have been vaccinated.
> 
> Polio is virtually non-existent in the United States today. However, there is no credible scientific evidence that the vaccine caused polio to disappear. Before the Salk polio vaccine was introduced in 1953, the polio death rate in the United States had already declined by 47% on its own. It had also declined by 55% in England. Other European countries also showed a similar decline. When the vaccine did become available, many European countries questioned its effectiveness and refused to inoculate their citizens. Yet polio epidemics also ended in those countries.
> 
> The number of reported cases of polio after mass inoculations with the vaccine was significantly greater than before mass inoculations. And in many states the incidence of polio more than doubled after inoculations were introduced. In Rhode Island there was a 450 % increase, and in Massachusetts almost a 650 % increase in polio cases after the introduction of polio vaccinations.
> 
> After the vaccine was introduced, cases of polio were often reported under another name, aseptic meningitis, rather than as polio, even though they were counted as "polio" before the vaccine was introduced.
> 
> In 1976 Dr. Jonas Salk, creator of the killed virus vaccine that was used throughout the 1950s testified that the live virus vaccine produced by Dr. Sabin, and which was used almost exclusively in the United States since the early 1960s, was the "principle if not sole cause" of all reported cases of polio in the United States since 1961. According to the Centers for Disease Control figures, 87% of all cases of polio in the United States between 1973 and 1983 were caused by the vaccine. It is now admitted that since 1979 virtually every case of polio in the United States has been CAUSED by the vaccine. 
> ...


Post proof or I call bull$#@!.

----------


## Kade

> Wow, I didn't know most of that. It makes a ton of sense. So chalk the anti-vaccination hysteria up to ignorant paranoia. Lovely.


It is ignorant paranoia. Pick up a copy of last week's New Scientist.

----------


## Cinderella

> Post proof or I call bull$#@!.


Polio was already declining in the U.S. and Europe during the 40's and 50's, as well as in England, where polio mortalities was at its height in 1950, but had declined 82 percent by 1956, before the Salk vaccinations began there. There was also no polio epidemic in the Third-World, where only 10 per cent of the population had been vaccinated.  
 But the Public Health Service and the March Of Dimes campaign swelled the statistics by combining the larger numbers of non-paralytic, "unspecified" and "abortive" polio cases, with the dwindling numbers of paralytic cases. Almost two-thirds of this total comprised the milder, "non-paralytic" type. In the minds of millions of peoplethen and nowpolio had meant paralysis. But by combining paralytic cases with the various milder, non-paralytic forms, the public was misled into thinking that paralysis was sweeping the land.

Paralysis started to rise only after the Salk vaccine had begun in April 1955. It proved to be so hazardous that by November 1955, all European countries, with the exception of Denmark, had cancelled or discontinued their Salk vaccine programs. Canada postponed its Salk vaccine program July 29th of that year. In the U.S., Newark, N.J. stopped inoculations in June, 1955, while Idaho and Utah took similar action in July, followed shortly by Massachusetts [Morris Beale's American Capsule News, Oct. 15th, 1955]. By January 1, 1957, 17 states had rejected their supplies of Salk polio vaccine. During that year, the NY Times reported that very nearly half the paralytic cases, and three-quarters of the non-paralytic cases in children between the ages of 5 and 14 years occurred in vaccinated children. After two years of Salk vaccinations, paralytic polio increased nationally about 50% from 1957 to 1958, and about 80% from 1958 to 1959.
The attempt to hide the rise in paralysis occurred after 1955, when viral analysis of coxsackie virus infection and septic meningitis made them distinguishable from paralytic poliomyelitis. But if they had continued to be counted together as a single "polio" disease, it would have showed that paralytic polio increased nationally about 50% from 1957 to 1958, and about 80% from 1958 to 1959two years into the Salk vaccination campaign. In addition to these two polio "twins", there were actually 170 other diseases with "polio-like" symptoms, with names like, spinal meningitis, inhibitory palsy, epidemic cholera, cholera morbus, ergotism, famine fever, billious remittent fever, spinal apoplexy, scurvy, berri-berri, pellagra, acidosis, etc. Each were very likely classified as "polio" during the frenzy prior to 1955. After 1955, NON-paralytic polio also acquired a new name. It wasn't until the mid-1950's that new laboratory techniques of culturing viruses could distinguish THIS polio from its clinical twin, aseptic meningitis. Before 1960, not a single case of "aseptic meningitis" was reported. Then, it was called (non-paralytic) "polio", and nationally had totaled 70,083 between 1951 and 1960. But from 1961 to 1992, there had been 220,365 cases of aseptic meningitis. There were only 589 cases of non-paralytic polio from 1961 to 1982. Not a single case has been reported since. Non-paralytic polio may have "disappeared". But thousands of children still experience the same symptoms as non-paralytic polio every year. Except now, it goes by another name.


Salk vaccinations began in the U.S. in April 1955. Only two months into the Salk campaign, the U.S. Public Health Service, on June 23, 1955, announced that there had been 168 confirmed cases of poliomyelitis among the vaccinated with six deaths. The News Chronicle of May 6, 1955, reported:

"The interval between the inoculation and the first sign of paralysis ranged from 5 to 20 days and in a large proportion of cases it started in the limb on which the injection had been given. Another feature of the tragedy was that the numbers developing polio were far greater than would have been expected had no inoculations been given. In fact, in the state of Idaho, according to a statement by Dr. Carl Eklund, one of the government's chief virus authorities, polio struck only vaccinated children in areas where there had been no cases of polio since the preceding autumn; in 9 out of 10 cases the paralysis occurred in the arms in which the vaccine had been injected."

In June, 1955, James C. Spaulding, a staff writer for the Milwaukee Journal covered an American Medical Association convention. Here is what Spaulding learned and reported on June 19, 1955:

"A policy of secrecy and deception has been followed by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis and the U.S. Public Health Service in the polio vaccine programs. As a result the nation's physicians were prevented from learning vital information about the trouble in making and testing Salk vaccine The secrecy and deception started before the field trials."

"One of the things the AMA was not told was that the USPHS had an advisory group made up almost entirely of scientists who were receiving money from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, which body was exerting pressure to go ahead with the program, even after Salk vaccine was found to be dangerous."

"In May, some state public health officers met in Atlanta, expecting to be told what had gone wrong with the vaccine program. Instead, the USPHS scientist said he was not permitted to disclose what had happened because it would jeopardize the investment of the pharmaceutical firms in the vaccine program."

Suppressed reports condemning the Salk vaccine by technicians at the National Institutes of Health, was reported in, The Drug Story by Morris Bealle. Among the stories carried in this book is the one that James A. Shannon, M.D., of the National Institutes of Health in Washington, D.C., knew about the reports from the Institute's technicians in 1955, that "Salk vaccine was a killer and totally ineffective as a preventative." As a result of these reports of the Institutes Technicians, no official of the NIH would permit the vaccination of their own children with the Salk vaccine. Word of this leaked out when Robert S. Allen, Washington correspondent, reported in the New York Post, June 8, 1955, that "Doctors and others on the staff of the National Institute of Health are not inoculating their own children with the Salk Vaccine." "Nevertheless," says Mr. Bealle, "on orders from higher-ups in the U.S. Public Health Service, they kept quiet and let hundreds of unfortunate children be killed and thousands maimed for life."


An Associated Press Dispatch from Boston on August 30, 1955, reported 2,027 cases of polio in Massachusetts against 273 the same time the previous yearrepresenting an increase of 743%. This followed the inoculation of 130,000 Massachusetts children, and the authorities banned the vaccine. Connecticut reported 276 cases in 1955, up from 144 in 1954; Vermont, 55 up from 15; Rhode Island, 122 up from 22, and Maine, 74 up from 43.

The Washington D.C. Star, September 20, 1955, reported 180 cases in Washington against 136 the same time in 1954; Maryland's Health Department reported 189 in 1955 to 134 in 1954; New York State, 764 to 469; Wisconsin, 1655 to 326. The Milwaukee Journal, on August 30, 1955, reported that the city's schools closed indefinitely because of the polio outbreak, following inoculation with the Salk vaccine. Idaho stopped Salk inoculations completely on July 1, 1955, with this blast from State Health Director Peterson said, "I hold Salk vaccine and its manufacturers responsible for a polio outbreak that has killed 7 Idahoans and hospitalized 79." By September 14th 1955, that state had 190 cases compared with 132 for the entire year of 1954. Newark, N.J. stopped inoculations in June, 1955, while Utah took similar action on July 12.


Polio cases rose about 300 to 400% in these 5 places that made the Salk vaccine compulsory by law:

North Carolina: 78 cases in 1958 before compulsory shots. 313 cases in 1959.
Connecticut: 45 cases in 1958 before compulsory shots. 123 cases in 1959.
Tennessee: 119 cases in 1958 before compulsory shots. 386 cases in 1959. Ohio: 17 cases in 1958 before compulsory shots. 52 cases in 1959. Los Angeles: 89 cases in 1958 before compulsory shots. 190 cases in 1959.

By 1960, the Salk vaccine had proven to be so hazardous and ineffective, that the Journal of the American Medical Association (February 25, 1961) carried an article admitting that, "It is now generally recognized that much of the Salk vaccine used in the U.S. has been worthless."



why dont u do some of ur own research yongrel....proof is everywhere........as a registered nurse i do not recommend vaccines......they do more harm than good.....and as i said before, if all the other children are vaccinated and vaccination gives immunity to the disease, how could an unvaccinated child put any of these other children at risk? Only the child himself could be at risk for the disease, and that should be the business of that particular child and his or her parents. It should be virtually impossible, if vaccinations actually work, for an unvaccinated child who may get a particular disease, to give it to other children who have been vaccinated.

----------


## Johnny Crab

> Doctors are being lied to just as the general public are led to believe these vaccines are safe.


As are school nurses.
You should do what YOU feel is right for YOUR child PERIOD.

My recent experience.
My wife mentioned to me that the school nurse suggested that our 15 year old daughter get vaccinated with the HPV vaccine. I said "No. Wait and let me research it first". 
What I found is that the FDA's own site says:
It(Gardasil) is proven "safe and effective"(_"FDA has approved Gardasil as safe and effective for use in females ages 9-26 years"_ http://www.fda.gov/cber/products/hpvmer060806qa.htm  Read # 14) AND also implies that adverse reactions are "unexpected and rare"(Read # 15 in link above).

Wonderful. BUT upon further research one may stumble across FDAnews news that summarizes what only FOIA requests could obtain. The VAERS(Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) reports for Gardasil. Summary: _There have been 3,461 reports of adverse events, including a maximum of 11 deaths, in patients receiving Merck’s cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil_. 
DETAILED VAERS info: http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...ERSUpdated.PDF
Rare adverse cases: http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...Deaths0907.pdf

Then one finds this from a leading researcher for this type of vaccine:
http://www.kpcnews.com/articles/2007...cine/hpv01.txt

I told my daughter under no condition was she to let ANYONE give her that stuff. I also told her that she had my permission to use any karate, USMC(her older brother), or other defensive measures(as in fighting for your life) to get out of there and call me ASAP if ANYONE tried to forcefully give her the stuff.

My 2 cents.

YOUR child belongs to YOU.
The decision(s) belong to YOU.

----------


## katjust

If you don't immunize your daughter against the really bad diseases (I'm not talking about the flu, although that kills young ones all the time too) then you are neglecting your child.  While you are not malicious, you have neglected a primary duty.  There is absolutely no reputable evidence of vaccinations (on the hold) doing even close to more harm than good.

Now, I am not saying you are a bad person, what I am saying is that you are an irrational person, just like every other person on here who believes that you should stop immunizing your child.  

I am saying this as a father of an 8 month old, and having looked into the issue.  I've also taught college classes in rationality/philosophy of science.  I am saying this only to tell you that there are conspiracists out there who are VERY confused about how to make a decent argument, and they are being pulled in by confirmation bias (an inductive fallacy).  That is the only reason people fear vaccinations.  

PLEASE vaccinate your children.  



> I've been reading about vaccinations and the dangers, and I've almost convinced my fiance to stop allowing the doctors to inject our 7 month old daughter with these toxins.  She still has a mentality that they must do more good than bad because they're protecting her from diseases.
> Anyways, I'm really worried about my daughter and I'm going to list off her vaccination record thus far and ask for some of you help and advice.
> 
> Here's her record so far:
> 
> Vaccine			Dose				Immunization Date
> 
> DTaP-				3-				1/19/2008
> 
> ...

----------


## katjust

> why dont u do some of ur own research yongrel....proof is everywhere........as a registered nurse i do not recommend vaccines......they do more harm than good.....and as i said before, if all the other children are vaccinated and vaccination gives immunity to the disease, how could an unvaccinated child put any of these other children at risk? Only the child himself could be at risk for the disease, and that should be the business of that particular child and his or her parents. It should be virtually impossible, if vaccinations actually work, for an unvaccinated child who may get a particular disease, to give it to other children who have been vaccinated.


Please cite your sources.  I can pull a bunch of info from websites supporting any spurious point of view.  Given the fact that most of your info is from 50 year old newspaper articles I am skeptical.

Futhermore, your claim that vaccinating children should be up to the parent is fine (I am not going to argue for mandatory vaccinations), but to say that it is between parent and child is nonsense.  A child cannot choose whether to vaccinated.  They will believe what their parent tells them.  That's like saying it's between the parent and child as to whether they have sex with one another.  You know as well as I do that a child can't make that decision.

Also, since a majority of doctors recommend vaccinations (including Dr. Paul) I'm hesitant to take the advice of a registered nurse.

----------


## katjust

> As are school nurses.
> You should do what YOU feel is right for YOUR child PERIOD.
> 
> My recent experience.
> My wife mentioned to me that the school nurse suggested that our 15 year old daughter get vaccinated with the HPV vaccine. I said "No. Wait and let me research it first". 
> What I found is that the FDA's own site says:
> It(Gardasil) is proven "safe and effective"(_"FDA has approved Gardasil as safe and effective for use in females ages 9-26 years"_ http://www.fda.gov/cber/products/hpvmer060806qa.htm  Read # 14) AND also implies that adverse reactions are "unexpected and rare"(Read # 15 in link above).
> 
> Wonderful. BUT upon further research one may stumble across FDAnews news that summarizes what only FOIA requests could obtain. The VAERS(Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) reports for Gardasil. Summary: _There have been 3,461 reports of adverse events, including a maximum of 11 deaths, in patients receiving Merck’s cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil_. 
> ...



Do you know that HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer?  I have known more than one person with cervical cancer.  All had HPV first.  Gardisil can almost guarantee that your daughter will not get cervical cancer(and it kills a lot more than 11 people).  That facts are that the vaccine will kill a fraction of those that cervical cancer will kill.

----------


## ItsTime

So whats your point?  Gardisil can come no where near claiming that she will not get cervical cancer.

And it is a PERSONAL CHOICE if the person wants to take that chance, not the governments and not \your choice to make for another person. 

I should have stopped listening to you once you said you were a teacher.





> Do you know that HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer?  I have known more than one person with cervical cancer.  All had HPV first.  Gardisil can almost guarantee that your daughter will not get cervical cancer(and it kills a lot more than 11 people).  That facts are that the vaccine will kill a fraction of those that cervical cancer will kill.

----------


## christagious

And isn't HPV a sexually transmitted disease?  I would think that if a parent can properly raise their daughter to not be a slut then this would be something to not worry about.  

By the way I appreciate all of the advice given so far from both the pro and anti vaccine people.

----------


## yongrel

> And isn't HPV a sexually transmitted disease?  I would think that if a parent can properly raise their daughter to not be a slut then this would be something to not worry about.  
> 
> By the way I appreciate all of the advice given so far from both the pro and anti vaccine people.


It's not just sluts that get HPV. No more than it is just sluts who get syphilis, herpes, crabs, chlamydia, or HIV. Sexually transmitted diseases are a major risk for any sexually active person, not just the promiscuous ones.

The reality of the matter is that the vaccinations now available have been proven to protect against HPV, which translates into protecting against cervical cancer. Deaths as a result of vaccinations are freak accidents. The 3,870 women who will die from cervical cancer in 2008 are not.

----------


## ItsTime

So you need to mandate vaccination because of 3,870 people? Again all this is moot. It is A PERSONAL CHOICE and should not be mandated ever.




> It's not just sluts that get HPV. No more than it is just sluts who get syphilis, herpes, crabs, chlamydia, or HIV. Sexually transmitted diseases are a major risk for any sexually active person, not just the promiscuous ones.
> 
> The reality of the matter is that the vaccinations now available have been proven to protect against HPV, which translates into protecting against cervical cancer. Deaths as a result of vaccinations are freak accidents. The 3,870 women who will die from cervical cancer in 2008 are not.

----------


## Renegades

> And isn't HPV a sexually transmitted disease?  I would think that if a parent can properly raise their daughter to not be a slut then this would be something to not worry about.


Shut the hell up.

----------


## constituent

> And isn't HPV a sexually transmitted disease?  I would think that if a parent can properly raise their daughter to not be a slut then this would be something to not worry about.


i would expect something like this to come from a user with a name like "christ"agious

----------


## yongrel

> So you need to mandate vaccination because of 3,870 people? Again all this is moot. It is A PERSONAL CHOICE and should not be mandated ever.


I agree that it shouldn't be a mandate. However, I also think that every girl should get this shot. By their parents and their own choice, every girl in America should receive this shot.

----------


## Renegades

^ Thank goodness for people like you with some sense and not powered practically by blind faith and confirmation bias.
I got all my shots, but man thankfully I did. I don't want to know what would've happened when I caught the chicken pox, or some serious flu a couple of times without the shots. Not to mention when I got poked by a few rusty pieces of metal.

----------


## familydog

For God sake I would suggest not taking medical advice from strangers on the internet, or strangers anywhere. Talk to doctors about this, get many opinions if you feel necessary. They are professionals for a reason. It's the same as us trusting Ron Paul on economics (along with everything else) he has studied it, he has worked with it, he knows it, we trust him on it. For the health of your daughter, at least consult some professionals.

----------


## christagious

> Shut the hell up.


I don't really know what you mean by this, but whatever Mr. 39 Posts.







> i would expect something like this to come from a user with a name like "christ"agious


Just shows some ignorance on your part.  I was just saying if you can teach your daughter to be smart you wouldn't have to worry about HPV, at least teach your children the concept of protection.  My daughter will not be getting the HPV vaccine, there's some dangerous stuff in that and some girls have died from it.  I"ll be teaching my daughter some morals and teach her to be smart if she decides to have sex.

And my username has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.  Actually I'm still quite confused as to what I believe for sure.  My name is Chris and I was trying to think of something that would be cool to go with that.  My friend's name is Zeb and he has a username of zebulation on some forums.  I've always liked the Johnny Rotten/Justin Sane kind of things so I decided to combine my name "Chris" with the word "CONTAGIOUS".  So it has nothing to do with "christ".  BOOYAKASHA

----------


## christagious

> It's not just sluts that get HPV. No more than it is just sluts who get syphilis, herpes, crabs, chlamydia, or HIV. Sexually transmitted diseases are a major risk for any sexually active person, not just the promiscuous ones.
> 
> The reality of the matter is that the vaccinations now available have been proven to protect against HPV, which translates into protecting against cervical cancer. Deaths as a result of vaccinations are freak accidents. The 3,870 women who will die from cervical cancer in 2008 are not.


Well, maybe I shouldn't have said "sluts" but aren't condoms or a set of morals and common sense a lot better than a vaccination that has been known to do some serious damage to girls.  And if you believe in Eugenics, I'd think that this could be just another way to sterilize people.

----------


## Cinderella

http://www.truveo.com/HPV-Bomb-HPV-V.../id/3767680203

this video is great at explaining HPV.....lots of sources cited from american medical journal and FDA.....sooooo great the FDA approves this vaccine and recommends all women 9-26 to get it.....and the FDA approves that RFID chip....maybe we should get that too!!! There is no proof Gardasil will stop cervical cancer...They haven't been studying it long enough to make that claim. thank god for the FDA making all these important decisions for us....wake up people and do ur research...i understand those who say dont take advice from people online...but seriously doctors are also misimformed about vaccines....

----------


## BigRedBrent

> In my immediate family I ALSO have an example of DPT and MMR correlated fever, seizure and crying. Directly correlated, to the very day. And then autism was found later. This isn't rocket science. Anti-vaccine people have nothing to gain by sharing their views. They're not the ones making profits off of the vaccines. It is so personally painful to me to see healthy children suffer from preventable brain damage.


It tears me apart that I have an identical case with my first born son who had more vaccinations than I ever thought anyone should have have. But my daughter who I have restricted vaccinations for has developed fine with no detectable health problems.

From what I have read, my situation is identical to many MANY other situations in homes across this nation. And it angers me greatly to think that my son might have had the opportunity to have a better life if I might have known the risks. I thought I was being a good parent when they injected him with numerous vaccinations in a single day.




> Of course. The time that children start to naturally show signs of "Autism" (an umbrella term for a multitude of disorders) is around the time they are getting their vaccinations. This is the time when symptoms start to show  up whether they get vaccinations or not. This is why so many people (despite no science to back them up) stubbornly continue to believe there is a link when all peer reviewed research (not research done by the autism advocates themselves) has shown that there is no link.


It is sickening that you would attribute an explosion in autistic cases as just coincidence. To you it may sound likely to be the case, but statistical mathematics are strongly against your arguments. The reason vaccines have become the suspect is by process of elimination.

----------


## soapmistress

Ron Paul on immunizations:  http://www.planetc1.com/cgi-bin/n/v....&id=1202334997

Dr Jay Gordon http://www.drjaygordon.com/developme...ccoverview.asp

Dr William Sears
http://www.askdrsears.com/thevaccinebook/

----------


## christagious

> .i understand those who say dont take advice from people online...but seriously doctors are also misimformed about vaccines....


Exactly.  Just like college professors are misguided as well, which explains why so many of them are liberal socialists and doctors are drug and vaccine pushers.

----------


## ItsTime

And my one of my favorite quotes of Ron Pauls; "Your children are not property of the  government" paraphrased. 




> Ron Paul on immunizations:  http://www.planetc1.com/cgi-bin/n/v....&id=1202334997
> 
> Dr Jay Gordon http://www.drjaygordon.com/developme...ccoverview.asp
> 
> Dr William Sears
> http://www.askdrsears.com/thevaccinebook/

----------


## soapmistress

> Gardisil can almost guarantee that your daughter will not get cervical cancer


No - actually Gardisil cannot almost guarantee anything.  

According to Kaiser there are 30 strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer.  They go on to state that "Gardasil prevents infection of four strains of HPVtwo strains (16, 18) that cause 70% of cervical cancer cases and two strains (6, 11) that cause 90% of genital warts cases. It does not protect against all types of cervical cancer-causing HPV. Therefore, regular Pap tests remain a critical tool for early detection of precancerous cells. "

So what's the significance of the other 30% of women who get the shot and still get cervical cancer from HPV or other sources?  A lot.  That's twice the margin of pregnancies that occur when a condom is properly used.  And we all know that a condom is not an "almost guarantee" that you won't get pregnant.

----------


## Cinderella

> No - actually Gardisil cannot almost guarantee anything.  
> 
> According to Kaiser there are 30 strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer.  They go on to state that "Gardasil prevents infection of four strains of HPVtwo strains (16, 18) that cause 70% of cervical cancer cases and two strains (6, 11) that cause 90% of genital warts cases. It does not protect against all types of cervical cancer-causing HPV. Therefore, regular Pap tests remain a critical tool for early detection of precancerous cells. "
> 
> So what's the significance of the other 30% of women who get the shot and still get cervical cancer from HPV or other sources?  A lot.  That's twice the margin of pregnancies that occur when a condom is properly used.  And we all know that a condom is not an "almost guarantee" that you won't get pregnant.


thank u mistress with a brain!!!  i hate that rather than teaching abstinence they come up with these vaccines...which promote teens to continue to have unprotected sex....what they need is an education...they need to stop splashing sex all over tv and cartoons and movies....they need to stop commercializing sex and making young people think sex and being sexual is what they have to be.....it makes me sick....

----------


## soapmistress

> since a majority of doctors recommend vaccinations (including Dr. Paul) I'm hesitant to take the advice of a registered nurse.


I respectfully disagree with this statement.  I think it is misleading.

Dr Paul's position stands in stark contrast to the agressive, inclusive vaccination schedule adhered to by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

----------


## Cinderella

katjust ........just so u know, while ur in the hospital, its a registered nurse thats knows all about u....its the registered nurse who keeps u stable gives u ur meds and performs most health procedures and perform daily assessments and are the first to notice when things go wrong....we give doctors the info about the patients....in turn the doctors ask US what we think is the right thing to do....doctors would be lost with out good educated nurses.......i see u have no idea what goes on behind the scenes at a hospital....nurses run the hospital....

----------


## soapmistress

Just throwing this out there -- 


IF you were to end up in a FEMA camp, you'd better hope you didn't get a chicken pox shot as a kid.   They wear off you know?  But then you won't have the same immunity which you'd have had from a normal case of childhood chicken pox.  Instead you'd likely end up with a case of shingles as an adult instead.  Not pretty!  Now we know why people have chicken-pox parties for their kids.

----------


## soapmistress

I better be quiet.

If refusing or delaying shots is neglect then I guess a chicken-pox party is abuse.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Also, since a majority of doctors recommend vaccinations (including Dr. Paul) I'm hesitant to take the advice of a registered nurse.


That's blatantly untrue.  Ron Paul is on record opposed to forced vaccinations and mental health screening of Americans.  Dr. Paul said, "We must stop federal government interference with our freedom to choose what we eat and how we take care of our health."

Dr Paul also authored HR 2117 to ensure that Americans have access to uncensored information regarding supplements and remedies.  He opposes the UN CODEX program (World Food Code), and supports HR 2717, the access to medical treatment act, allowing Americans to CHOOSE the kind of healthcare they desire.

----------


## HollyforRP

Aspartame, formaldehyde and mercury can be found in vaccines.  Does anyone really still trust the fda?

Ritalin is prescribed to hyperactive kids

Risperdal to children with autism and aspergers 

Many children started displaying their austistic traits after vaccines.



HPV vaccine and deaths

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907188/posts

"The adverse reports coming from the HPV vaccine are increasing daily at an alarming rate.  A LifeSiteNews.com report which scanned a publicly available database of adverse affects coming from the HPV vaccine found 3,137 adverse effects reported on September 28, 2007.  Today the US Government's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) lists 3,779 adverse effects.  52 of the cases were deemed "life threatening" and 119 required hospitalization.

In one case highlighted by Judicial Watch a 17 year old girl who was vaccinated in June 2007 died the very day she was vaccinated.  According to the report, she "was vaccinated with a first dose of Gardasil…During the evening of the same day, the patient was found unconscious (lifeless) by the mother. Resuscitation was performed by the emergency physician but was unsuccessful.  The patient subsequently died."





Drug companies benefit and are profiting.  Why should there be additives like aspartame in vaccines?

----------


## yongrel

> Drug companies benefit and are profiting.  Why should there be additives like aspartame in vaccines?


Do you drink Diet Coke?

----------


## Estanislao

To understand WHY, you have to understand 'their' agenda.
Eugenics, Agenda 21, etc. They 'need' to eliminate 90% of the population for 'sustainable growth'. While population control/management seems reasonable, what they aren't telling you is their timeline. 2020. 1/3 by 2012. That's a lot of people (billions) they need to (in their mind) justifiably kill in just a few short, bloody years. Chemtrails, Bird Flu, nuclear war, vaccines, etc. 
If McCain wins, they'll go the route of nuclear war.
If Hillary wins, they'll go the route of plague. (why do you think their pushing government healthcare?)
With government healthcare, you will get manditory payment (garnished wages), manditory vaccinations, quarentines, pysche evaluations, internment by the millions, probably a verichip to confirm you don't have Bird Flu etc. Not a pretty picture, and more real than I can convey. But 2 years ago, you would have never believed that the U.S. would condone torture or that your government would be allowed to spy on you. We are so zombied out that we don't even look at the sky and wonder what they're spraying us with... wtf.

----------


## Renegades

> To understand WHY, you have to understand 'their' agenda.
> Eugenics, Agenda 21, etc. They 'need' to eliminate 90% of the population for 'sustainable growth'. While population control/management seems reasonable, what they aren't telling you is their timeline. 2020. 1/3 by 2012. That's a lot of people (billions) they need to (in their mind) justifiably kill in just a few short, bloody years. Chemtrails, Bird Flu, nuclear war, vaccines, etc. 
> If McCain wins, they'll go the route of nuclear war.
> If Hillary wins, they'll go the route of plague. (why do you think their pushing government healthcare?)
> With government healthcare, you will get manditory payment (garnished wages), manditory vaccinations, quarentines, pysche evaluations, internment by the millions, probably a verichip to confirm you don't have Bird Flu etc. Not a pretty picture, and more real than I can convey. But 2 years ago, you would have never believed that the U.S. would condone torture or that your government would be allowed to spy on you. We are so zombied out that we don't even look at the sky and wonder what they're spraying us with... wtf.


lol I lost you at the chemtrails.

----------


## A. Havnes

> Avoid these shots since autism is now 1 in 75 kids.  Eli Lilly is protected under the patriot act of being sued for wrongful death or injury.  There are still vials tainted with mercury out there.  Doctors are being lied to just as the general public are led to believe these vaccines are safe.


Eli Lilly is one of the most evil companies out there.  They lie about everything!  All the way from vaccines, to psychotropic drugs, to other conventional medicine.  Well, the entire psychiatric community lies, but Eli Lilly is one of the worst.

----------


## Cinderella

lol @ chicken pox parties!!  its true tho...u get life time immunity when u experience and live through it...if u only vaccinate u have to be sure to take ur booster shots when ur due or else u can be vulnerable to those diseases.....

----------


## Dave39168

You are lucky to be in a state that allows for philosophical exemptions. In Mississippi, we have to 'lie' and say we have a 'religous' objection in order to have a say in what shots our kids get. My advice would be research them and decide which shots you want her to have. Wait until she's older and spread them out over a long period of time.

----------


## Roxi

very good thread... i decided last year to opt out of the whole vaccination thing and have had a WONDERFUL time getting it through peoples heads that im not abusing my child.... in our state you have to sign an affadavit saying you are against them for religious or some other reasons in order for them to go to school... and try explaining that to the school nurse... its not easy



my advice is talk to a naturopathic doctor (i know a good one in oklahoma that could give you advice) most of them will have the form you will want to have to take to school with you when that time comes as well

AND please don't let people make you feel bad, or crazy for doing this..... you will be the one saying i told you so in later years, IMHO

----------


## dannno

Thank you, Cinderella, for clearing this all up for us. I hope those who needed to read your posts.

----------


## hairball

Uhhhh, yeah.  Thanks for the suicide party you guys are having with your little gathering.  But you did remind me of something with your incredible babble and justification for child neglect, endagerment and abuse...
Time for me to get my vaccs.  Time to help out all those 'evil' drug companies.

----------


## Roxi

> Polio was already declining in the U.S. and Europe during the 40's and 50's, as well as in England, where polio mortalities was at its height in 1950, but had declined 82 percent by 1956, before the Salk vaccinations began there. There was also no polio epidemic in the Third-World, where only 10 per cent of the population had been vaccinated.  
>  But the Public Health Service and the March Of Dimes campaign swelled the statistics by combining the larger numbers of non-paralytic, "unspecified" and "abortive" polio cases, with the dwindling numbers of paralytic cases. Almost two-thirds of this total comprised the milder, "non-paralytic" type. In the minds of millions of peoplethen and nowpolio had meant paralysis. But by combining paralytic cases with the various milder, non-paralytic forms, the public was misled into thinking that paralysis was sweeping the land.
> 
> Paralysis started to rise only after the Salk vaccine had begun in April 1955. It proved to be so hazardous that by November 1955, all European countries, with the exception of Denmark, had cancelled or discontinued their Salk vaccine programs. Canada postponed its Salk vaccine program July 29th of that year. In the U.S., Newark, N.J. stopped inoculations in June, 1955, while Idaho and Utah took similar action in July, followed shortly by Massachusetts [Morris Beale's American Capsule News, Oct. 15th, 1955]. By January 1, 1957, 17 states had rejected their supplies of Salk polio vaccine. During that year, the NY Times reported that very nearly half the paralytic cases, and three-quarters of the non-paralytic cases in children between the ages of 5 and 14 years occurred in vaccinated children. After two years of Salk vaccinations, paralytic polio increased nationally about 50% from 1957 to 1958, and about 80% from 1958 to 1959.
> The attempt to hide the rise in paralysis occurred after 1955, when viral analysis of coxsackie virus infection and septic meningitis made them distinguishable from paralytic poliomyelitis. But if they had continued to be counted together as a single "polio" disease, it would have showed that paralytic polio increased nationally about 50% from 1957 to 1958, and about 80% from 1958 to 1959two years into the Salk vaccination campaign. In addition to these two polio "twins", there were actually 170 other diseases with "polio-like" symptoms, with names like, spinal meningitis, inhibitory palsy, epidemic cholera, cholera morbus, ergotism, famine fever, billious remittent fever, spinal apoplexy, scurvy, berri-berri, pellagra, acidosis, etc. Each were very likely classified as "polio" during the frenzy prior to 1955. After 1955, NON-paralytic polio also acquired a new name. It wasn't until the mid-1950's that new laboratory techniques of culturing viruses could distinguish THIS polio from its clinical twin, aseptic meningitis. Before 1960, not a single case of "aseptic meningitis" was reported. Then, it was called (non-paralytic) "polio", and nationally had totaled 70,083 between 1951 and 1960. But from 1961 to 1992, there had been 220,365 cases of aseptic meningitis. There were only 589 cases of non-paralytic polio from 1961 to 1982. Not a single case has been reported since. Non-paralytic polio may have "disappeared". But thousands of children still experience the same symptoms as non-paralytic polio every year. Except now, it goes by another name.
> 
> 
> Salk vaccinations began in the U.S. in April 1955. Only two months into the Salk campaign, the U.S. Public Health Service, on June 23, 1955, announced that there had been 168 confirmed cases of poliomyelitis among the vaccinated with six deaths. The News Chronicle of May 6, 1955, reported:
> 
> ...


LOL - great post.... we do agree on something

----------


## dannno

> Time to help out all those 'evil' drug companies.


That was your 187th post.

----------


## hairball

> That was your 187th post.


Cool, if nothing else, this proves you can at least count.

----------


## dannno

> Cool, if nothing else, this proves you can at least count.


If you have been paying attention, the scientific community is at odds with itself over this issue. 

Unfortunately, the scientific articles you happen to believe have also been discredited. Real evidence and anecdotal evidence also suggest you are wrong. I hope you look into this issue further, because right now you are lost and you are not helping people.

----------


## Cinderella

thanks roxic!!!

----------


## hairball

> If you have been paying attention, the scientific community is at odds with itself over this issue. 
> 
> Unfortunately, the scientific articles you happen to believe have also been discredited. Real evidence and anecdotal evidence also suggest you are wrong. I hope you look into this issue further, because right now you are lost and you are not helping people.



You mis-read me, and I believe intentionally since you have an axe to grind. 

I don't.  I have read, past, present and forcast.  I know the good and the bad that vaccines do.  I do not buy into the faddish notiont that they are all bad.  Considering I grew up in a time when un-vaccinated kids were being crippled and killed by many diseases that are now almost gone.  That is one fact that is undeniable, and even the medical community, then and now, acknowledge that.

What they are debating is the propriety of giving so much so soon, and what is needed.

I am nowhere near lost, but thanks for the guidance, your directions are off a bit.  People are supposed to help themselves.  I offer a bit of advice and insight, but it is up to people how they want to commit suicide, or not.

----------


## thompsonisland

I have yet to encounter a pro-vaxer on this forum who is willing to enter into an open discussion of the science of the topic, and you have been introduced to the incredible bull$#@! and hyperbole that they do have to offer in this thread.  

Now, to the meat of the matter.  This is an extremely complex issue, and anyone who says that the full schedule, on schedule, is the only way to go or you are guilty of neglect, isn't interested in the nuances of the issue and probably isn't worth having a discussion with.   

Anyone here who claims to know the answer knows something that honest scientists don't.  

I have tried to debate it here, and gotten nowhere.  For pro-vax info, all you need is the CDC, but be careful where you read because there is openly contradictory information depending on whom they think they are addressing.  For a discussion, I engage at www.insidevaccines.com, among other places.

Good luck on this journey, it's a life-long one.

----------


## SweetMona

I am not sure if this is right place for me to post my question...

My friend just had baby boy on March 26th. He was born 4 week earlier. The doctor did three blood transfusion while she was pregnant with him. He was anemic since his blood type's O and hers AB. She had to take IV with Antibodics. (Third times). When he was born, the doctor predicted that he would have yellow jaundice but didn't get it so he took several days of IV with Antibodics too! He was at hospital for 5 days.

He's now home with mommy but the doctor made sure she put him on Oxygen machine. I tried to explain this with her several times and asked her not to please take him for first shots. She did not believe me that vaccination could impact on his health. I asked her to just be on safe side and that he is not legally required for immunization shots. I begged her to please wait 2 years until her son's system is stronger enough to handle the incoming chemicals from shots. She kept on saying that those doctors are best and top ones. She did share my concerns with them and they laughed at me. They told her not to listen me.

I need your help and what would you do if you were in my shoes? She already asked me to be her baby's God-Mother. I have mixed feelings about this.

----------


## yongrel

> I am not sure if this is right place for me to post my question...
> 
> My friend just had baby boy on March 26th. He was born 4 week earlier. The doctor did three blood transfusion while she was pregnant with him. He was anemic since his blood type's O and hers AB. She had to take IV with Antibodics. (Third times). When he was born, the doctor predicted that he would have yellow jaundice but didn't get it so he took several days of IV with Antibodics too! He was at hospital for 5 days.
> 
> He's now home with mommy but the doctor made sure she put him on Oxygen machine. I tried to explain this with her several times and asked her not to please take him for first shots. She did not believe me that vaccination could impact on his health. I asked her to just be on safe side and that he is not legally required for immunization shots. I begged her to please wait 2 years until her son's system is stronger enough to handle the incoming chemicals from shots. She kept on saying that those doctors are best and top ones. She did share my concerns with them and they laughed at me. They told her not to listen me.
> 
> I need your help and what would you do if you were in my shoes? She already asked me to be her baby's God-Mother. I have mixed feelings about this.


I am glad for her son's health that she ignored you.

----------


## SweetMona

You are entitled to disagree with my opinion but I ask you why can't the mother just wait two years and make sure there's no candidatias growth and no leaky gut syndrome which could be attributed to Autism, ADHD, severe allergic reaction to foods, etc....

Read this link and explain why you do not agree with this. Thank you.
http://healthychristianliving.com/le...t_syndrome.htm

----------


## yongrel

> You are entitled to disagree with my opinion but I ask you why can't the mother just wait two years and make sure there's no candidatias growth and no leaky gut syndrome which could be attributed to Autism, ADHD, severe allergic reaction to foods, etc....


Why can't the mother take two years? Polio springs to mind. The measles is another ones. Diphtheria ain't too much fun. Whooping cough is no laugh. So on and so forth.

----------


## ItsTime

You just named a bunch of illnesses that have almost a ZERO chance a child will get it.




> Why can't the mother take two years? Polio springs to mind. The measles is another ones. Diphtheria ain't too much fun. Whooping cough is no laugh. So on and so forth.

----------


## yongrel

> You just named a bunch of illnesses that have almost a ZERO chance a child will get it.


Thanks to vaccines.

----------


## ItsTime

what is the chance of getting the black death? what vaccine did they use?




> Thanks to vaccines.

----------


## SweetMona

And the milk coming from mother's breastfeeding will take care of his health... building a stronger immune system first which would prevent leaky gut syndrome (that is no laugh too).... By the time he becomes a healthy child then he could have the sequential shots prior to kindergarten school. It is okay to wait few more years, that's nothing wrong with it...

----------


## yongrel

> what is the chance of getting the black death? what vaccine did they use?


They burned London to the ground. That helped. Ask Samuel Pepys.

----------


## soapmistress

I delay vaccinations until the first year in conjunction with exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months and then breastfeeding + food throughout the rest of the first two years.

----------


## pinkmandy

Mona,

There is nothing you can do other than send her some links to websites. She must do her own research and learn things for hersel (or the hard way, I did that and it's the worst way to learn  ). 

I do hope she is breastfeeding because if she is then she is passing on all of her antibodies to her baby. I pity people like her who don't do their own research and those on this board who are so convinced everyone will die w/out vaccinations (not really because they have been shown REPEATEDLY why that isn't true). There is very little discussion to be had with them- they aren't interested in discussion so it is best to ignore them. There are here to bait and that is all. Several people have posed questions, they ignore them. They can't wrap their heads around the truth, they cling to the old lies that vaccinations brought about the end of diseases and kids who don't have them are living in danger of death. 

You're a good friend but try not to stress out too much. One thing that may help is printing out the warning label from all the vaccinations themselves (encephalitis, intestinal damage, chronic ear infections, death, etc.) and enlarging the side effects section (the print is SO small) and giving her those along w/the ingredients list. They used to have those on the CDC website.

----------


## Cinderella

> Why can't the mother take two years? Polio springs to mind. The measles is another ones. Diphtheria ain't too much fun. Whooping cough is no laugh. So on and so forth.


if everyone elses kids are vaccinated and "protected" from these diseases then her baby should be fine....she is a good friend with reasonable concerns and i think waiting a couple years would be best for him especially considering his health conditions....but the thing is, for many years, people have been made to believe these vaccines are for our better good so it is very difficult to convince them otherwise...


********i really hope everything turns out ok

----------


## yongrel

> if everyone elses kids are vaccinated and "protected" from these diseases then her baby should be fine


That's like saying, "Everyone else on the road has car insurance, so I don't need to get it."

It's irresponsible and jeopardizes the health of the child.

----------


## Kade

> If you have been paying attention, the scientific community is at odds with itself over this issue. 
> 
> Unfortunately, the scientific articles you happen to believe have also been discredited. Real evidence and anecdotal evidence also suggest you are wrong. I hope you look into this issue further, because right now you are lost and you are not helping people.


Do not speak for a group of people you have demonstrated you know nothing about.

Seriously. 

The only people in disagreement are morons and people who have never had a paper peer reviewed who continue to call themselves scientists.

----------


## Kade

Do you know how ridiculous this thread is... my word, breathtaking inanity. 

Get your damn kids vaccinated you morons.

----------


## pinkmandy

> Do you know how ridiculous this thread is... my word, breathtaking inanity. 
> 
> Get your damn kids vaccinated you morons.


I did. Then his fever shot up. Seizures. Encephalitis. Guess what? That's a KNOWN side effect on the vaccine insert. The next day? He could no longer speak. AT ALL. He finally started again after a few months but it all came out wrong and was literally jibberish. I have been advised NOT to vaccinate anymore by our pediatrician. 

I'm so sick of people like you jumping into threads like this. You have ZERO personal experience and have avoided every question on this thread posed by anti-vaccinators. Instead, you are a mouthpiece for those who spread lies like vaccines wiped out diseases (instead of researching for yourself and finding that most diseases had already declined significantly prior to the introduction of vaccines) or the absolute nonesense that vaccines are safe (and if we don't fight them in Iraq we have to fight them here, right?). They have NEVER been proven safe. Do yourself a favor and think for yourself instead of spreading propaganda. 

Feel free to prove me wrong and actually give thoughtful answers to some of the questions posed. Otherwise, you're wasting your time here.

----------


## Kade

> I did. Then his fever shot up. Seizures. Encephalitis. Guess what? That's a KNOWN side effect on the vaccine insert. The next day? He could no longer speak. AT ALL. He finally started again after a few months but it all came out wrong and was literally jibberish. I have been advised NOT to vaccinate anymore by our pediatrician. 
> 
> I'm so sick of people like you jumping into threads like this. You have ZERO personal experience and have avoided every question on this thread posed by anti-vaccinators. Instead, you are a mouthpiece for those who spread lies like vaccines wiped out diseases (instead of researching for yourself and finding that most diseases had already declined significantly prior to the introduction of vaccines) or the absolute nonesense that vaccines are safe (and if we don't fight them in Iraq we have to fight them here, right?). They have NEVER been proven safe. Do yourself a favor and think for yourself instead of spreading propaganda. 
> 
> Feel free to prove me wrong and actually give thoughtful answers to some of the questions posed. Otherwise, you're wasting your time here.


I'm sorry that you had a bad experience. It's rare, but it happens. While we are at it, we should ban cars of the street, outlaw sex and any other activity that has the potential of harm...

----------


## pinkmandy

> I'm sorry that you had a bad experience. It's rare, but it happens. While we are at it, we should ban cars of the street, outlaw sex and any other activity that has the potential of harm...


No, if you were actually sorry you'd do your own research before making comments and calling people morons. It isn't just me you should apologize to. 

As for banning cars or anything else that causes harm, that's ridiculous. The govt doesn't mandate we have sex, drive cars, or anything else that could kill us (or our children). That's MY problem w/it. Healthcare is a personal decision. Putting the power back into the hands of the parents who are then able to REFUSE to inject their children with anything that isn't proven safe will result in accountability and safer vaccinations. It will also result in more discussion about vaccinations.


Man, how I'd love to have a govt sanctioned product that every single American is told they must obtain AND on top of that to not be liable for any damage I cause with my product? Wow.

----------


## hairball

Kade, we agree.  Reactions happen, but are rare.  One of the major reasons for many of the childhood diseases being defeated is the vaccination programs instituted.  Now they seem too eager to put too much into kids, but there are vaccines that are critical to the health and well-being of the child.  As a grand-father, my brothers and I were vassinated, and are my own kids, my grand kids, my wife, and her whole family.  In four generations of kids being vaccinated, not one of us has ever had an adverse reaction.

Certainly beats pertusis and polio.

----------


## yongrel

> Kade, we agree.  Reactions happen, but are rare.  One of the major reasons for many of the childhood diseases being defeated is the vaccination programs instituted.  Now they seem too eager to put too much into kids, but there are vaccines that are critical to the health and well-being of the child.  As a grand-father, my brothers and I were vassinated, and are my own kids, my grand kids, my wife, and her whole family.  In four generations of kids being vaccinated, not one of us has ever had an adverse reaction.
> 
> Certainly beats pertusis and polio.


When my grandfather was 9 years old, 1 in 3 children in his town had polio, including him. Epidemics are fun, huh?

Thanks to vaccines, we don't see that anymore. I'll take a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of negative side effects over 1 in 3 chance of polio anyday.

----------


## pinkmandy

> Kade, we agree.  Reactions happen, but are rare.  One of the major reasons for many of the childhood diseases being defeated is the vaccination programs instituted.  Now they seem too eager to put too much into kids, but there are vaccines that are critical to the health and well-being of the child.  As a grand-father, my brothers and I were vassinated, and are my own kids, my grand kids, my wife, and her whole family.  In four generations of kids being vaccinated, not one of us has ever had an adverse reaction.
> 
> Certainly beats pertusis and polio.


Pertussis: Rarely dangerous in a normal person over the age of 6 months. Most dangerous in infants under 6 months of age but breastfeeding will provide immunity against it. Formula fed babies are at greater risk. However, the vaccine doesn't provide complete immunity until AFTER the deadly time period of under 6 months. Nice, eh? 

Polio: It is a FACT that the only cases of polio in the western hemisphere in the past few decades were actually caused by the vaccinations. It is also a FACT that when the polio vaccine was introduced the epidemic was largely already over and many who got the vax ALSO got polio! And to top it off those who got the vax and polio were 10 times more likely to have paralytic polio, usually starting right at the injection site. But who cares about facts...please carry on with believing the lies you've been fed in the name of big money, um, I mean public safety. 

And Hairball, it's only this last generation where we are giving too many. What you had, what your kids had are NOTHING compared to what a little child is getting today. The world is not the same place. 36 injections by the age of 2 today compared to the 10 I had by age 5 in the 70's.

----------


## pinkmandy

Oh, and in most healthy people polio is NOT paralytic. It's a GI disease that passes for most people. 

As for rareness of reactions, my son had a bad one. Is it that rare? So statistically, if it's rare, I shouldn't personally know anyone with a similar story right? I shouldn't know a woman in my son's scouts group who lost her daughter at age 2 to a "bad batch" of vaccine? Dead. At least she won't get pertussis! And I shouldn't know others who have had similar reactions as my son?

Here's a fun research project for you guys on here pretending like you actually care about vaccinations:

Go to your county morgue. Pull records on deaths of children age 2 and under who died of natural causes over the past 10 years. Look at the numbers of SIDS cases and write down the exact ages in months of the deceased. Let us know if they happen to coincide with the vaccination schedule.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'm sorry that you had a bad experience. It's rare, but it happens. While we are at it, we should ban cars of the street, outlaw sex and any other activity that has the potential of harm...


This is a non-sequitur.  The gov't does not dictate by law that everyone have sex at 10 years old. The gov't does not mandate by fiat that we strap children of 10 into automobiles and set them loose on the freeway. 

Furthermore, nobody seems to me to be saying that vaccines should be outlawed, just that they should not be forced into our children with us at the point of a gun. I dunno, but it that really too much to ask?

----------


## yongrel

> This is a non-sequitur.  The gov't does not dictate by law that everyone have sex at 10 years old. The gov't does not mandate by fiat that we strap children of 10 into automobiles and set them loose on the freeway. 
> 
> Furthermore, nobody seems to me to be saying that vaccines should be outlawed, just that they should not be forced into our children with us at the point of a gun. I dunno, but it that really too much to ask?


I don't think anyone here is arguing for mandatory vaccines. I certainly am not.

I think that everyone should drink water, but I do not want the government to mandate hydration.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Do you know how ridiculous this thread is... my word, breathtaking inanity. 
> 
> Get your damn kids vaccinated you morons.


Poke yer kid with this needle and inject him with this stuff that could kill him, or we will  execute you by firing squad and bill your family for the bullets?

----------


## Kade

> This is a non-sequitur.  The gov't does not dictate by law that everyone have sex at 10 years old. The gov't does not mandate by fiat that we strap children of 10 into automobiles and set them loose on the freeway. 
> 
> Furthermore, nobody seems to me to be saying that vaccines should be outlawed, just that they should not be forced into our children with us at the point of a gun. I dunno, but it that really too much to ask?


It's a state law, and it remains a state law. Fight it at the local level if it upsets you.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't think anyone here is arguing for mandatory vaccines. I certainly am not.
> 
> I think that everyone should drink water, but I do not want the government to mandate hydration.


Well, in a free society, there will be people who do things you don't like.  Whether behaviors are 'mandated' by force of law or by social castigation, the end result is the same.

----------


## Kade

> Poke yer kid with this needle and inject him with this stuff that could kill him, or we will  execute you by firing squad and bill your family for the bullets?


I am against mandatory vaccinations outside of requirement for public education.

----------


## yongrel

> Well, in a free society, there will be people who do things you don't like.  Whether behaviors are 'mandated' by force of law or by social castigation, the end result is the same.


The end result may be the same, but the means are totally different. Being called stupid and irresponsible by a ton of people is not at all equivalent to the government mandating vaccinations.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It's a state law, and it remains a state law. Fight it at the local level if it upsets you.


so are you saying that government abuses of liberty cannot occur at state level?  Are you saying that if your state just up and banned atheism, that this is just a state thing and the federal gov't has no business intervening on your behalf?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I am against mandatory vaccinations outside of requirement for public education.


And when public education is required lest the parents go to prison, then effectively that means "give your kid the needle or go to jail."

Some ' liberty ' position there, guy!

----------


## yongrel

> And when public education is required lest the parents go to prison, then effectively that means "give your kid the needle or go to jail."
> 
> Some ' liberty ' position there, guy!


Not true. Homeschooling and private schools are an option.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The end result may be the same, but the means are totally different. Being called stupid and irresponsible by a ton of people is not at all equivalent to the government mandating vaccinations.


so instead of restricting freedom through legislation and gov't guns, you would choose to restrict freedom through humiliation and castigation.  In either case, liberty suffers.  I fail to see how that is a good thing.

----------


## yongrel

> so instead of restricting freedom through legislation and gov't guns, you would choose to restrict freedom through humiliation and castigation.  In either case, liberty suffers.  I fail to see how that is a good thing.


No, liberty does not suffer through ridicule. They are still free not to vaccinate their children. They are just called foolish for doing so. Their ability to refrain from vaccination remains intact.

----------


## Kade

> And when public education is required lest the parents go to prison, then effectively that means "give your kid the needle or go to jail."
> 
> Some ' liberty ' position there, guy!


I don't recall private school and homeschooling being banned...

----------


## Kade

> so instead of restricting freedom through legislation and gov't guns, you would choose to restrict freedom through humiliation and castigation.  In either case, liberty suffers.  I fail to see how that is a good thing.


Do you know what smallpox is?

Let me remind you:



You can choose not to vaccinate, I will continue to ridicule that decision because if everyone listens to you, like what is happening with the propaganda in Africa, people die in large numbers.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Not true. Homeschooling and private schools are an option.


sure, private schools are an option, if you are wealthy.  And homeschooling is in many places either outlawed (like California) or very heavily restricted (like throughout most of New England and the 'blue' states) to the point where it's nearly impossible for Joe and Jane Ordinary to do it themselves, unless the hire an accredited teacher -- again, wealth is required.

So it's ok to force poor people to stick their kids with something potentially deadly or face prison, so long as the rich have a way out?

----------


## Kade

> sure, private schools are an option, if you are wealthy.  And homeschooling is in many places either outlawed (like California) or very heavily restricted (like throughout most of New England and the 'blue' states) to the point where it's nearly impossible for Joe and Jane Ordinary to do it themselves, unless the hire an accredited teacher -- again, wealth is required.
> 
> So it's ok to force poor people to stick their kids with something potentially deadly or face prison, so long as the rich have a way out?


Bull$#@!.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Not true. Homeschooling and private schools are an option.





> Do you know what smallpox is?
> 
> Let me remind you:
> 
> 
> 
> You can choose not to vaccinate, I will continue to ridicule that decision because if everyone listens to you, like what is happening with the propaganda in Africa, people die in large numbers.


Ahhh yes, this 'freedom' thing is all well and good, until someone decides to be 'free' to do something you don't like. Fascinating.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Bull$#@!.


Is that what you call the crap you keep posting?

----------


## Kade

> Ahhh yes, this 'freedom' thing is all well and good, until someone decides to be 'free' to do something you don't like. Fascinating.


I said I was against mandatory vaccinations... 

But this whole line of reasoning is eventually flawed, at some point the "true libertarian" approach fails...

I mean, seriously, are you really okay with person walking around with naked, with a case of smallpox and measles, carrying a bazooka in front of your kid's school?

----------


## yongrel

> Ahhh yes, this 'freedom' thing is all well and good, until someone decides to be 'free' to do something you don't like. Fascinating.


No one's arguing that people shouldn't be free to be stupid. I just believe that I am also free to call them stupid.

----------


## Kade

> Is that what you call the crap you keep posting?


No, I'm calling you out. Homeschooling is not banned, and in California, why don't you get the Federal Government to go over there and force the state to do what you think is appropriate?

Hypocrite.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Bull$#@!.





> No, liberty does not suffer through ridicule. They are still free not to vaccinate their children. They are just called foolish for doing so. Their ability to refrain from vaccination remains intact.


Apparently you know a different human race than I do.  No, actually, a couple posts up you admit that "the end result is the same" so you do in fact know the same human race I do. It's just that for you, some methods of forcing people to do what you want them to are OK...

----------


## yongrel

> Apparently you know a different human race than I do.  No, actually, a couple posts up you admit that "the end result is the same" so you do in fact know the same human race I do. It's just that for you, some methods of forcing people to do what you want them to are OK...


There is a distinct difference between government force and peer pressure. If you cannot see it, then it is hopeless to continue this debate.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No, I'm calling you out. Homeschooling is not banned, and in California, why don't you get the Federal Government to go over there and force the state to do what you think is appropriate?
> 
> Hypocrite.


do your own research, I'm not here to amuse you. And I am in fact working towards fixing the California problem through the federal government. Why do you think I have given up my job, travelled to 3 states, and literally canvassed thousands of homes?  Because I hate money and like blisters on my feet?

I have been, and still am working my ass off for Ron Paul 2008.  I don't just sit around on the computer all day making fun of the people who actually DO work towards saving this nation...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> There is a distinct difference between government force and peer pressure. If you cannot see it, then it is hopeless to continue this debate.


And yet in either case, liberty suffers.  So it's OK for liberty to be eroded one way, but not another?  As long as YOU are the one blocking people's freedom it's ok, but god forbid the gubmint do it.  Yeah, I see exactly what you mean.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I said I was against mandatory vaccinations... 
> 
> But this whole line of reasoning is eventually flawed, at some point the "true libertarian" approach fails...
> 
> I mean, seriously, are you really okay with person walking around with naked, with a case of smallpox and measles, carrying a bazooka in front of your kid's school?


if you think I am in any way an anarchist, you are dead wrong.  I have been called a fascist by libertarian purists, and now I am being called an ararchist by you.  Fools love their labels, it means they don't actually have to think.

----------


## yongrel

> And yet in either case, liberty suffers.  So it's OK for liberty to be eroded one way, but not another?  As long as YOU are the one blocking people's freedom it's ok, but god forbid the gubmint do it.  Yeah, I see exactly what you mean.


No, liberty is not being eroded in both scenarios. When the government mandates vaccinations, they have lessened the liberty of the citizens by removing their choice as to whether or not they vaccinate.

When the entirety of someone's peer group ridicules them for deciding not to vaccinate, they are not damaging the liberty of the subject of their ridicule. While the being called an idiot may influence their decision, they still have the ability to choose for themselves. In this situation, the subject is presented with the exact same options as they would be without ridicule. Obviously, their liberty has not been violated.

----------


## Kade

> do your own research, I'm not here to amuse you. And I am in fact working towards fixing the California problem through the federal government. Why do you think I have given up my job, travelled to 3 states, and literally canvassed thousands of homes?  Because I hate money and like blisters on my feet?
> 
> I have been, and still am working my ass off for Ron Paul 2008.  I don't just sit around on the computer all day making fun of the people who actually DO work towards saving this nation...


I really tired of you, do you know how annoying you are?
*
Com. v. Pear, Com. v. Jacobson, 67 L.R.A. 935, 183 Mass. 242, 66 N.E. 719 (Mass. 1903)*

This is a suit against Mr. Pear and others to recover a fine of $5 for refusal to submit a smallpox vaccination pursuant to a health statute.  The statute in question, R.L.c.s 137 orders all residents of the city who have not been vaccinated or revaccinated to do so due to the prevalence of smallpox.  The board of health informed Mr. Pear that he would have to be vaccinated or pay a $5 penalty.  Mr. Pear refused and was prosecuted.  Mr. Pear claimed that the statute was unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Massachusetts Constitution.  The court found that the statute was not unconstitutional.  The court recognized that the Constitution of Massachusetts authorizes such police powers in order to protect public health and safety.  Mr. Pear also claimed that the court erred in not allowing him to admit testimony of medical experts who opposed vaccination.  This case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the Mass. Court in the classic public health case, Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

*Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)*

Mr. Jacobson believed that the scientific basis for vaccination was unsound and that he would suffer if he was vaccinated. The Massachusetts Supreme Court found the statute consistent with the Massachusetts state constitution, and Jacobson appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the issue of whether involuntary vaccination violated Jacobson's "'inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as seems to him best . . . " The Court bifurcated this question, first considering the right of the state to invade Jacobson's person by forcing him to submit to vaccination:

This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that "persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be made, so far as natural persons are concerned."'

With this language, the Court stated the basic bargain of civilization: an individual must give up some personal freedom in exchange for the benefits of being in a civilized society. Jacobson sought to enjoy the benefit of his neighbors being vaccinated for smallpox without personally accepting the risks inherent in vaccination. The Court rejected Jacobson's claim which it viewed as an attempt to be a free-rider on society.

The Court next considered Jacobson's right to contest the scientific basis of the Massachusetts vaccination requirement. Accepting that some reasonable people still questioned the efficacy of vaccination, the Court nonetheless found that it was within the legislature's prerogative to adopt one from many conflicting views on a scientific issue.

----------


## Kade

> if you think I am in any way an anarchist, you are dead wrong.  I have been called a fascist by libertarian purists, and now I am being called an ararchist by you.  Fools love their labels, it means they don't actually have to think.


I only called you ignorant.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No, liberty is not being eroded in both scenarios. When the government mandates vaccinations, they have lessened the liberty of the citizens by removing their choice as to whether or not they vaccinate.
> 
> When the entirety of someone's peer group ridicules them for deciding not to vaccinate, they are not damaging the liberty of the subject of their ridicule. While the being called an idiot may influence their decision, they still have the ability to choose for themselves. In this situation, the subject is presented with the exact same options as they would be without ridicule. Obviously, their liberty has not been violated.


no, you are ridiculing them because you do not like the decision that they have made for themselves, and you are attempting to make their decision for them. This is plain on it's face.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I only called you ignorant.


And in doing so, you have abdicated your responsibility to reason.

----------


## yongrel

> no, you are ridiculing them because you do not like the decision that they have made for themselves, and you are attempting to make their decision for them. This is plain on it's face.


Me offering my input is not the same as me controlling them. My calling someone an idiot may influence their decision, but it does not take any options off the table. They are still free to make their own decision. By ridiculing someone's beliefs or actions, I am in no way damaging their liberty; only their ego.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I really tired of you, do you know how annoying you are?
> *
> Com. v. Pear, Com. v. Jacobson, 67 L.R.A. 935, 183 Mass. 242, 66 N.E. 719 (Mass. 1903)*
> 
> This is a suit against Mr. Pear and others to recover a fine of $5 for refusal to submit a smallpox vaccination pursuant to a health statute.  The statute in question, R.L.c.s 137 orders all residents of the city who have not been vaccinated or revaccinated to do so due to the prevalence of smallpox.  The board of health informed Mr. Pear that he would have to be vaccinated or pay a $5 penalty.  Mr. Pear refused and was prosecuted.  Mr. Pear claimed that the statute was unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Massachusetts Constitution.  The court found that the statute was not unconstitutional.  The court recognized that the Constitution of Massachusetts authorizes such police powers in order to protect public health and safety.  Mr. Pear also claimed that the court erred in not allowing him to admit testimony of medical experts who opposed vaccination.  This case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the Mass. Court in the classic public health case, Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
> 
> *Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)*
> 
> Mr. Jacobson believed that the scientific basis for vaccination was unsound and that he would suffer if he was vaccinated. The Massachusetts Supreme Court found the statute consistent with the Massachusetts state constitution, and Jacobson appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the issue of whether involuntary vaccination violated Jacobson's "'inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as seems to him best . . . " The Court bifurcated this question, first considering the right of the state to invade Jacobson's person by forcing him to submit to vaccination:
> ...


So as long as SCOTUS is OK with the fact that "an individual must give up some personal freedom" it's, OK in your book?  Does that mean that if SCOTUS decides in DC vs Heller that firearms should be banned throughout the entirety of CONUS, we should just march in like lemmings and turn in our guns?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Me offering my input is not the same as me controlling them. My calling someone an idiot may influence their decision, but it does not take any options off the table. They are still free to make their own decision. By ridiculing someone's beliefs or actions, I am in no way damaging their liberty; only their ego.


And yet, you are still seeking to control people.  To make people do things against their will.  I fail to see how that is compatible with the basic philosophy of liberty.

----------


## yongrel

> And yet, you are still seeking to control people.  To make people do things against their will.  I fail to see how that is compatible with the basic philosophy of liberty.


I'm not trying to make people do things that are against their will. I ridicule them shamelessly for what they will to do. I'm not seeking to control them, anymore than I am looking to control the guy who jumped off his roof when I make fun of him.

There is a difference between saying "that's the wrong thing to do" and saying, "You are not allowed to do that.

At the end of the day, what I say does not affect their liberty. If a person is presented with a choice between Option A and Option B, and I tell them "You're a bloody fool for choosing Option B," they still are able to choose between Option A and Option B.

And I think you know that. I highly doubt that you have never ridiculed someone for doing something stupid.

----------


## Kade

> And in doing so, you have abdicated your responsibility to reason.


You, who advocates ending vaccinations in the developed world, scorns me on reason? Welcome to the list.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I'm not trying to make people do things that are against their will. I ridicule them shamelessly for what they will to do. I'm not seeking to control them, anymore than I am looking to control the guy who jumped off his roof when I make fun of him.
> 
> There is a difference between saying "that's the wrong thing to do" and saying, "You are not allowed to do that.
> 
> At the end of the day, what I say does not affect their liberty. If a person is presented with a choice between Option A and Option B, and I tell them "You're a bloody fool for choosing Option B," they still are able to choose between Option A and Option B.
> 
> And I think you know that. I highly doubt that you have never ridiculed someone for doing something stupid.


Sorry, no.  ridiculing people to make them do things I want them to do but they do not, is a violation of my conscience as a liberty minded person.  I may try to logically convince them of the proper course of action, argue my case, but I do not and would never stoop to ridicule.

I find such tactics worthy of a grade-school playground and I personally believe that adults ought to be more mature than your average 12 year old.  Therefore such tactics are a violation of my conscience and I find them abhorrent in practice.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You, who advocates ending vaccinations in the developed world, scorns me on reason? Welcome to the list.


And you believe I am in favor of "ending vaccinations in the developed world" based on what?  I have never said such a thing, nor do I endorse such a thing.  I simply believe that people should be free to make their own decisions.

Clearly reason has failed you, as you are claiming that I hold positions which I have no part in.  Does inventing positions that you think I would believe in, make it easier to create reasons to disparage my arguments?

You would think Ron Paul supporters would refrain from such filthy tactics, as they have been used so devastatingly well against Ron Paul himself, much to our dismay.  They 'just make stuff up' and claim he believes it, because this makes it easier to attack him.

And now here you are doing the same to me.  And why?  Because I believe that all individuals should be *FREE* to make decisions such as whether to vaccinate, for themselves.

Amazing, amazing!

----------


## lucius

> And you believe I am in favor of "ending vaccinations in the developed world" based on what?  I have never said such a thing, nor do I endorse such a thing.  I simply believe that people should be free to make their own decisions.
> 
> Clearly reason has failed you, as you are claiming that I hold positions which I have no part in.  Does inventing positions that you think I would believe in, make it easier to create reasons to disparage my arguments?
> 
> You would think Ron Paul supporters would refrain from such filthy tactics, as they have been used so devastatingly well against Ron Paul himself, much to our dismay.  They 'just make stuff up' and claim he believes it, because this makes it easier to attack him.
> 
> And now here you are doing the same to me.  And why?  Because I believe that all individuals should be *FREE* to make decisions such as whether to vaccinate, for themselves.
> 
> Amazing, amazing!


This Ron Paul quote is appropriate:

"When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we, in essence, accept that the state owns our bodies." ~U.S. Representative Ron Paul

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> This Ron Paul quote is appropriate:
> 
> "When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we, in essence, accept that the state owns our bodies." ~U.S. Representative Ron Paul


Amen to that, brother!

There is at least one person on this thread who needs an education on the meaning of 'liberty,' and I am not talking about the guy with the ever-changing avatar.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
> -- Bertrand Russell
> 
> Bloom Merit: SeekLiberty, micahnelson, Aratus, FreeTraveler, and sophocles07.
> 
> The Autistic Anuses: allyinoh, GunnyFreedom
> 
> What is destroying America?
> 
> Fiat. Debt. Oil. Religion.


Wow!  Look at that!  I have become an "Autistic Anus" because I believe that all people should have the freedom to decide for themselves the kinds of medical treatment they do and do not get.

----------


## yongrel

> Wow!  Look at that!  I have become an "Autistic Anus" because I believe that all people should have the freedom to decide for themselves the kinds of medical treatment they do and do not get.


Gunny, I agree with you. We are on the exact same page. I do not believe that the government should be forcing medical decisions on people. I just feel that everyone should be free to comment on another person's decision, be it postively or negatively. You don't deserve to be called an autistic anus.

----------


## Cinderella

how about not passing judgment on others....what makes u any better because u decide to vaccinate ur child based on what u have studied or been taught compared to those who decide not to vaccinate based on what they have studied and what theyve been advised to do?????  u can disagree but i dont see the point in name calling or "crushing their ego"...that just shows insecurity

----------


## yongrel

> how about not passing judgment on others....what makes u any better because u decide to vaccinate ur child based on what u have studied or been taught compared to those who decide not to vaccinate based on what they have studied and what theyve been advised to do?????  u can disagree but i dont see the point in name calling or "crushing their ego"...that just shows insecurity


Ridicule is the right and proper response to the ridiculous.

----------


## Cinderella

again i ask what makes u think that u are above everyone whom u label as ridiculous???  u have ur arguments as to why u will vaccinate and i have mine for why i wont...or at least i will wait and space them out......i happen to feel that if ur soooooo concerned about ur childs health why would u inject them with all these foreign substances by the age of 2??  their imunne system isnt even fully developed till 1 and not every child is the same.....if u want to vaccinate there is a safer way to do so...it is quite dangerous give that many vaccines in one sitting.....look at the statistics...1 in 97 i think get autism?? (not quite sure but i think its 1 in 100)  so for everyone who says the chances of getting a reaction are slim really need to think twice about that statement

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Gunny, I agree with you. We are on the exact same page. I do not believe that the government should be forcing medical decisions on people. I just feel that everyone should be free to comment on another person's decision, be it postively or negatively. You don't deserve to be called an autistic anus.


You SHOULD be free to comment on another person's decision -- it's just that I believe that when you go from sharing your opinion and backing it up with logic and facts and data; over to trying to actually trying to force them to act against their will through the use of ridicule and shame, well, it's shameful.  

Oh mind you, it's not even REMOTELY in the same class as trying to legislate such a thing.

If I were to set a scale from 1 to 10 with 10 being the worst form of intimidation, legislation would be an 8.5 and your brand of ridicule maybe a 3.  Besides, there is nothing anybody can do about it.  It's between you and your conscience.

As for me, I try to respect peoples decisions even if I think they are stupid decisions.  I am struggling with that right now, my girlfriends daughter is one of the worst alcoholics I have ever encountered, and she is completely destroying her marriage.  she is staying with us right now, and I am doing everything in my power to block her access to alcohol.  I have no qualms about sharing my opinion, and have done so more than once, but in the end, if she wants to kill herself by drinking 2 gallons of Jim Beam a week, well, that's between her and her maker.  I can't shame her into making a right decision, because she is not my "_property_" against which to use any kind of force.

And I do view such methods as force.

And thanks for the bit about the 'autistic anus,' dealing with such playground fare is bloody annoying even when you know you are right.

----------


## yongrel

> As for me, I try to respect peoples decisions even if I think they are stupid decisions.  I am struggling with that right now, my girlfriends daughter is one of the worst alcoholics I have ever encountered, and she is completely destroying her marriage.  she is staying with us right now, and I am doing everything in my power to block her access to alcohol.  I have no qualms about sharing my opinion, and have done so more than once, but in the end, if she wants to kill herself by drinking 2 gallons of Jim Beam a week, well, that's between her and her maker.  I can't shame her into making a right decision, because she is not my "_property_" against which to use any kind of force.
> 
> And I do view such methods as force.


Okay, I think I see the confusion. My aim in ridicule, or any sort of commentary, is not to "force" anyone to do anything. It's my opinion, and I don't intend for it to carry any more weight than that. My hope is that my input, be it sound advice or derisive laughter, is an influence of the decision, not to be confused with actually making the decision for another.

I believe that ridicule, while superficially different, is equivalent to any other form of opinion. When I give someone advice like "You should probably brush your teeth," I am asserting my opinion in the same basic way as I would be by saying, "Your breath is terrible." While the emotion behind the two statements is different, the result is the same. The effect of either is to give the recipient new information.

Merciless derision is just information. Perhaps abrasive information, but information nonetheless.

Information is not force. If I have a choice between A and B, and I am given information about A, I am still free to choose A. Perhaps A is less desirable to choose now, but I am still able to choose it.

That's liberty for ya.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I try to keep a pretty thick skin online -- it is easy to completely misconstrue what someone is saying via keyboard and text.  I try to recognize that I can misunderstand someone else, as easily as they can misunderstand me.  That tends to relieve a lot of potential angst.

As to the derision, really, to each their own.  It's gotta really suck though if you have ruthlessly mocked, humiliated, and ridiculed someone, only to later learn that you were wrong on the merits.  Seems to me that would magnify the amount of crow you have to eat by a factor of 10.

That's another reason I have always avoided such methods.  Not because I'm afraid to eat crow, mind you, but because if discovering I was wrong would be that much more humiliating on account of the methods I had used, then I might be tempted to disregard any evidence that I was wrong.  I like to think of myself as someone who is able to do a rapid U-turn if I ever discover that I had been wrong, so I also make an effort to not tempt myself to ignore evidence contrary to my positions.

----------


## Cinderella

glad tp see u all kissed and made up

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> glad tp see u all kissed and made up


It's a heckuva lot easier to do that, than it is to find that dang glass slipper...

----------


## Cinderella

great thread with lots of info

----------


## Kade

_Fiat. Debt. Oil. Religion._

That was a great signature. Ahh, the good days.

----------


## HonestyInMedicine

> I've been reading about vaccinations and the dangers, and I've almost convinced my fiance to stop allowing the doctors to inject our 7 month old daughter with these toxins.  She still has a mentality that they must do more good than bad because they're protecting her from diseases.
> Anyways, I'm really worried about my daughter and I'm going to list off her vaccination record thus far and ask for some of you help and advice.
> 
> Here's her record so far:
> 
> Vaccine			Dose				Immunization Date
> 
> DTaP-				3-				1/19/2008
> 
> ...


Part of the problem is that kids are being given the vaccinations BEFORE they have a CHANCE to develop and IMMUNE SYTEM so they can't fight off the side effects of the vaccine. Many parents and any Naturopathic 
doctor or Doctor of Chinese Medicine would tell  you to at least HOLD OFF for as many years as you can. Get the vaccinations at age 5 or 2 at the earliest NOT before then.

----------


## yongrel

> Part of the problem is that kids are being given the vaccinations BEFORE they have a CHANCE to develop and IMMUNE SYTEM so they can't fight off the side effects of the vaccine. Many parents and any Naturopathic 
> doctor or Doctor of Chinese Medicine would tell  you to at least HOLD OFF for as many years as you can. Get the vaccinations at age 5 or 2 at the earliest NOT before then.


Quick question, since you're so eager to bump all of these type of threads...

do you have some sort of expertise in this area, or is it just something you're interested in?

----------


## HonestyInMedicine

> Quick question, since you're so eager to bump all of these type of threads...
> 
> do you have some sort of expertise in this area, or is it just something you're interested in?


I'm not bumping. I'm offering good information. Natural medicine is science based medicine. It is real and it works and it is affordable. We'd all be much healthier if more of us thought to use it first and used western medicine as a last resort.

It is an avocation. I want people to benefit from some of my experience and research over 17 years is all.

I'm also an independent health insurance agent and have taken thousands of health histories over the  past 20 years and have seen the huge increases in the use of prescriptions in some of my clients  that I've had for a long time use. Some of them are now having problems as a result of prescriptions they took earlier on.
For example lots of meds for allergies in your 20's and 30's can lead to ED problems in your 40s. (This client would be a lot healthier had he seen an N.D. or his allergies.)

Also it used to be even 10 years ago that it was rare that anyone in their 20's or 30's or even 40's would  be taking meds. Now it is commonplace. They've also created more "diseases" to give them excuses to sell more drugs such as "acid reflux disease" (curable with apple cider vinegar-- ) . They've also lowered what they consider "normal" blood pressure and cholesterol to give doctors and excuse to sell more drugs to more people. Both of which are very easily cured by proven experienced naturopaths and natural medicines that don't have to be taken for the rest of your life either.

If Americans both  understood what type of health insurance really provides the best protection for the best price AND understood what type of doctor to go to for  the type of problem they have, there would be no health care crisis right now. I PROMISE you that.

As far as health insurance is concerned most Americans have a stupid  overpriced plan with not enough catastropic protection that has co-pays for office visits-- when in some cases they could get the identical plan with the same size deductible without the separate co-pays where the visits count towards the deductible instead for thousands of dollars less per year and be covered 100% after the deductible is met for EVERYTHING--from the same insurance company. Unfortunately many of my colleagues are just order takers for co-pay plans and not even bringing up HSAs or HRAs or  Section 105 plans. I could get on my soapbox about that too but I won't.

I've also been to and still go to a naturopath  who has patients all ov er the world that consult via the phone. He was a former medical doctor who has been curing so-called "incurable" diseases for 25 years. After the experts in Boston at the Lahey clinic told me nothing was wrong -- even though I knew there was, a friend referred me to this M.D, N.D. and he looked for things the conventional doctors hadn't even thought to consider. It turned out my Naturopath was right and in a matter of 2 weeks I had so much energy I couldn't even remember what it was like to feel that good it has been so long.It turned out I had a pre-cancerous condition that conventional doctors don't understand. Anyway, I continued with a restricted diet and natural medicines for 4 months and after that I was able to stop everything and go back to eating whatever I wanted. He had helped me restore my immune system and it was wonderful -- very empowering!

I'm also an avid researcher. I've read LOTS and LOTS about the subject and the unfortunate politics of medicine in this country. It sickens me to hear about children with cancer whose parents aren't even aware of all of the much safer cancer treatments there are out there. Everytime someone from the ACS calls for a donation I give them an earful of how they have had chapters managed by well meaning directors who lived in cities where doctors were curing patients of cancer and by bringing "the good news" to the ACS headquarters, lost their jobs and the ir chapter was closed. 

A great book about the politics of cancer treatments in this country is by Barry Lynnes (I think is how you spell it). The book is THE HEALING OF CANCER: THE CURES THE COVER-UPS AND THE SOLUTION NOW. That book is loaded with documentation as well. Hearing him on a radio show was really what opened my eyes to the TRUTH about medical care and then later I became interested in Food and Water safety.

----------


## pinkmandy

> Quick question, since you're so eager to bump all of these type of threads...
> 
> do you have some sort of expertise in this area, or is it just something you're interested in?


I take it that this is his passion- just going by his name. Good passion to have imo and I look forward to more posts, thoughts, insights.  I love your siggie, btw.

----------


## Conza88

> Hi there Christagious, 
> 
> I am begging you to not take any medical advice from the "health freedom" section on this message board. The vaccination propagandist are perhaps the most dangerous and deliberately prevaricating of all the pseudosciences. By denying your child the vaccinations you will not only be putting her life/health in danger but others in your community as well. The anti'vaccination crowd lies. And they lie big.
> 
> Do not confuse the science issue with the liberty issue. Of course the government shouldn't be allowed to mandate vaccines. Just like they shouldn't be allowed to prohibit people from killing themselves by overdosing on drugs.
> 
> But that does not change the fact that vaccines save lives and are overwhelmingly safe. You should allow your kid to get them because they work, are safe, and protect your kid from contracting and then spreading diseases to others in your community, not because the government requires you to do so. 
> 
> Your daughter is not being poisoned by vaccinations. Vaccinations do not put your daughter at risk for getting diseases (autism, flu, etc.). If you have specific questions about specific concerns please let me know and I will do my best to answer them with established science, not myths and deliberate obfuscation that is running rampant within the anti-vaccination crowd.
> ...


*GTFO.*

I have no vested interest in this issue at all. But I'm going to tell you a story now; first hand. Now take this unbias advice.

I got given a voucher for Christmas - advanced driving course. Anyway; off too it I go. Awesome time; anyway - talking to a lady who was looking sick.

It turns out shes in the Health Industry and got it organized through work to get a Flu Vaccination.

She's said she'd hardly ever been sick in her life with the flu etc... winter time was no worries to her mostly. But she thought; why not, let's be safe... what with all these new super bugs around etc?

She got the vaccination... and guess what - she got sick; with the flu and remained so for *11 weeks*, she's still probably not better.

"Never ever again" - HER very own words. She's a nurse, she knows wtf is up.

It only protects you against KNOWN strains ANYWAY; and they MORPH regardless... 

All you've said is BASELESS convictions... talking out of your ass. If the OP goes ahead with it; and in some way was influenced or persuaded by your post - and the child gets sick etc.... You should be held responsible.

The Ron Paul movement has been right on every single other issue; I doubt this is any different.

Go continue to sip on your sodium fluoridated water... I hear it's good for your health 

Edit: Anyway... just realised it was an old thread. Glad the comment / person I was quoting got pwned.

----------


## HonestyInMedicine

If you do your own research you'll find that vaccinations do more harm than good. Look at this for example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hc_-...eature=related

By the way, an easy way to begin to do the research is to search for "dangers of vaccinations" be leary of the fake "grassroots" cites proped up by the medical establishment to draw you in and then twist your mind around 180 degrees to convince you of how "safe" vaccinations are.

Also keep in mind the overall dangers of conventional medicine at the same time outlined in this study:

http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/Ms...dicine%20by%20

 These statistics are documented in  respected medical journals highly esteemed by conventional western medical doctors  listed in the study.

Keep in mind that most Americans don't do their research. They don't question anything their medical doctor tells them. They just do what they are told. The few who can think outside the box; who won't be intimiated by their medical doctors also are the ones whose research leads them to safer longer proven natural alternatives and better health. 

Those of us who haven't done our research who tell you not to take advice (other than that of your medical doctor) probably just run to our medical doctors and do whatever they tell us without question for every ache or pain we have. They are most likely on a number of prescription drugs and may not be the happiest campers around and may actually feel pretty miserable. You know how the saying goes, "misery LOVES company".

----------


## pinkmandy

A woman on a mommy board- a NICU nurse at that- I'm on had the MMR after the birth of her last child- about 9 months ago. Immediately, she had horrible pains in her arm where she had the vax and it radiated into her shoulder. Even now she can barely move that arm, it's semi-paralyzed and her doctor told her to expect it to stay that way and she may never be able to build up enough muscle to compensate for it. She has reported it to the VAERS but was told that as long as she had some use with it then too bad. That's not a "real" disability- no matter that she can't pick up her 2 children. $#@!s.

----------


## christagious

I originally posted this a pretty long time ago.  here's an update.  We've decided to hold off on vaccinations until she's at least 2,3,4, or 5.  And that's if we even decide to give her any at all.

HonestyInMedicine, I may want to discuss things further with you concerning various things, including this.

One thing that worries me about NOT giving vaccinations is what if the gov't decides to unleash some sicknesses that only the unvaccinated will be affected by?  Most likely the people they'd be targeting are the liberty minded ones as a lot of the survivalists, ron paul supporters, alex jones fans, etc are against vaccines.  What does anybody think of this scenario?

----------


## PatriotOne

> One thing that worries me about NOT giving vaccinations is what if the gov't decides to unleash some sicknesses that only the unvaccinated will be affected by?  Most likely the people they'd be targeting are the liberty minded ones as a lot of the survivalists, ron paul supporters, alex jones fans, etc are against vaccines.  What does anybody think of this scenario?


A legitimate question but personally I would take my chances.  They have developed biological weapons to target genotypes.  Luckily, being a liberty luvin patriot is not a genotype  

I havent read this whole thread and perhaps you are already aware but just in case:  have you removed fluoride out of your child's water also?

----------


## christagious

> A legitimate question but personally I would take my chances.  They have developed biological weapons to target genotypes.  Luckily, being a liberty luvin patriot is not a genotype  
> 
> I havent read this whole thread and perhaps you are already aware but just in case:  have you removed fluoride out of your child's water also?


Pretty much.  We try to not drink our city water as much as possible.  We almost always have bottled water (w/o fluoride) in our fridge.
I may try to remove the fluoride from the water if I win my run for city council next year.

----------


## madengr

> I haven't read this whole thread and perhaps you are already aware but just in case: have you removed fluoride out of your child's water also?


Wow... My parents gave me fluoride tablets when I was little because we had well water.  However they forgot to tell me I was supposed to become a simpleton conformist to the state.  Never had bridges, crowns ,root canals, etc.. and don't plan on it.  Better stick to "distilled water and pure grain alcohol".

----------


## dannno

> Wow... My parents gave me fluoride tablets when I was little because we had well water.  However they forgot to tell me I was supposed to become a simpleton conformist to the state.  Never had bridges, crowns ,root canals, etc.. and don't plan on it.  Better stick to "distilled water and pure grain alcohol".


I grew up in an area that was non-fluoridated and I've still never even had a cavity. I did use fluoride toothpaste, though.

Unfortunately there is also a fair concentration of fluoride in the food that we eat which is watered with fluoridated water..

----------


## Kade

> A legitimate question but personally I would take my chances.  They have developed biological weapons to target genotypes.  Luckily, being a liberty luvin patriot is not a genotype  
> 
> I havent read this whole thread and perhaps you are already aware but just in case:  have you removed fluoride out of your child's water also?


Oooh Me me! oooh! Let me guess!! 

Fluoridation of water is a socialist communist plot to deteriorate the health of Americans?

Am I right?

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> No one is telling him to not do it, and by his post, he seems like he really doesn't want to.  People have been telling him where to turn for advice and giving their opinions.
> 
> Do you have proof that vaccinations are 100% safe?  Do you have documentation showing what is all included in every single vaccination?  If so, please do provide this to us since you are 100% sure and KNOW that they are 100% safe.
> 
> I mean, you are telling him to not listen to others and listen to you, but why should he listen to you?  You are telling him to keep doing the shots while others are telling him to ask professionals.


Do you have proof anything is a 100% safe? I mean damn. People worry about the smallest risks there is, yet give no second thought to driving, smoking, or the millions of other high risk ventures.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> You mean this propaganda?
> 
> First confirmed link to vaccines and autism:
> 
> http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/hea...tism_0306.html
> 
> Mark my words, this will NOT be the last.  
> 
> My mother went into her doctors' office about 3 weeks ago and noticed a sign on the door about a _recalled_ vaccine.  Recalled!  It was already injected into people and they had to recall it!  The sign also said that this vaccine was not the brand given to insured customers, only the uninsured.  So they're administering faulty vaccines into people who can't afford insurance!  Well hoorah.


No, in the article it says different. 

"significantly aggravated an underlying _mitochondrial disorder_" _and resulted in a brain disorder_ "with features of autism spectrum disorder."

autism spectrum disorder != autism

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Avoid these shots since autism is now 1 in 75 kids.  Eli Lilly is protected under the patriot act of being sued for wrongful death or injury.  There are still vials tainted with mercury out there.  Doctors are being lied to just as the general public are led to believe these vaccines are safe.


No there is not. There has never been a vaccine that contained elemental mercury in it. Stop spreading FUD. Thiomersal (INN) (C9H9HgNaO2S) is not mercury. You see when you put various elements into a compound you can get different properties than the elements that make up said compound. This is basic chemistry people. What next? Are going to say salt is deadly because it has chlorine in it? Don't make me laugh.

----------


## Ninja Homer

> Oooh Me me! oooh! Let me guess!! 
> 
> Fluoridation of water is a socialist communist plot to deteriorate the health of Americans?
> 
> Am I right?


Oooh... good guess, you were really close.  It's a nazi plot for making people sterile and docile.

http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/F/Fluoride.htm

Actually, I studied this subject pretty thoroughly about 7 years ago, and I'm convinced that at least in the beginning this was no conspiracy.  50 or so years ago, when the FDA approved the use of sodium fluoride being added to water supplies, it was thought to be a win-win.  It was thought to be good for teeth, and aluminum manufacturers had a crapload of sodium fluoride to get rid of because it's one of the by-products in their manufacturing process.

Since then, the truth has come out about it, and sodium fluoride just isn't good for you, especially when you get too much of it.  There are a lot of cases of over-fluoridation, which is actually really bad for teeth.  It is now thought to cause a lot of other health problems as well.  There are natural forms of fluoride that are good for you found in plants, such as green tea, but it isn't the same stuff as what's added to drinking water.

By the way, for those people trying to avoid fluoride by drinking unfluoridated water, the human body will actually absorb a hell of a lot more fluoride through the skin while taking a shower than you can get by drinking it.  To completely avoid sodium fluoride, you have to use a shower filter.  The same goes for chlorine.  You will also absorb all the chemicals into your body from any lotions or potions you put on your skin, so keep that in mind.

----------


## LibertyOfOne

> Oooh... good guess, you were really close.  It's a nazi plot for making people sterile and docile.
> 
> http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/F/Fluoride.htm
> 
> Actually, I studied this subject pretty thoroughly about 7 years ago, and I'm convinced that at least in the beginning this was no conspiracy.  50 or so years ago, when the FDA approved the use of sodium fluoride being added to water supplies, it was thought to be a win-win.  It was thought to be good for teeth, and aluminum manufacturers had a crapload of sodium fluoride to get rid of because it's one of the by-products in their manufacturing process.
> 
> Since then, the truth has come out about it, and sodium fluoride just isn't good for you, especially when you get too much of it.  There are a lot of cases of over-fluoridation, which is actually really bad for teeth.  It is now thought to cause a lot of other health problems as well.  There are natural forms of fluoride that are good for you found in plants, such as green tea, but it isn't the same stuff as what's added to drinking water.
> 
> By the way, for those people trying to avoid fluoride by drinking unfluoridated water, the human body will actually absorb a hell of a lot more fluoride through the skin while taking a shower than you can get by drinking it.  To completely avoid sodium fluoride, you have to use a shower filter.  The same goes for chlorine.  You will also absorb all the chemicals into your body from any lotions or potions you put on your skin, so keep that in mind.


Could you possibly find a website with even more bull$#@!? Talk about no credibility at all. Anyone can host a website and rant and rave without providing sources. What do you know the website has a section dedicated to 911 "Truth".

----------


## Ninja Homer

> Could you possibly find a website with even more bull$#@!? Talk about no credibility at all. Anyone can host a website and rant and rave without providing sources. What do you know the website has a section dedicated to 911 "Truth".


Sorry, maybe I should have used my <sarcasm> tag.  I was joking about it being a nazi plot and just used the first search result of "fluoride nazi".

However, everything I wrote under the link is true.

----------


## Raditude

(Without reading through 20 pages, I'll answer the topic-starter.)

I admire your concern for the wellbeing of your child, but think of this logically.

1. Did you have vaccines? I'm not sure of your age, and what vaccines were available back then, but if you did have vaccines, you can probably look in the mirror, and honestly say that you turned out normal.

I was vaccinated several times growing up, and haven't had any problems. I don't get flu vaccines though, because I have a high immune system, and flu vaccines are not perfected. Most other vaccines remain the same from year to year, so once they got one that works, then they stick to it.

2 Several million children have been vaccinated, and as far as I know, the children are healthy, and still around, or have grown into adults.

3 By being vaccinated, you are not only protecting yourself, but protecting others by not getting the sickness and spreading it to others who haven't been vaccinated either.

The only time I wouldn't get a vaccine that is not perfected, is if there is an immune system disorder. You should talk to your doctor to determine if your daughter has an immune system disorder, but I'm sure the doctor would have figured it out by now.

----------


## pinkmandy

1. Did you have vaccines? I'm not sure of your age, and what vaccines were available back then, but if you did have vaccines, you can probably look in the mirror, and honestly say that you turned out normal.

We have gone from 5-8 vaccine compounds by school age to around 30 by the age of two- that's a huge increase and a lot of chemicals injected into the bloodstream. Not the same. It is nothing to take your child to the doctor for a well baby check up and have them inject your baby with FIVE different concoctions containing dead viruses, foreign dna, and carcinogens. My vet won't even do that to my dog- he gives 2 max at a time and is careful to note where each one is given so reactions can be monitored. Vaccinations were given to older children, not newborns and infants and even then there weren't that many. 

I was vaccinated several times growing up, and haven't had any problems. I don't get flu vaccines though, because I have a high immune system, and flu vaccines are not perfected. Most other vaccines remain the same from year to year, so once they got one that works, then they stick to it.

Your experience- check into other experiences if you want a different view. I have met several people who didn't have that experience. A woman who had a perfect pregnancy, got a flu vax, and within 2 weeks her baby stopped growing. The child is now 2 years old and weighs about 13 lbs. She can't walk. She can't speak. I know another mother who lost her daughter to a 'bad batch'. She was compensated so I guess that's okay, huh? 

2 Several million children have been vaccinated, and as far as I know, the children are healthy, and still around, or have grown into adults.

See #1. And the "healthy" bit is debateable. 

3 By being vaccinated, you are not only protecting yourself, but protecting others by not getting the sickness and spreading it to others who haven't been vaccinated either.

By not vaccinating, you are putting yourself at risk of getting the diseases. You are not putting people who are vaccinated at risk. That argument is ridiculous. What do vaccinated people care if you aren't vaccinated? Doh. Or are they still at risk? How effective are the vaccinations? If they're effective then others have nothing to worry about, right? If they aren't effective then what's the point? Perhaps by vaccinating everyone for everything we're doing something similar to what the overuse of antibiotics is doing? Setting ourselves up for the creation of superbugs? 

The only time I wouldn't get a vaccine that is not perfected, is if there is an immune system disorder. You should talk to your doctor to determine if your daughter has an immune system disorder, but I'm sure the doctor would have figured it out by now.

A 2 month old baby getting his first round of vaccinations isn't being tested for immune system disorders. Actually, their immune systems aren't even developed. It takes years for the immune system to mature, tinkering with it before then defies common sense. Especially since our scientists don't fully understand the immune system yet. They know not exactly what they are doing and have done no research on long term effects. Most literature you read is based on immediate effects.

----------


## lucius

> Oooh Me me! oooh! Let me guess!! 
> 
> Fluoridation of water is a socialist communist plot to deteriorate the health of Americans?
> 
> Am I right?


*Water Fluoridation "Obsolete" According to Nobel Prize Scientist
Nations who still practice it "should feel ashamed of themselves"*


On October 4, 2005, two members of the Fluoride Action Network -- Michael Connett and Chris Neurath -- traveled to Gothenburg, Sweden, to interview Dr. Arvid Carlsson, a famed pharmacologist at Gothenburg University and recent winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine/Physiology. 

In the 1970s, Dr. Carlsson was an outspoken opponent of two failed attempts to fluoridate water supplies in Sweden. Thanks in large part to his efforts, Sweden remains fluoridation free. *As Carlsson notes, "nobody talks about [fluoridation] anymore" in Sweden.* 

*As with the vast majority of western Europe, Sweden has rejected water fluoridation, but has still experienced the same decline in tooth decay as experienced in heavily fluoridated countries such as the United States.* 

http://www.fluoridealert.org/carlsson-interview.html

*Watch Dr. Vyvyan Howard on Fluoride in Drinking Water:*  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqMmoQgnXnA

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> I've been reading about vaccinations and the dangers, and I've almost convinced my fiance to stop allowing the doctors to inject our 7 month old daughter with these toxins.  She still has a mentality that they must do more good than bad because they're protecting her from diseases.
> Anyways, I'm really worried about my daughter and I'm going to list off her vaccination record thus far and ask for some of you help and advice.
> 
> Here's her record so far:
> 
> Vaccine			Dose				Immunization Date
> 
> DTaP-				3-				1/19/2008
> 
> ...


My advice: do research on each vaccination. I don't think all vaccinations are dangerous. Just ignore the pediatrician. Google each one, do some of that sort of research.

----------


## lucius

> ...I havent read this whole thread and perhaps you are already aware but just in case:  have you removed fluoride out of your child's water also?


Excellent advice and in-line with what the American Dental Association recommends:

*New Fluoride Warning for Infants*

http://www.mothering.com/sections/ne....html#fluoride

*Does your drinking water contain added fluoride? If so, keep it away from infants under the age of one. This directive was issued recently by an unlikely source: the American Dental Association (ADA).*

In a November 9th email alert sent to all of its members, the ADA noted that "Infants less than one year old may be getting more than the optimal amount of fluoride if their primary source of nutrition is powdered or liquid infant formula mixed with water containing fluoride." The ADA went on to advise: "If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride."

*The ADA issued this advice because babies exposed to fluoridated water are at high risk for developing dental fluorosisa defect of the teeth which can result in staining and even corrosion of the enamel. In addition, on October 14th, the Food and Drug Administration stated that fluoridated water marketed to infants cannot claim to reduce the risk of cavities.*

*Dental fluorosis is not the only risk stemming from a baby's exposure to fluoride. In the same week that ADA issued its advisory, an article in the British journal, The Lancet, reported that fluoride may damage a child's developing brain. The Lancet review described fluoride, along with the rocket fuel additive perchlorate, as an "emerging neurotoxic substance" due to evidence linking fluoride to lower IQs in children, and brain damage in animals.*

*"Newborn babies have undeveloped brains, and exposure to fluoride, a suspected neurotoxin, should be avoided," notes Hardy Limeback, a member of a 2006 National Research Council panel on fluoride toxicity, and former President of the Canadian Association of Dental Research.*

*Fluoride is linked with other health problems as well, including weakened bones, reduced thyroid activity, and possibly, bone cancer in boys, according to a recent report from a team of Harvard scientists, the US National Research Council and other recent studies.*

While most of western Europe has abandoned the practice of adding fluoride to water, most US water supplies remain fluoridated. In addition, some brands of bottled water sold in the US, such as Nursery Water, specifically market fluoridated water for young babies.

A recent investigation by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that over-exposure to fluoride among infants is a widespread problem in most major American cities. EWG's study found that, on any given day, up to 60% of formula-fed babies in US cities were exceeding the Institute of Medicine's "upper tolerable" limit for fluoride.

*"Water is supposed to be safe for everyone. Why add a chemical that makes it knowingly unfit for young children?* The US should follow Europe's lead and end fluoridation," says Michael Connett, Project Director of the Fluoride Action Network.

For additional information, see: http://www.fluoridealert.org and http://www.ewg.org

Source:
Fluoride Action Network (FAN) & Environmental Working Group (EWG)

----------


## lucius

> Wow... My parents gave me fluoride tablets when I was little because we had well water.  However they forgot to tell me I was supposed to become a simpleton conformist to the state.  Never had bridges, crowns ,root canals, etc.. and don't plan on it.  Better stick to "distilled water and pure grain alcohol".


*Key Findings - Fluoride's Topical vs. Systemic Effects:* 

When water fluoridation first began in the 1940s, dentists believed that fluoride's main benefit came from ingesting fluoride during the early years of life. This belief held sway for over 40 years. 

*However, it is now acknowledged by dental researchers to be incorrect. According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's predominant effect is TOPICAL (direct contact with teeth) and not systemic (from ingestion).* 

*Hence, there is no need to ingest fluoride to derive it's purported benefit for teeth.*

As stated by the US Centers for Disease Control:

*"Laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children" (CDC, 1999, MMWR 48: 933-940).*

----------


## lucius

> (Without reading through 20 pages, I'll answer the topic-starter.)
> 
> I admire your concern for the wellbeing of your child, but think of this logically.
> 
> 1. Did you have vaccines? I'm not sure of your age, and what vaccines were available back then, but if you did have vaccines, you can probably look in the mirror, and honestly say that you turned out normal.
> 
> I was vaccinated several times growing up, and haven't had any problems. I don't get flu vaccines though, because I have a high immune system, and flu vaccines are not perfected. Most other vaccines remain the same from year to year, so once they got one that works, then they stick to it.
> 
> 2 Several million children have been vaccinated, and as far as I know, the children are healthy, and still around, or have grown into adults.
> ...


Good chance that you will not live to be as old as your parents--some progress, huh?




> "*2000: the National Academy of Sciences reports that half of all pregnancies in the U.S. result in less than healthy babies. Up to one-third of the developmental defects in these babies were caused by exposure to toxic chemicals.*
> 
> Half of all Americans now take at least one prescription drug every day; 25 percent of Americans take multiple prescription drugs every day.
> 
> The incidence of testicular cancer is now estimated to be four times higher than just 50 years earlier.
> 
> *The Physicians for Social Responsibility releases a report describing "an epidemic of developmental, learning and behavioral disabilities"* affecting an estimated 12 million children in the U.S. Evidence suggests the epidemic may be a result of toxic chemicals affecting the central nervous system of these children."


From 'The Hundred-Year Lie: How Food and Medicine Are Destroying Your Health' by Randall Fitzgerald (ISBN: 0525949518)

*"When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we, in essence, accept that the state owns our bodies." ~U.S. Representative Ron Paul*

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You are lucky to be in a state that allows for philosophical exemptions. In Mississippi, we have to 'lie' and say we have a 'religous' objection in order to have a say in what shots our kids get. My advice would be research them and decide which shots you want her to have. Wait until she's older and spread them out over a long period of time.


My only comment in this thread:

EVERY state has an "exclusion" clause for either philosophical, religious or medical reasons.

http://www.nvic.org/state-site/legal-exemptions.htm

Search out the documents, some are more obscure in some states than others.

----------


## Birdlady

Mercury is bad for you in even the tiniest amount, so therefore you should never willingly put it in you. 

Some people may remember that my health has always been really really crappy.  Well I found out a few months back that I have mercury poisoning. I went through and did the DMPS challenge test and my levels were quite elevated.  The interesting thing is that I haven't had a piece of fish in years. I think I am allergic to it because it makes me ill. I haven't had a vaccination since 6th grade (12 years ago). But the one thing I have had is a bunch of dental amalgams.  My teeth have always been bad (and my water was full of fluoride as a kid).

I'm only 24 years old. My hair has fallen out. I feel like I'm 98 years old on most days. I was also recently diagnosed with Diabetes Insipidus, which causes my blood pressure to be extremely low due to severe dehydration.  Hopefully once I get the mercury out of me that I might start to feel better and perhaps my hair will grow back. 

Those of you willing to inject yourself and your children with mercury are playing Russian Roulette.  A lot of these autoimmune diseases I suspect are caused from heavy metal poisoning.  This is one thing that doctors won't talk about and usually laugh at you when you bring it up.  So even though you "feel fine", I guarantee you there is some soft kill brewing inside you waiting to react. Waiting for the trigger. Some people it hits them early other it is later in their lives.   

I wish I could arrange to allow you to experience one of my bad days just so you could feel what it is like to have a body full of mercury. It's not a laughing matter.

----------


## Ninja Homer

> Mercury is bad for you in even the tiniest amount, so therefore you should never willingly put it in you. 
> 
> Some people may remember that my health has always been really really crappy.  Well I found out a few months back that I have mercury poisoning. I went through and did the DMPS challenge test and my levels were quite elevated.  The interesting thing is that I haven't had a piece of fish in years. I think I am allergic to it because it makes me ill. I haven't had a vaccination since 6th grade (12 years ago). But the one thing I have had is a bunch of dental amalgams.  My teeth have always been bad (and my water was full of fluoride as a kid).
> 
> I'm only 24 years old. My hair has fallen out. I feel like I'm 98 years old on most days. I was also recently diagnosed with Diabetes Insipidus, which causes my blood pressure to be extremely low due to severe dehydration.  Hopefully once I get the mercury out of me that I might start to feel better and perhaps my hair will grow back. 
> 
> Those of you willing to inject yourself and your children with mercury are playing Russian Roulette.  A lot of these autoimmune diseases I suspect are caused from heavy metal poisoning.  This is one thing that doctors won't talk about and usually laugh at you when you bring it up.  So even though you "feel fine", I guarantee you there is some soft kill brewing inside you waiting to react. Waiting for the trigger. Some people it hits them early other it is later in their lives.   
> 
> I wish I could arrange to allow you to experience one of my bad days just so you could feel what it is like to have a body full of mercury. It's not a laughing matter.


A lot of people are having very good success at heavy metal detox using MMS aka Miracle Mineral Supplement aka sodium chlorite.

The original site on it (there's a free ebook): http://miraclemineral.org

Good support forum: http://curezone.com/forums/f.asp?f=871

I buy it from here: http://ener-chi.com/mms.htm

It's about $20 for a 5.5 oz bottle.  You only need 5-30 drops a day (ramp up to 15 drops twice a day for detox, or just 5 drops a day for maintenance) so a bottle lasts a very long time.

It's also having great success for helping with a lot of different hard to cure diseases.

----------


## pinkmandy

Ninja- If you don't mind would you care to share why you're using MMS and what success you're having? It looks interesting and at $20 I may buy some to see if it helps my son who had a bad vax reaction and dh who has been unable to get rid of lyme (if that's what it is, def some bacteria from a tick bite).

----------


## Matisa

Im not a believer in vaccinations myself if , iv done a lot of research on the subject and its a lot 
More dangerous then you think, a lot of people dont even realize what its done to them .
Such as decreasing mental intelligence causing learning disabilities and mental retardation. And other 
Handicaps. And sometimes even death. And no they wont say the cause of death is from the vaccination they will say from natural causes like the flu or something like that..

Well thats my thought on the subject

----------


## Birdlady

> A lot of people are having very good success at heavy metal detox using MMS aka Miracle Mineral Supplement aka sodium chlorite.
> 
> The original site on it (there's a free ebook): http://miraclemineral.org
> 
> Good support forum: http://curezone.com/forums/f.asp?f=871
> 
> I buy it from here: http://ener-chi.com/mms.htm
> 
> It's about $20 for a 5.5 oz bottle.  You only need 5-30 drops a day (ramp up to 15 drops twice a day for detox, or just 5 drops a day for maintenance) so a bottle lasts a very long time.
> ...


Thanks for the info. You are not supposed to do anything until you get the amalgams out, so I am working on that now. 

The last dentist appointment has made me so ill, so this reinforces the fact that it is indeed mercury poisoning from the fillings.  My blood pressure has been ridiculously low these past two days. I feel like I am dying.

----------


## dannno

> Thanks for the info. You are not supposed to do anything until you get the amalgams out, so I am working on that now. 
> 
> The last dentist appointment has made me so ill, so this reinforces the fact that it is indeed mercury poisoning from the fillings.  My blood pressure has been ridiculously low these past two days. I feel like I am dying.


Wow that's awful. I wish I knew more about this stuff, but it sounds like the faster you try and get rid of it the more sick it is going to make you. On the other hand you need to get that stuff out asap. One thing I know about detoxing is that you end up getting pretty sick from releasing the toxins back into your system, so when you are able to detox make sure and take it easy.

----------


## Anti Federalist

lucious wrote:




> Good chance that you will not live to be as old as your parents--some progress, huh?


This is purely anecdotal, but in my research poking around old New England cemeteries, I've found that people 200 years ago, if they survived into adulthood, generally lived well into their 80's.

Also interesting to note how low the US ranks in comparison to other nations when it comes to life expectancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ife_expectancy

Japan, China and Hong Kong all list much higher, Japan being number one in one survey.

So does France, the Swiss, and South Korea.

Yet, in many of those countries, people smoke like fiends. Japan, for instance, has a adult male smoking rate of over 45% as of 2006.

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2006/Wha...yEnvelope.aspx

Things like this lead me to believe that the facts are not being presented correctly, and that health related "boogeymen" are not, in fact, the demons they are made out to be.

Heredity, diet and lifestyle are the key components in living a longer, healthier life.

----------


## pinkmandy

AF- Thought you might enjoy this re: smoking:
http://www.mothernature.com/Library/...oks/10/107.cfm

----------


## Ninja Homer

> Ninja- If you don't mind would you care to share why you're using MMS and what success you're having? It looks interesting and at $20 I may buy some to see if it helps my son who had a bad vax reaction and dh who has been unable to get rid of lyme (if that's what it is, def some bacteria from a tick bite).


I just use it for general detox.  I used to take liquid zeolites daily, but found out that MMS does a better job at it, and it's a lot cheaper.

I also used it once for an abscessed tooth.  I just mixed some MMS up and swished it around and brushed my teeth with it a few times in 1 day.  It was gone the next day.  This is the only thing I know of that can save an abscessed tooth short of a root canal.

My wife has taken it to knock out a cold that seemed to be dragging on forever, and the cold was gone within a few hours.  My son took some when he got the flu, and he was all better within 24 hours.

For as cheap as it is, I think it's worth having some around, whether you use it for daily detox or not.

For using it for a vaccine reaction or lyme, look at this forum: http://curezone.com/forums/f.asp?f=871
Curezone also has separate forums for both lyme disease and vaccine support.

----------


## Bunkerbuilder

Ditto  

I have a 7 year old son that we believe who's brain and GUT was poisoned by the thermasol (Mercury) in the vaccines. 

NO doctor can or would even attempt to repay you for all of the costs out of pocket and out of heart and soul when your child turns out to be autistic or any ASD ailment. 

They push the shots like all doctors push the LEGAL drugs but they aren't around when things turn bad for the child and parent. 

Take the Religious exemption if you need to or the other one if its offered in your state. 

The people that suggest you give your child these poisons  will not be there when it turns out your child stops developing  and stops talking, walking or worse. 







> I know many children who have not had vaccines and they are for the most part healthier than most other children. Unfortunately I have a nephew that was born perfectly healthy and was making all the expected advances and after having a DPT shot he started crying all the time and falling off in his development now he is called autistic...

----------


## XNavyNuke

Parents opt to homeschool, not vaccinate




> All states allow unvaccinated children to attend school with a medical doctor's excuse. Mississippi and West Virginia alone allow no exemptions beyond medical necessity, leaving parents with homeschooling as the only option if they do not want to have their children vaccinated.
> 
> Barnes said she wants Mississippi to change the law. She and her husband, Curtis, homeschool their 9-year-old daughter and 7-year-old son, and when their 3-year-old son gets a little older, they will homeschool him, too, mostly out of a concern over the safety of vaccines.


Becoming involved in the political process is a good thing. I hope these folks realize that the path is all uphill.

XNN

----------


## Printo

You certainly have the right to refuse vaccinations BUT they are an extremely cost-effective means to prevent illness.  Your child will be at a FAR GREATER risk of coming down with one of those illnesses, like over 100x greater than those who were vaccinated.  The notion that vaccines cause autism is just a myth.  The controversy arose from thiomersal-containing vaccines (TCVs).  Thiomersal is a preservative used in vaccines to prevent bacterial & fungal contamination.  There is no scientific evidence whatsoever supporting the fact that thiomersal causes autism or any other brain development disorders.  Anyways thiomersal is no longer in vaccines in the US or Europe.

I'm a pharmacy student, I think vaccines are a great way to prevent illnesses & save people tons of money in the long run, which is important today given the rising costs of health care.  I think you should really consider vaccination but I understand if you do not.  I do not believe vaccinations should be mandatory by any means and I respect a persons right to their body & their individual liberties.

----------


## ItsTime

> You certainly have the right to refuse vaccinations BUT they are an extremely cost-effective means to prevent illness.  Your child will be at a FAR GREATER risk of coming down with one of those illnesses, like over 100x greater than those who were vaccinated.  The notion that vaccines cause autism is just a myth.  The controversy arose from thiomersal-containing vaccines (TCVs).  Thiomersal is a preservative used in vaccines to prevent bacterial & fungal contamination.  There is no scientific evidence whatsoever supporting the fact that thiomersal causes autism or any other brain development disorders.  Anyways thiomersal is no longer in vaccines in the US or Europe.
> 
> I'm a pharmacy student, I think vaccines are a great way to prevent illnesses & save people tons of money in the long run, which is important today given the rising costs of health care.  I think you should really consider vaccination but I understand if you do not.  I do not believe vaccinations should be mandatory by any means and I respect a persons right to their body & their individual liberties.


The CDC chief disagrees with you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh-nkD5LSIg

----------


## Printo

> The CDC chief disagrees with you.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh-nkD5LSIg


That video is anti-vaccine propaganda meant to scare people & nowhere in that video does she say that vaccines cause autism.  It even says at the banner at the bottom of the screen: "CDC: NO ASSOCIATION BETWEEN VACCINES AND AUTISM."  That girl they are talking about had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was exacerbated by the 9 vaccines she received.  The stresses put on her body by the vaccines are what led to her autism-like symptoms, not the vaccine itself.

The following people have conducted scientific studies and disagree with you:

the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Medical Toxicology, the Canadian Pediatric Society, the National Academy of Sciences, the Food and Drug Administration,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, the Public Health Agency of Canada,and the European Medicines Agency.

----------


## ItsTime

> That video is anti-vaccine propaganda meant to scare people & nowhere in that video does she say that vaccines cause autism.  It even says at the banner at the bottom of the screen: "CDC: NO ASSOCIATION BETWEEN VACCINES AND AUTISM."  That girl they are talking about had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was exacerbated by the 9 vaccines she received.  The stresses put on her body by the vaccines are what led to her autism-like symptoms, not the vaccine itself.
> 
> The following people have conducted scientific studies and disagree with you:
> 
> the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Medical Toxicology, the Canadian Pediatric Society, the National Academy of Sciences, the Food and Drug Administration,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, the Public Health Agency of Canada,and the European Medicines Agency.


1/50 children have that trigger that could cause autism. 1/100 get autism. 

Those who are vaccinated are 155% more likely to get autism or adhd.
http://www.generationrescue.org/survey.html

----------


## Printo

> 1/50 children have that trigger that could cause autism. 1/100 get autism. 
> 
> Those who are vaccinated are 155% more likely to get autism or adhd.
> http://www.generationrescue.org/survey.html


Those numbers are completely made up.  So 1/100 children have autism, so thats about 3 million people in the US alone, nonsense.  The actual ratio is about 1 or 2/1000.  Anyways, the supposed trigger for autism, thiomersal, isnt even in vaccines anymore.  There is no evidence to support that vaccines cause autism.  Every major medical association and government agency have found these claims to be false.  Generation Rescues so-called "research" was just an informal phone survey.  The also lumped in ADD, ADHD, Asperger's, PDD-NOS, Asthma, or Juvenile Diabetes into their survey along with Autism.  Those numbers they presented are inflated.  A phone poll is hardly concrete evidence that vaccines cause autism, especially when they're inquiring about a variety of other illnesses at the same time.

There is simply not enough scientific evidence to support the claim that vaccines cause autism.

The truth is that vaccines are the most cost-effective way to prevent illnesses & the risks of not vaccinating your children are far worse than those of vaccinating.

----------


## steve005

> Hi there Christagious, 
> 
> I am begging you to not take any medical advice from the "health freedom" section on this message board. The vaccination propagandist are perhaps the most dangerous and deliberately prevaricating of all the pseudosciences. By denying your child the vaccinations you will not only be putting her life/health in danger but others in your community as well. The anti'vaccination crowd lies. And they lie big.
> 
> Do not confuse the science issue with the liberty issue. Of course the government shouldn't be allowed to mandate vaccines. Just like they shouldn't be allowed to prohibit people from killing themselves by overdosing on drugs.
> 
> But that does not change the fact that vaccines save lives and are overwhelmingly safe. You should allow your kid to get them because they work, are safe, and protect your kid from contracting and then spreading diseases to others in your community, not because the government requires you to do so. 
> 
> Your daughter is not being poisoned by vaccinations. Vaccinations do not put your daughter at risk for getting diseases (autism, flu, etc.). If you have specific questions about specific concerns please let me know and I will do my best to answer them with established science, not myths and deliberate obfuscation that is running rampant within the anti-vaccination crowd.
> ...


whoever wrote this is a fool or a mole

----------


## ItsTime

> Those numbers are completely made up.  So 1/100 children have autism, so thats about 3 million people in the US alone, nonsense.  The actual ratio is about 1 or 2/1000.  Anyways, the supposed trigger for autism, thiomersal, isnt even in vaccines anymore.  There is no evidence to support that vaccines cause autism.  Every major medical association and government agency have found these claims to be false.  Generation Rescues so-called "research" was just an informal phone survey.  The also lumped in ADD, ADHD, Asperger's, PDD-NOS, Asthma, or Juvenile Diabetes into their survey along with Autism.  Those numbers they presented are inflated.  A phone poll is hardly concrete evidence that vaccines cause autism, especially when they're inquiring about a variety of other illnesses at the same time.
> 
> There is simply not enough scientific evidence to support the claim that vaccines cause autism.
> 
> The truth is that vaccines are the most cost-effective way to prevent illnesses & the risks of not vaccinating your children are far worse than those of vaccinating.


2007 1/150
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020801883.html


1/58 in England
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...es-reveal.html

This is just for a quick google search.

----------


## Printo

> 2007 1/150
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020801883.html
> 
> 
> 1/58 in England
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...es-reveal.html
> 
> This is just for a quick google search.


This is still not substantial evidence that vaccines cause autism.  Autism is primarily a genetic disorder, around 90% of autism cases.  Around the time of childhood vaccinations is when most children would begin to express their autism.  There is also a variety of teratogens responsible for birth defects in children, such as autism.  These agents cause defects during pregnancy, not after birth.

It is completely irrational to deny your children the most cost effective form of preventive health care based on paranoia.  There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism.  You are putting your child in great risk.  Denying your child vaccinations increases their risks of coming down with that illness by nearly 100x!  A vaccine costs about $50.  The costs of curing the illness your child would come down with by denying your kid a vaccine could be several hundred dollars in office visit costs & prescription medication.  This is a big deal if you do not have health insurance.

----------


## XNavyNuke

> It is completely irrational to deny your children the most cost effective form of preventive health care based on paranoia.


Great news Printo, the Atlanta Journal Constitution Ed Board has taken up you position and said that people too ignorant to follow the advice of experts must be forcibly vaccinated by the State.

Vaccinations benefits proved; enforce the law




> New Jersey, like Georgia and most other states, already allows children to be exempted from vaccine requirements if their parents have religious objections or if there is a legitimate medical reason. The bill in the New Jersey Legislature would allow parents a conscientious exemption as long as they swear they have sincerely held objections to immunizations.
> 
> No doubt many parents have sincerely held beliefs, but allowing them to opt out of vaccination puts the lives of their children at risk as well as the lives of others.


XNN

----------


## Baptist

Bump because this thread has lots of info on both sides of the argument.  





> I originally posted this a pretty long time ago.  here's an update.  We've decided to hold off on vaccinations until she's at least 2,3,4, or 5.  And that's if we even decide to give her any at all.
> 
> HonestyInMedicine, I may want to discuss things further with you concerning various things, including this.
> 
> One thing that worries me about NOT giving vaccinations is what if the gov't decides to unleash some sicknesses that only the unvaccinated will be affected by?  Most likely the people they'd be targeting are the liberty minded ones as a lot of the survivalists, ron paul supporters, alex jones fans, etc are against vaccines.  What does anybody think of this scenario?


I've thought about that too.  What if they engineered this pandemic to be real, and for the vaccines to work/ be safe.  That would be the best way to get rid of the liberty lovers.  


Christagious, I was wondering how your daughter was doing, and what your thoughts are on vaccination now that it is a year later.  

I discovered Ron Paul & the liberty movement late in 07'.  Reading these forums I saw many people opposed to vaccines.  Because of this, I decided "before I have kids I'm going to research this vaccination thing."  I then eventually stumbled across this thread and read the entire thing (sometime in mid/late 08').  Reading the arguments in this thread that were against vaccination (how it's practiced today in the U.S.) convinced me that they were probably bad.  I brought it up to my wife (the fact that I was leaning towards vaccines being bad) and she did not like that position.  

However, this summer we both spent a lot of time watching documentaries, reading books, and studying the issue.  We are now both very anti-vaccine for many reasons (most of them have already been hashed out here so I won't go over it again-- it's late and I'm tired.)  Even though I would have eventually got around to researching vaccines on my own, it was this thread that finally motivated me to do it.

Anyways, just wanted to thank you for posting your original questions/concerns.  It helped open my eyes!

----------


## unconsious767

> Those numbers are completely made up.  So 1/100 children have autism, so thats about 3 million people in the US alone, nonsense.  The actual ratio is about 1 or 2/1000.  Anyways, the supposed trigger for autism, thiomersal, isnt even in vaccines anymore.  There is no evidence to support that vaccines cause autism.  Every major medical association and government agency have found these claims to be false.  Generation Rescues so-called "research" was just an informal phone survey.  The also lumped in ADD, ADHD, Asperger's, PDD-NOS, Asthma, or Juvenile Diabetes into their survey along with Autism.  Those numbers they presented are inflated.  A phone poll is hardly concrete evidence that vaccines cause autism, especially when they're inquiring about a variety of other illnesses at the same time.
> 
> There is simply not enough scientific evidence to support the claim that vaccines cause autism.
> 
> The truth is that vaccines are the most cost-effective way to prevent illnesses & the risks of not vaccinating your children are far worse than those of vaccinating.


Oh really?

Would you care to explain these videos then?

YouTube - Swine Flu Vaccinations Arrive This Week

YouTube - 4409 -- FLU SHOT CONFRONTATION

----------


## Son of Detroit

All I know is, I'm glad I was vaccinated.

----------


## bobbyw24

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=213330

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=213430

----------


## jmag

Just stop.  Just stop getting them.  You are under no obligation to continue.  Ohio schools have exemptions for religious or personal reasons.  If you haven't seen Vaccine Nation you should.  There is so much information out there. 

Vaccine Nation
Vaccine Nation - Director&#39;s Cut (Gary Null)

----------


## Baptist

Bump for the info in thread.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Oh really?
> 
> Would you care to explain these videos then?
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - 4409 -- FLU SHOT CONFRONTATION


There is no thimerisol in vaccines intended for children- it was removed several years ago. Yes, there is thimerisol in some versions of the H1N1 flu vaccine but you can request a thimerisol free version.  The FDC has a list of childhood vaccines and when the thimerisol was removed (some never had it in the first place) here: http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvac.../ucm096228.htm

As for thimerisol and mercury in vaccines, there are two types of mercury. One is ethyl mercury and the other is methyl mercury. Methyl mercury is the one which can accumulate in fatty tissues in the body.  This is NOT the one used in vaccines.  Ethyl mercury does not accumulate in the body- it has a half life of under seven days (at least half of it is eliminated from the body within a week)- even in children.  http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/s...ex.cfm?id=1848




> But scientists are learning that the two mercury species actually behave quite differently.  In fact, the body rids the kind found in thimerosal more that 10 times faster than it removes the kind one might encounter in a Friday night fish fry. 
> 
> In the Rochester study, 216 infants from R. Gutierrez Childrens Hospital (in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where thimerosal is still routinely used in vaccines) were divided into three age groups to have their blood-mercury levels tested both before and after shots were administered at either their newborn, 2- or 6-month checkup. Researchers learned that, in all three age groups, the half-life of ethyl mercury in the blood  or, the time it takes for the body to dispose of half the mercury, and then another half, and so on  was measured to be 3.7 days. Thats a far cry from the blood half-life of methyl mercury, which is 44 days. 
> 
> *Until recently, that longer half-life was assumed to be the rule for both types of mercury. Now its obvious that ethyl mercurys short half-life prevents toxic build-up from occurring. Its just gone too fast,* Pichichero said.  
> 
> To illustrate, researchers cite that infants in the 6-month-old group  who, in their lifetimes, had encountered more total ethyl mercury that any other group studied  still had the same pre-vaccination blood-mercury levels before their checkups as most 2-month-olds had before theirs. This suggests that, before each round of shots, the mercury has plenty of time to be cleared.


How much mercury is in a shot which does include thimerisol? 0.25 micrograms- that is .000025 grams- an incredibly small amount- particularly if you consider that a 100 pound person weighs 45,400 grams  and half the mercury is out of your body in just a week. 

As for thimerisol and autism, not just in the US but in European countries as well, when thimerisol was removed from childhood vaccines the rates of autism did not drop as one would expect if it was a contributing factor- instead the rates continued to rise.  This rules it out as a factor in autism.

----------


## libertyjam

> I agree that it shouldn't be a mandate. However, I also think that every girl should get this shot. By their parents and their own choice, every girl in America should receive this shot.


In the larger conversation, perhaps no one professional has been quoted, and misquoted, more frequently than Dr. Diane Harper. The recipient of a Masters Degree in Public Health, Dr. Harper is a Professor and Vice-Chair of Research at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, specializing in Community and Family Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bioinformatics and Personalized Medicine. 

"The most important point that I have always said from day one, is that the use of this vaccine must be done with informed consent and complete disclosure of the benefits and harms of Pap screening and HPV vaccines. The decision to be vaccinated must be the woman's (or parent's if it is for a young child), and not the physician's or any board of health, as the vaccination contains personal risk that only the person can value.

As all of the information in the United States concerned Gardasil, since that was the only vaccine approved in the U.S. from June 2006 until this past October 2009, my comments have been focused on Gardasil.

My points are as follows:

The Benefits of Pap Screening:
 Individual benefit to detect early precancers.
 Public health benefit: Only when 70% of the population has been screened will the population incidence of cervical cancer drop.
 Pap tests do not kill or handicap.

The Harms of Pap Screening:
 Screening must be repeated throughout a woman's life. One screen is not sufficient to protect her from cervical cancer.
 False negative rate of cytology screening: Among the women who develop cervical cancer in the U.S., 30% are women who have been routinely screened, and all their Paps have been normal.
 False positive rate of cytology screening: Women who screen abnormal are psychologically upset, anxious and left doubting the medical process (i.e. Her Pap was abnormal, but her colposcopy and biopsy were normal, with no explanation why her Pap was abnormal).
 Quality of life harms: Women with abnormal Paps have anxiety as high as women diagnosed with cervical cancer undergoing their surgical treatment. The stress of going to colposcopy and biopsy can be high for many women. The contemplation of a cervical biopsy and a scraping of the endocervical canal can lead to fear of pain.
 Relationship harms: Once women are told they have an abnormal Pap and that the Pap is abnormal because of a STD called HPV, most relationships are stressed as the partners attempt to understand who brought the infection to the relationship.
 Excisional treatments for detected precancerous lesions cause preterm deliveries in subsequent pregnancies, with concomitant low birth weight infants (which puts the infant at risk for life). In addition, scarring from the treatments lead to an increased cesarean section delivery method (as the cervix does not dilate normally due to scarring from prior excisions). These reproductive morbidities occur between 70%-300% more often in women with excisions.
 Recurrence of HPV associated cervical/vaginal/anal cancers at a rate of 3-12 times higher than those women who never had a cervical cancer precursor or cancer. These recurrences happen around ten years after treatment with peak recurrences between ten and twenty years from the initial treatment.

The Benefits of HPV vaccination:
 Cervarix protects against five cancer-causing types of HPV, which lead to CIN 2+ (precancers and cancers).
 Gardasil protects against three cancer-causing types of HPV, which lead to CIN 2+ (precancers and cancers).
 Cervarix induces antibody titers for HPV 16 and 18 that are at least ten fold higher than natural infection titers; the antibody titers for the other three cancer causing types (HPV 31, 45, 33) are also significantly higher than natural infection titers, and the titers stay high for at least 7.4 years - lasting the longer of either vaccines.
 Gardasil only maintains antibody titers for HPV 16 (not 18, not 11, not 6) at five years, making the true long lasting (five years) coverage of Gardasil only for one type of cancer causing HPV.
 If vaccination occurs within one year of the onset of sexual activity, there will be 57/1000 cases of all CIN 2+ types and persistent HPV 16/18 infections prevented, as compared to only 17/1000 cases prevented if virgins are vaccinated.

The Harms of HPV Vaccination:
 Duration of efficacy is key to the entire question. If duration is at least fifteen years, then vaccinating 11-year-old girls will protect them until they are 26 and will prevent some precancers, but postpone most cancers. If duration of efficacy is less than fifteen years, then no cancers are prevented, only postponed.
 Safety: There is at least one verified case of auto-immune initiated motor neuron disease declared triggered by Gardasil [presented by neurologists at the 2009 American Neurological Association meeting in Baltimore, Maryland). There are serious adverse events, including death, associated with Gardasil use.
 *No population benefit in reduction of cervical cancer incidence in the United States with HPV vaccination as long as screening continues.*
 Incidence rate of cervical cancer in the United States based on screening is 7/100,000 women per year.
 Incidence rate of cervical cancer if women are only vaccinated with Gardasil is 14/100,000 per year (twice the rate of cervical cancer if young women vaccinated with Gardasil do not seek Pap testing at 21 years and the rest of their life).
 Incidence rate of cervical cancer with Cervarix vaccination is 9/100,000 per year-- better than with Gardasil, but still more than with screening alone.
 Incidence of cervical cancer without screening and without vaccination is nearly 90/100,000 per year. The combination of HPV vaccine and screening in the U.S. will not decrease the incidence of cervical cancer to any measurable degree at the population level. Those women who do not participate in Pap screening, and who are vaccinated, will have some personal benefit for five years for Gardasil and 7.4 years for Cervarix (maybe longer), but they will not affect the population rates.

Boosters for Gardasil after antibodies wane makes the cost of vaccination escalate significantly, and cause implementation challenges to reach those women who might want to be revaccinated."

Q: Do you think that those who have received the HPV vaccine will become lax with getting their Pap smears, ultimately leading to a greater rate of cervical cancer within the United States population?

   "No one wants the incidence of cervical cancer to increase. But, there is a problem with women's' understanding of what Gardasil offered them. Many vaccinated women have returned to me in clinic with more abnormal Pap tests and more HPV disease. They are tremendously disappointed when told that Gardasil does not protect against all types of HPV, and that they are still at risk for cervical cancer.


 A:   In answer to your question, Yes. Finland has shown us that even a lack of screening for five years, resulting in less than 70% of the population being screened, is enough to increase the population incidence rate of cervical cancer. Yes, there is a real risk that cervical cancer will increase in the U.S. if those women getting Gardasil do not realize that:
     Gardasil will not protect them for life
     They can get other HPV infections that lead to cancer that are not covered by Gardasil
     They need to continue to have Pap tests throughout their lifetime"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia..._b_405472.html

----------


## BuddyRey

I can't believe I read all 6 pages of this.  My head is reeling!  My mercury-addled brain just wasn't prepared for that workload.

----------


## HealthWyze

> Hi there Christagious, 
> 
> I am begging you to not take any medical advice from the "health freedom" section on this message board. The vaccination propagandist are perhaps the most dangerous and deliberately prevaricating of all the pseudosciences. By denying your child the vaccinations you will not only be putting her life/health in danger but others in your community as well. The anti'vaccination crowd lies. And they lie big.


This is sickening. There have been plenty of studies which have proven that vaccinations can cause developmental delays, including autism.  They're from all around the world. They're just not publicized because there is another group that lie... big. There is a list of studies on this page: http://healthwyze.org/index.php/comp...poisoning.html

To the contrary, there has never been a study which monitors children which take every vaccine (All 20+ of them), compares them with unvaccinated children, and then makes a statement of efficacy.  It hasn't happened... ever. It never will.  They don't want to hear those results.  True science doesn't fear investigation. 




> Do not confuse the science issue with the liberty issue. Of course the government shouldn't be allowed to mandate vaccines. Just like they shouldn't be allowed to prohibit people from killing themselves by overdosing on drugs.
> 
> But that does not change the fact that vaccines save lives and are overwhelmingly safe. You should allow your kid to get them because they work, are safe, and protect your kid from contracting and then spreading diseases to others in your community, not because the government requires you to do so.


"Overwhelming safe"? How is that different from just 'safe'? Is that like, "mostly safe" or "hopefully safe"?  You see, that's the problem.  In some kids, they don't have any bad reactions.  In other kids, reactions are permanent, and even fatal (Court cases have identified vaccination as a cause of misdiagnosed "shaken baby syndrome"). 




> Your daughter is not being poisoned by vaccinations. Vaccinations do not put your daughter at risk for getting diseases (autism, flu, etc.). If you have specific questions about specific concerns please let me know and I will do my best to answer them with established science, not myths and deliberate obfuscation that is running rampant within the anti-vaccination crowd.


Would you like to go through the ingredient's list together?  We can look at which of the chemicals are scientifically "poisonous" according to MSDS'.  Then we can see if vaccinations are poisoning children. What do you say?

----------


## Zippyjuan

Autism symptoms do manifest themselves at about the same age that children are getting vaccinated.  That is no proof of cause and effect. Thimerisol was identified by some as a cause of autism from vaccines but when thimerisol was removed from vaccines,  the rates of autism continued to rise.  If it was a contributing factor in autism then rates should have gone down when thimerisol was removed.  The same result was seen in the United States and other countries in Europe when they dropped thimerisol (before the US did even).  

If you would like to take a look at what ingredients are found in vaccines, here is a list (listed ingredients may not be in all vaccines- you can look up individual vaccines to find what they contain- there is a link to PDF on the page): 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ncient.svg.png




> Chemicals commonly used in the production of vaccines include a suspending fluid (sterile water, saline, or fluids containing protein); preservatives and stabilizers (for example, albumin, phenols, and glycine); and adjuvants or enhancers that help improve the vaccine's effectiveness. Vaccines also may contain very small amounts of the culture material used to grow the virus or bacteria used in the vaccine, such as chicken egg protein.
> 
> Millions of doses of vaccines are administered to children in this country each year. Ensuring that those vaccines are potent, sterile, and safe requires the addition of minute amounts of chemical additives. 
> Chemicals are added to vaccines to inactivate a virus or bacteria and stabilize the vaccine, helping to preserve the vaccine and prevent it from losing its potency over time. 
> The amount of chemical additives found in vaccines is very small. 
> All routinely recommended pediatric vaccines manufactured for the U.S. market contain no thimerosal or only trace amounts.

----------


## moostraks

> Autism symptoms do manifest themselves at about the same age that children are getting vaccinated.  That is no proof of cause and effect. Thimerisol was identified by some as a cause of autism from vaccines but when thimerisol was removed from vaccines,  the rates of autism continued to rise.  If it was a contributing factor in autism then rates should have gone down when thimerisol was removed.  The same result was seen in the United States and other countries in Europe when they dropped thimerisol (before the US did even).  
> 
> If you would like to take a look at what ingredients are found in vaccines, here is a list (listed ingredients may not be in all vaccines- you can look up individual vaccines to find what they contain- there is a link to PDF on the page): 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ncient.svg.png


What is causing the increase in autism then?

----------


## Zippyjuan

One is more diagnosis.  Autism is more than one condition- the full name of it is "autism spectrum disease".   There are more kids being called autistic which even fifteen or twenty years ago would have been called something else like "slow", "retarded".  The expanding definitions is a significant factor in increasing numbers of cases. We have seen a similar rise in kids diagnosed as ADD. In the past they might have just been considered undiciplined, spastic or obnoxious.   
http://www.slate.com/id/2157496/
Portions:



> But is there, in fact, an autism epidemic? Most of the scientists who study the disease—though not all—believe that any increase in recent decades in autism incidence, as opposed to diagnosis, has been modest. In his new book Unstrange Minds; Remapping the World of Autism, George Washington University anthropologist Roy Richard Grinker, who has an autistic 15-year-old daughter, makes the case that the rise in autism diagnosis is nothing more than an epidemic of discovery.
> 
> For parents who are convinced that vaccines cause autism, it is significant that autism did not exist as a diagnosis until the Johns Hopkins University psychiatrist Leo Kanner first described the disorder in a 1943 journal paper—several years after children started receiving vaccines that contained minuscule amounts of a mercury preservative. But Kanner merely gave a name to a condition that probably always existed. Children with behaviors that would be called autistic today are scattered through the literature of past centuries. William of Newburgh in 12th-century England described "green children" who could not communicate or follow social customs. Sixteenth-century Russia had "blessed fools," seizure-plagued mutes preoccupied with repetitive behaviors. In 1887 England, Dr. Landon Down—after whom the chromosomal condition Down syndrome was named—coined the phrase "idiot savants" to describe some of the autistic children he saw. Down described the "self-contained and self-absorbed" child who was not "entertained other than in his own dream-land, and by automatic movements of his fingers or rhythmical movements of his body." Even Sigmund Freud saw patients whom he described in terms that match the current definition of autistic—"satisfaction of the instincts is partially or totally withdrawn from the influence of other people." In other cultures, autistics continue to exist behind other categories: "eternal children," among the Navajo, "marvelous children" in Senegal. 
> 
> Grinker (whose grandfather Roy Grinker Sr. was an early American psychiatrist) covers all this early history while writing of his daughter's autism and the manner in which cultures from South Africa to Korea have dealt with autistic children. He points out that Kanner's father and grandfather, as well as Kanner himself, had clearly autistic traits. This sensitivity allowed him to bundle the symptoms of autism—social isolation, obsession with maintenance of sameness, muteness or repetitive language—into an identifiable syndrome. "Other doctors completely missed autism," writes Grinker, "because they weren't looking for it." About one in 300 Americans were in mental asylums in the mid-20th century, and case reports show that a good portion of them would be called autistic, if diagnosed today.
> 
> As reporting of autism expanded and improved, the numbers of autistics recorded in research studies also increased. In the 1960s and 1970s, when autism was thought to be rare, the few surveys of autistics were simple tallies from administrative records in hospitals and clinics. In more recent surveys, investigators have used expanded diagnostic criteria, registries, and screening techniques to find children with disorders on the autism spectrum, which ranges from full-blown autism to Asperger's syndrome. Many more children with high IQs are now given diagnoses on the spectrum as the new techniques turn up many more cases than the previous, more passive approach. Indeed, the number of autism diagnoses may continue to grow. When California reported 18,000 children under 19 in autism programs in 2002, out of a population of 11 million kids, the prevalence rate of one in 550 was still considerably smaller than the number to be expected from the most careful epidemiological research.


The strongest corelated factor in causes for autism so far seems to be the age of the parent. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/health/09autism.html



> *Both Parents’ Ages Linked to Autism Risk*  By RONI CARYN RABIN
> Published: February 8, 2010 
> 
> 
> Older mothers are more likely than younger ones to have a child with autism, and older fathers significantly contribute to the risk of the disorder when their partners are under 30, researchers are reporting. 
> 
> In a study published online on Monday in the journal Autism Research, the researchers analyzed almost five million births in California during the 1990s, and 12,159 cases of autism diagnosed in those children — a sample large enough to examine how the risk of autism was affected when one parent was a specific age and the other was the same age or considerably older or younger. 
> 
> Previous research found that the risk of autism grew with the age of the father. The new study suggested that when the father was over 40 and the mother under 30, the increased risk was especially pronounced — 59 percent greater than for younger men. 
> ...

----------


## Bman

> There is no thimerisol in vaccines intended for children- it was removed several years ago. Yes, there is thimerisol in some versions of the H1N1 flu vaccine but you can request a thimerisol free version.  The FDC has a list of childhood vaccines and when the thimerisol was removed (some never had it in the first place) here: http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvac.../ucm096228.htm
> 
> As for thimerisol and mercury in vaccines, there are two types of mercury. One is ethyl mercury and the other is methyl mercury. Methyl mercury is the one which can accumulate in fatty tissues in the body.  This is NOT the one used in vaccines.  Ethyl mercury does not accumulate in the body- it has a half life of under seven days (at least half of it is eliminated from the body within a week)- even in children.  http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/s...ex.cfm?id=1848


There is, to the best of my knowledge, little testing on the effects of Ethyl mercury.  Enough so that I see no reason to turn a child of mine into a lab rat.

----------


## moostraks

> One is more diagnosis.  Autism is more than one condition- the full name of it is "autism spectrum disease".   There are more kids being called autistic which even fifteen or twenty years ago would have been called something else like "slow", "retarded".  The expanding definitions is a significant factor in increasing numbers of cases. We have seen a similar rise in kids diagnosed as ADD. In the past they might have just been considered undiciplined, spastic or obnoxious.   
> 
> The strongest corelated factor in causes for autism so far seems to be the age of the parent.



So the medical community over diagnosed autism to what end? So the older the parent the less the child can interact because the parent is failing to properly socialize or do the children actually have some disorder?

----------


## Magicman

Taking shots of *Glutathione* = Better then any vaccine and will ensure you have the strongest immune system known to man.

----------


## NiceGoing

One thought that I would take to heart is that:  you cannot see what is in the vaccine.  Therefore ANYTHING might be in that vaccine that will be injected into your body.

Is this a risk you are willing to take ? 
Nope -not I!

----------


## Zippyjuan

> One thought that I would take to heart is that:  you cannot see what is in the vaccine.  Therefore ANYTHING might be in that vaccine that will be injected into your body.
> 
> Is this a risk you are willing to take ? 
> Nope -not I!


You can't see what is in a glass of water either. Do you drink that? Is that a risk you are willing to take? This is the silliest arguement I have heard so far.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> There is, to the best of my knowledge, little testing on the effects of Ethyl mercury.  Enough so that* I see no reason to turn a child of mine into a lab rat*.


There have been studies of ethyl mercury in the body- including in children (and as I have mentioned several times, *ethyl mercury is not in any of the vaccines inteded for children*). 

A study from the University of Rochester: http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/s...ex.cfm?id=1848




> But scientists are learning that the two mercury species actually behave quite differently.  In fact, the body rids the kind found in thimerosal more that 10 times faster than it removes the kind one might encounter in a Friday night fish fry. 
> 
> In the Rochester study, 216 infants from R. Gutierrez Children’s Hospital (in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where thimerosal is still routinely used in vaccines) were divided into three age groups to have their blood-mercury levels tested both before and after shots were administered at either their newborn, 2- or 6-month checkup. Researchers learned that, in all three age groups, the half-life of ethyl mercury in the blood – or, the time it takes for the body to dispose of half the mercury, and then another half, and so on – was measured to be 3.7 days. That’s a far cry from the blood half-life of methyl mercury, which is 44 days. 
> 
> “Until recently, that longer half-life was assumed to be the rule for both types of mercury. Now it’s obvious that ethyl mercury’s short half-life prevents toxic build-up from occurring. It’s just gone too fast,” Pichichero said.  
> 
> To illustrate, researchers cite that infants in the 6-month-old group – who, in their lifetimes, had encountered more total ethyl mercury that any other group studied – still had the same pre-vaccination blood-mercury levels before their checkups as most 2-month-olds had before theirs. This suggests that, before each round of shots, the mercury has plenty of time to be cleared.


More: http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ract/123/2/475

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...1CD29F6.d02t01



> In the brain, thimerosal-exposed mice showed a steady decrease of organic mercury levels following the initial peak, whereas in the methyl mercury-exposed mice, concentrations peaked on day 2 after exposure. In the kidneys, thimerosal-exposed mice retained significantly higher inorganic mercury levels than methyl mercury-treated mice. In the liver both organic and inorganic mercury concentrations were significantly higher in thimerosal-exposed mice than in the methyl mercury group. Ethyl mercury was incorporated into growing hair in a similar manner to methyl mercury. The data showing significant kinetic differences in tissue distribution and metabolism of mercury species challenge the assumption that ethyl mercury is toxicologically identical to methyl mercury


University of Lyon : http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-239692096.html

University of Washington (study using monkeys) http://www.myomancy.com/2005/05/ethyl_mercury_v




> The study inject new born monkeys with either ethyl mercury (in the form of thimerosal) or methyl mercury in doses equivalent to that found in vaccinations for human babies. Mercury levels were then monitored and it was found that the ethyl mercury cleared from the body a lot quicker than the methyl mercury. Critically brain concentrations of total mercury were significantly lower by about three-fold for the thimerosal exposed infants when compared to the methyl mercury infants. This is important because mercury causes brain damage only through long-term exposure (a fact that gave us the phrase ‘as mad as a hatter‘). Thus if the body is cleaning itself quickly of the ethyl mercury, it doesn’t have the chance to build up and cause damage.


http://www.questia.com/googleScholar...cId=5010885221



> The initial absorption rate and tissue distribution of mercury was similar in both exposed groups. However, total mercury progressively accumulated in the blood of methylmercury-exposed monkeys and remained detectable 28 days after the last dose. Among thimerosal-exposed monkeys, total mercury in blood declined rapidly between doses, and the researchers estimated clearance to be 5.4-fold higher than in the methylmercury group. In the thimerosal group, the half-life of total mercury in blood was 6.9 days, compared to 19.1 days for the methylmercury group.
> 
> Brain concentrations of total mercury were approximately 3-4 times lower in the thimerosal group than in the methylmercury group, and total mercury cleared more rapidly in the thimerosal group (with a half-life of 24.2 days versus 59.5 days). However, the proportion of inorganic mercury in the brain was much higher in the thimerosal group (21-86% of total mercury) compared to the methylmercury group (6-10%). Brain concentrations of inorganic mercury were approximately twice as high in the thimerosal group compared to the methylmercury group. Inorganic mercury remains in the brain much longer than organic mercury, with an estimated half-life of more than a year.

----------


## eOs

> Hi there Christagious, 
> 
> I am begging you to not take any medical advice from the "health freedom" section on this message board. The vaccination propagandist are perhaps the most dangerous and deliberately prevaricating of all the pseudosciences. By denying your child the vaccinations you will not only be putting her life/health in danger but others in your community as well. The anti'vaccination crowd lies. And they lie big.
> 
> Do not confuse the science issue with the liberty issue. Of course the government shouldn't be allowed to mandate vaccines. Just like they shouldn't be allowed to prohibit people from killing themselves by overdosing on drugs.
> 
> But that does not change the fact that vaccines save lives and are overwhelmingly safe. You should allow your kid to get them because they work, are safe, and protect your kid from contracting and then spreading diseases to others in your community, not because the government requires you to do so. 
> 
> Your daughter is not being poisoned by vaccinations. Vaccinations do not put your daughter at risk for getting diseases (autism, flu, etc.). If you have specific questions about specific concerns please let me know and I will do my best to answer them with established science, not myths and deliberate obfuscation that is running rampant within the anti-vaccination crowd.
> ...


^Where this thread should of ended. +rep

Well, almost should of ended. There now exists a market to push vaccinations for things that the likelihood of you getting is probably around .1% And that is without a vaccinated population..Just look at the swine flu.

----------


## bossman068410

Risk - vs - Reward

FAR Greater risk to take vaccines.
I have personally seen 2 children BRAIN DAMAGED from vaccinations.
Those 2 children will for ever be mentally challenged.
Those 2 children will for ever be in their mothers care.
Every day is a struggle to get through.

----------


## bossman068410



----------


## bossman068410

79 have lost their ability to taste or smell after taking the H1N1 swine flu vaccine in Norway.

2009 Nov/Dec

http://theflucase.com

Silje Marie Vatvik lost both taste and smell after taking the vaccine against swine flu. She has been sick for several weeks.

"People do not understand what it means to have taste and odor. I do not taste the food and can therefore do not want to swallow it. It inhibits me socially because I can attend dinner functions, " says Silje Marie Vatvik.

The 30-year-old who lives in Longyearbyen, was one of the first to receive the vaccine against swine flu. She worked in the department responsible for preparedness initiatives at the airport and was expected by her employer to be vaccined the same day first vaccines arrived on October 21.

"Had I not been expected to take the vaccine, I would have at least had the option, and the first thing I asked about were the side effects,", said Vatvik.

Vatvik was not prepared for what was to come after the vaccination, losing both her ability to taste and smell. She has not recovered these senses since taking the vaccine. The hospital administered many tests but the 30-year old has not responded to any of them.

"They kept all options open since it could have been a coincidence and nothing to do with the vaccine. But it was ultimately the one cause that remained," she says.

Vatvik is on sick leave indefinitely due to the illness. "I think about food all the time, have little energy and I'm irritable because I have low blood sugar," she says.

"There has been much talk about the vaccine not being tested, but it has been accepted in other countries before Norway. I know that foreign websites have been written about the loss of smell and taste associated with the vaccine, so it is strange that they were not more informed about it," said Vatvik.

When she went to the hospital, no one had heard of any similar cases. Now 79 people are suffering the same side effects notes the Norwegian Medicines Agency. They have no explanation for why some have lost their taste and smell after flu vaccine.

"It was unknown to us in advance that the loss of taste and sense of smell could be a side effect," said a spokesman from the Norwegian Medicines Agency, Steinar Madsen.

Madsen could not address why some patients suffer from the side effect. "We have no explanation for why it happens. We can not say for sure whether it has a relationship with the vaccine. There are other explanations, like that you get a viral infection while taking the vaccine," says Madsen.

When asked how long the patients it will take patients to recover, Madsen said, "I can not answer. I have talked to one patient who told me that she was well again after a couple of weeks."

Original Article

http://preventdisease.com/news/09/12..._vaccine.shtml

----------


## bossman068410

£85,000 for parents of MMR victim 
By Neale Adams 
16 March 2005 
Carol Buxton received £85,000 compensation after it was confirmed that the brain damage suffered by her daughter Hannah, who later died after a violent fit, was linked to the MMR jab. 

Hannah endured up to 40 fits a day following her vaccination in 1988. She died three days before her third birthday. 

Mrs Buxton and her husband Tony, a police officer, fought for compensation but were initially turned down by the Vaccine Damage Unit. 

In 1992 the Buxtons, who also have three sons, appealed and four months later received a letter from the unit. It stated: "Hannah Buxton was disabled as a result of a vaccination to which the claim relates." It said the reaction to the jab had caused Hannah's development to deteriorate. The evidence was uncontested by the Government. 

Travel consultant Mrs Buxton said: "The most important thing was someone confirmed what I had always suspected - the MMR jab had done so much damage to her brain that she became severely handicapped and started having fits." 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...4674?version=1
©2005 Associated New Media

----------


## Zippyjuan

I note that the person quoted in the article says they were sick for several weeks. 



> She has been sick for several weeks.


I am not a doctor but being sick can inflame the sinuses and that can lead to a loss of the sense of smell. We don't realize it but a lot of our sense of taste is actually part smells.  This is one possible explination for what occured. This lady IS a doctor:

http://www.everydayhealth.com/allerg...-of-smell.aspx



> Ask Dr. Anna Feldweg
> Swine Flu: Lost Sense of Smell
> Print E-mail Q: Ever since my fiancé had the swine flu, he has not been able to smell or taste anything. What might have caused this? 
> 
> — Rhonda, Texas 
>  A:  
> I can think of at least three explanations for loss of smell and taste after having a viral illness (swine flu or even a common cold). 
> 
> Probably the most common cause would be the development of a sinus infection. When the nasal passages and sinuses become swollen and filled with mucus from a cold or flu, the condition sometimes lingers after the illness, causing pain or pressure in the cheeks or forehead, postnasal drip, loss of the sense of smell, and fatigue. Our ability to taste is reliant on our ability to smell, so the two senses are often affected together. If this seems as if it might be the cause, then your fiancé should see his primary care provider if the symptoms do not improve gradually over the span of a couple of weeks. Most sinus infections clear up without treatment within that time. 
> ...


From the article posted: 



> *We can not say for sure whether it has a relationship with the vaccine*. There are other explanations, like that you get a viral infection while taking the vaccine," says Madsen.
> 
> When asked how long the patients it will take patients to recover, Madsen said, "I can not answer. I have talked to one patient who told me that she was well again after a couple of weeks."

----------


## bossman068410



----------


## bossman068410

YouTube - 12 BABY DEATHS VACCINE CONTINUED

YouTube - Gardasil Vaccine Deaths

----------


## NiceGoing

> You can't see what is in a glass of water either. Do you drink that? Is that a risk you are willing to take? This is the silliest arguement I have heard so far.


Sillier than your refusal to acknowledge the reams of reports, statistics and LAWSUITS that report serious damage and even deaths -all due to accepting these "preventative" vaccines?  I think not.

Your analogy of drinking a glass of water is barely worth arguing --obviously drinking *clean* water hasn't/doesn't result in brain damage, neurological breakdowns, autism, and other terrible disorders....Just look at the medical record, please...or talk to some parents who have been unfortunate enough to have first hand experience with the results of these deadly procedures.

In short, there is massive medical documentation against ingesting these toxic grab bags, and, if you choose to take them, you do so at your own --and your childrens'--extreme risk.  IMHO.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> ^Where this thread should of ended. +rep
> 
> Well, almost should of ended. There now exists a market to push vaccinations for things that the likelihood of you getting is probably around .1% And that is without a vaccinated population..Just look at the swine flu.


Swine flu is not as dangerous as the MSM hype would have you believe.  http://pediatrics.about.com/od/swine...9_symptoms.htm

The vaccine is demonstrably worse. http://euro-med.dk/?p=9152

----------


## Zippyjuan

Ron Paul on Vaccines: Agrees that polio vaccine helped eradicate it and that vaccines can be good though there may be too many of them. See about a minute and a half into this video. I certainly agree that flu vaccinations are over hyped but that does not make vaccines or all vaccines bad. 

YouTube - Ron Paul on H1N1!

Did people know that in 2008 164,000 people died from the measles?  As big as that number is, it is actually a decrease in global deaths from the disease of 78% just from the year 2000- and that is primarily due to vaccinations. 
http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/...0089f0870aRCRD

Turbuculosis (another disease preventable by vaccines) killed 1.6 million. You rarely hear about people dying from either of these in this country.  Why? Vaccines.  Risk/ benefit. 
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779147.html

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Swine flu is not as dangerous as the MSM hype would have you believe.  http://pediatrics.about.com/od/swine...9_symptoms.htm
> 
> The vaccine is demonstrably worse. http://euro-med.dk/?p=9152


Ah good old squalene.  I hope you cleaned your mouse and keyboard today.  It is covered in it.  Did you know that squalene is that oil that you leave behind in the form of fingerprints?  If you have ever eaten with your fingers or touched your food, you have ingested it- and in higher quantities that you would get from a vaccination.  Your liver produces it and it is found throughout your body.  You can even buy squalene supplements in health food stores.  This is a major risk factor I guess.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squalene



> Squalene is a natural organic compound originally obtained for commercial purposes primarily from shark liver oil, though plant sources (primarily vegetable oils) are used as well, including amaranth seed, rice bran, wheat germ, and olives. *All plants and animals produce squalene, including humans.* Squalene has been proposed to be an important part of the Mediterranean diet as it may be a chemopreventative substance that protects people from cancer.[1][2]
> 
> Squalene is a hydrocarbon and a triterpene, and is a natural and vital part of the synthesis of cholesterol, steroid hormones, and vitamin D in the human body.[3] Squalene is used in cosmetics, and more recently as an immunologic adjuvant in vaccines.


Amazon carries it even. 
http://www.amazon.com/Nutriwell-Squa.../dp/B000S63SHI

Another problem.  It isn't used in vaccines in the United States in the first place.  
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/1...-not-to-worry/



> *Shattering the Myths About Squalene in Vaccines*
> By Erin Biba  October 28, 2009  |  7:29 pm  |  Wired 
> 
> Another well-worn myth in the world of vaccines concerns the safety of a substance called squalene (pronounced squay-leen). Sciguybm writes, “Squalene makes thimerosal look tame.”
> 
> First and foremost, there is no reason to worry about squalene because it simply is not present in vaccines in the US. According to Patricia El-Hinnawy, a spokesperson for the US Food and Drug Administration: “There is no squalene in any FDA-approved vaccine in the US. There is no squalene in any kind of seasonal flu vaccine or in the H1N1 vaccine.”
> 
> So, now that we know that, what exactly is squalene? It’s a naturally occurring organic compound that’s made in the livers of animals (including humans) and in plants. It circulates in our bloodstream. The squalene added to food, cosmetics, and health supplements is generally derived from shark liver oil. What’s more, the American Cancer Society reports that recent studies have found the substance decreased the spread of cancerous lung tumors in laboratory animals.
> 
> ...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Ah good old squalene.  I hope you cleaned your mouse and keyboard today.  It is covered in it.  Did you know that squalene is that oil that you leave behind in the form of fingerprints?  If you have ever eaten with your fingers or touched your food, you have ingested it- and in higher quantities that you would get from a vaccination.*  Your liver produces it and it is found throughout your body.  You can even buy squalene supplements in health food stores.  This is a major risk factor I guess.


I also eat sugar regularly, but I wouldn't inject it into my veins.  There are times when vaccines are good (same with surgery and medical care in general), but they should be used judiciously.  P.S.-The Amish almost never vaccinate for religious reasons, and don't see any outbreaks of disease.  Homeschoolers who don't vaccinate have virtually no cases of autism, while the general population experiences quite a few cases of autism.

"The reason vaccinations are promoted with such intensity is to prevent people from realising that vaccines do not protect and also in the event of an outbreak or an epidemic the vaccinated are as much at risk of becoming infected as the unvaccinated.  The truth can be kept hidden if people's vaccination status remains unknown and if everyone is vaccinated, making a comparison with unvaccinated people impossible.  This is also the real reason for the relentless push to vaccinate as many children as possible."-- Dr Buchwald (The Decline of Tuberculosis despite "Protective" Vaccination by Dr. Gerhard Buchwald M.D. p101)

Salzburger Elternstudie (Survey of / by parents)  (2001-2005) Results:
 Unvaccinated children -- virtually no asthma;  vaccinated 1 in 10; and three to five times less  Neurodermatis....http://www.impf-portal.de/aktuell/fr...fraboaus10.doc
 Englische Kohortenstudie (1988 - 1999) Results:  Vaccinated children are up to 14 times more likely to  have asthma than the unvaccinated and up to nine times  more like to have skin problems.   http://www.impf-report.de/jahrgang/2005/02.htm#06

 Langzeitstudie in Guinea-Bissau 
 Results
 The death rate for unvaccinated children is about half  that of the vaccinated. [Ungeimpfte Kinder haben im  Vergleich mit geimpften Kindern ein um die Hälfte  geringeres Sterberisiko]   http://www.ratio2000.de/gesundheit/news/news0104.htm

 Schwedische Studie an Waldorfschulen 
 Results
Unvaccinated kids have a lower risk of allergies...[Ungeimpfte Kinder haben im  Vergleich zu geimpften Kindern ein geringeres  Allergierisiko].   http://www.waldorflibrary.org/journal_articles/rb5103.pdf
 WHO-Feldversuch (field trials) in Indien (1968 - 1971)
 Results
 Unvaccinated kids are much less likely to get sick. On  the basis of this study, stopped recommending the  tuberculosis vaccination.

 [Ungeimpfte Personen haben im Vergleich zu Geimpften  ein erheblich geringeres Erkrankungsrisiko (aufgrund  dieser Studie wurde die Empfehlung der  Tuberkuloseimpfung in Deutschland zurückgenommen)]

Neuseeländische Umfrage (survey) (1992)
 Unvaccinated kids are five times less likely to have  asthma than the vaccinated, 2.5 times less likely to  have skin problems and 8 times less likely to be  hyperactive.   http://www.ias.org.nz/prelim_survey_results.htm
 All this in the April issue of the "All-about-Vaccination  Newsletter by Parents for Parents." The March issue   http://www.impf-report.de/erschienen.php contains the detailed vaccination report.

*NO AUTISM FOR UNVACCINATED AMISH?*

 But thousands of children cared for by  Homefirst Health Services in metropolitan Chicago have at least two  things in common with thousands of Amish children in rural Lancaster:  They have never been vaccinated. And they don't have autism. 
              "We have a fairly large  practice. We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we've taken care  of over the years, and I don't think we have a single case of autism in  children delivered by us who never received vaccines," said Dr. Mayer  Eisenstein, Homefirst's medical director who founded the practice in  1973. Homefirst doctors have delivered more than 15,000 babies at home,  and thousands of them have never been vaccinated. 
              The few autistic children  Homefirst sees were vaccinated before their families became patients,  Eisenstein said. "I can think of two or three autistic children who  we've delivered their mother's next baby, and we aren't really totally  taking care of that child -- they have special care needs. But they  bring the younger children to us. I don't have a single case that I can  think of that wasn't vaccinated." 


 Thimerosal-preserved vaccines are currently  being injected into millions of children in developing countries around  the world. "My mandate ... is to make sure at the end of the day that  100,000,000 are immunized ... this year, next year and for many years to  come ... and that will have to be with thimerosal-containing vaccines,"  said John Clements of the World Health Organization at a June 2000  meeting called by the CDC. 
              That meeting was held to review  data that thimerosal might be linked with autism and other neurological  problems. But in 2004 the Institute of Medicine panel said evidence  against a link is so strong that health authorities, "whether in the  United States or other countries, should not include autism as a  potential risk" when formulating immunization policies. 
              But where is the simple,  straightforward study of autism in never-vaccinated U.S. children? Based  on our admittedly anecdotal and limited reporting among the Amish, the  home-schooled and now Chicago's Homefirst, that may prove to be a  significant omission.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Well, if you are being vaccinated, you are not getting any squalene anyways- as I pointed out, it is not in US vaccines so that is nothing to worry about. Cross that one off your list- along with thimerisol in kids vaccines- there is none of that too. 

Now we move on to the Amish case.  Another intresting point.  The Amish do get vaccinated. And they also do have autism. 
http://combatingautismfromwithin.blo...vaccinate.html



> Thursday, January 31, 2008
> Guess what? The Amish vaccinate! 
> And they have autism.
> 
> In the spring of 2005, UPI reporter Dan Olmsted wrote that autism is rare among the Amish of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. “Where are the autistic Amish?” he wrote. “I have come here to find them, but so far my mission has failed, and the very few I have identified raise some very interesting questions about some widely held views on autism.”
> 
> Olmsted’s anecdotal evidence is cited ad nauseum as evidence that thimerosal causes autism. The case rests on twin assumptions: that the Amish don’t vaccinate, and that they don’t have autism. But Olmsted never visited the cryptically-named Clinic for Special Children in Strasburg, where doctors treat of children who exhibit autistic behavior. It’s not even necessary to visit the clinic. A simple phone call to a staff physician, such as the one I made recently, is enough to debunk “the Amish anomaly”, as Olmsted calls it.
> 
> *“The idea that the Amish do not vaccinate their children is untrue,” says Dr. Kevin Strauss, MD, a pediatrician at the CSC.* “We run a weekly vaccination clinic and it’s very busy.” He says Amish vaccinations rates are lower than the general population’s, but younger Amish are more likely to be vaccinated than older generations.
> ...


And home schooled kids don't have autism? Hmm. Perhaps that why you can find so many guides for homeschooling autistic children (too many to list but just google it).  Some parents choose to home school BECAUSE their child has autism and would have a difficult time at a formal school. Without admittedly any numbers to back it up, this makes me think that home schooled kids may actually have a higher rate of autism than public school kids.  If you have any figures on autism among the home schooled I would be interested in taking a look at them- haven't found any myself yet.

----------


## Zippyjuan

You might find this interesting- inquiring about a "vaccinated vs unvaccinated" study.  Denmark has nationalized healthcare and an extensive database of medical histories.  Back in 2002 they poured through their records to compare kids who got the MMR vaccine with those who did not- covering over half a million children (537,000)- a very large sample- over the years 1991 through 1998 and looked at the frequency of autism.  

Let me quote some of the reported results (or let Time Magazine do it for me!): 
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...003673,00.html



> Any rite of passage that involves jabbing needles into small children is bound to worry more than a few parents. But that doesn't begin to explain why so many moms and dads are convinced--despite mounting scientific evidence to the contrary--that the triple vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) causes autism in some youngsters. The latest study exonerating the MMR vaccine comes from Denmark, where investigators looked at the health records of *every child* born from 1991 through '98, more than 537,000 children. *No matter how researchers analyzed the data, there was no difference in the autism rates of children who received the MMR vaccine and those who did not.*
> 
> The Danish findings, which were published in the New England Journal of Medicine last week, are persuasive for several reasons. Denmark's socialized medical system has generated one of the most complete health records of any country. So the investigators were able to document accurately both sides of the equation: those who were (or were not) vaccinated and those who developed autism. *Even when other factors, such as age at vaccination, were taken into account, there was no difference in autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. There was no clustering of autism diagnoses in the weeks and months after vaccination. There was no difference in the number of diagnoses of other developmental disorders related to autism in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.* 
> 
> Other epidemiological studies over the past four years have come to similar conclusions, but none has been so large and so complete as the Danish study. Indeed, the accumulated evidence is strong enough to convince even onetime proponents of the MMR-autism link, like Dr. Jeff Bradstreet, director of the International Child Development Resource Center in Palm Bay, Fla. "MMR does not appear to cause autism," Bradstreet concedes. "If it did, it would be a godsend because we could change the vaccine and that would be it." Still, he suspects that the MMR vaccine might worsen a pre-existing autistic condition.
> 
> The evidence for even that tenuous link is hotly debated. "If MMR made autism worse, then we would expect to see different rates [between vaccinated and unvaccinated children] in cases of both autism and related disorders," says Dr. Kreesten Madsen, the epidemiologist who led the Danish study. But that difference did not show up.
> 
> More and more, it seems as though the focus on the MMR vaccine has been a colossal distraction in autism research--and in parental concern. Just as a few eyewitness reports made in good faith led police to focus on a white van in the search for the Beltway snipers and overlook the blue Caprice, the controversy over MMR may have prompted parents of autistic children to focus too intently on vaccination. The latest research suggests that the disorder begins in the womb--long before any vaccines are given. There is also intriguing evidence of abnormalities in the immune system. But there is no evidence that the MMR vaccine causes autism.
> ...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Nice, but that doesn't dispute my point at all-I wrote "I also eat sugar regularly, but I wouldn't inject it into my veins.   There are times when vaccines are good (same with surgery and medical  care in general), but they should be used judiciously.  P.S.-*The Amish  almost never vaccinate for religious reasons, and don't see any  outbreaks of disease.  Homeschoolers who don't vaccinate have virtually  no cases of autism, while the general population experiences quite a few  cases of autism."*  I didn't say that all Amish don't vaccinate, nor that they don't experience autism.  




> Well, if you are being vaccinated, you are not getting any squalene anyways- as I pointed out, it is not in US vaccines so that is nothing to worry about. Cross that one off your list- along with thimerisol in kids vaccines- there is none of that too. 
> *
> Now we move on to the Amish case.  Another intresting point.  The Amish do get vaccinated. And they also do have autism.* 
> http://combatingautismfromwithin.blo...vaccinate.html
> 
> 
> And home schooled kids don't have autism? Hmm. Perhaps that why you can find so many guides for homeschooling autistic children (too many to list but just google it).  Some parents choose to home school BECAUSE their child has autism and would have a difficult time at a formal school. Without admittedly any numbers to back it up, this makes me think that home schooled kids may actually have a higher rate of autism than public school kids.  If you have any figures on autism among the home schooled I would be interested in taking a look at them- haven't found any myself yet.


First, 
What has led you to think that homeschool kids have higher autism rates?  They do better than most students on average academically (last time I checked).

Here's something about the Amish that will interest you. Autism Rates Rocket  1 in 38 British Boys  Cambridge Study  we now find Dr. Max Wiznitzer, a key vaccine proponent admitted on  Friday nights US TV programme Larry King Live that the rate of autism  in northeastern Ohio, the largest Amish community in the USA with low  rates of vaccination, was 1 in 10,000.

The full story here.

----------


## Roxi

http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html

show her that... the CDC website will confirm most of that as well.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> P.S.-The Amish almost never vaccinate for religious reasons, and don't see any outbreaks of disease.


Almost never vaccinate. Hmm. 
http://autism.about.com/b/2008/04/23...y-be-lower.htm



> Just to check for myself, I called Strauss's clinic and chatted with a community liaison named Rebecca. Rebecca, who grew up among the Amish, *confirms that about 70% of the Amish in Lancaster County do, indeed, vaccinate*. She also confirms that the rate of autism seems to be lower among the Amish than among the general population. Of course, she didn't have a true explanation for this, though she said: 
> There's more of an acceptance [among the Amish] of people for being what they are, as they are. We certainly have children with difficulty learning - and there are special education facilities for children who have Downs, MR, and other issues. Most families have many children, a high rate of communication, no television; and it's important to be able to read. Communication is very, very important. I guess I have wondered whether the autism out there is due to lack of personal attention and communication to that child.





> What has led you to think that homeschool kids have higher autism rates? They do better than most students on average academically (last time I checked).


I would welcome any statistics you can find on the incidence of autism in home schooled children (even though it would mean absolutely nothing as to what may cause autism).  I was expressing an opinion and indicated why I came to that opinion.

----------


## moostraks

> Almost never vaccinate. Hmm. 
> http://autism.about.com/b/2008/04/23...y-be-lower.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would welcome any statistics you can find on the incidence of autism in home schooled children (even though it would mean absolutely nothing as to what may cause autism).  I was expressing an opinion and indicated why I came to that opinion.


Vaccination among the Amish is rare as it is contrary to their religious beliefs. Amish communities vary tremendously by region and tolerance of English practices varies tremendously by Order.


"Addendum and Comments about the Information War

Opposition websites often claim that vaccination is normal in the Amish community, and so is autism.  These are lies.  While there may be some small Amish groups which do vaccinate, and thus have autism; neither is normal.  The United Press, in conjunction with Generation Rescue, published a story about the rates of autism in an Amish community in Pennsylvania.  Reporter Dan Olmsted went searching for the autistic Amish.  Statistically, there should have been around 130 Amish in the community he examined.  Dan discovered 3 cases (that's three).  The first was an adopted Chinese girl, who had suffered through all of her vaccinations on the same day.  The second developed symptoms within 24 hours after getting vaccinated, and there was no information about the third case.  The reporter even spoke with the local allopathic (orthodox) doctor, who the Amish sometimes visit whenever herbs and supplements do not suffice (for instance, broken bones).  The doctor admitted that he had never seen autism in the community.

Dr. Max Wiznitzer of University Hospitals in Cleveland is an expert witness for the government, and he fights against families who file for compensation in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.  He made a mistake when he admitted that autism rates in the Amish community are somewhere around 1 in 10,000.   The rate for the rest of us is now about 1 in 95, and growing rapidly.  That means that our children are over 100 times more likely to get autism, and this does not take into account that the numbers are skewed against the Amish, since a tiny portion of their children are actually vaccinated now.

We will be waiting for real outbreaks of autism in the unvaccinated Amish.  If you're still unsure about the cause of autism, and are looking for studies; read How To Cure Autism and The Time Bomb of Mercury Poisoning.  Studies which attempt to disprove the link between autism and vaccination have all been funded by the pharmaceutical complex.  Truly independent studies have repeatedly shown the clear relationship.  In fact, no vaccine has ever undergone any independent, controlled, double-blind studies to determine safety and effectiveness.  Seriously. Read the studies yourself, research extensively, and do the right thing.  Opt out of vaccinations with a religious or philosophical exemption to defend your child.  The public schools cannot legally turn you away if you do that, so learn your rights, and use them!  Do it, or someday your own children will curse you for not doing the right thing."

http://healthwyze.org/index.php/comp...terrorism.html

----------


## moostraks

> So the medical community over diagnosed autism to what end? So the older the parent the less the child can interact because the parent is failing to properly socialize or do the children actually have some disorder?


These were legitimate questions that have been ignored. The overdiagnosis of adhd was due to drug sales. Why is autism overdiagnosed? Who is making these determinations? Furthermore do they have a disorder or is it just poor parenting?

----------


## EndDaFed

> No one is telling him to not do it, and by his post, he seems like he really doesn't want to.  People have been telling him where to turn for advice and giving their opinions.
> 
> Do you have proof that vaccinations are 100% safe?  Do you have documentation showing what is all included in every single vaccination?  If so, please do provide this to us since you are 100% sure and KNOW that they are 100% safe.
> 
> I mean, you are telling him to not listen to others and listen to you, but why should he listen to you?  You are telling him to keep doing the shots while others are telling him to ask professionals.


Do you have proof that anything is 100% safe? If not why do you still drive a car? Eat out (food poisoning)? Do you take showers? Do you drink raw milk? If you your standard is 100% safety or nothing why do you even bother to leave the house? It's logically inconsistent to say something must be 100% safe in order to use it when you do unsafe things all the time in your daily life. Requiring such an impossible standard for vaccines when nothing else is subjected to such a standard is illogical and is based on emotion rather than reason.

----------


## osan

> I note that the person quoted in the article says they were sick for several weeks. 
> 
> 
> I am not a doctor but being sick can inflame the sinuses and that can lead to a loss of the sense of smell. We don't realize it but a lot of our sense of taste is actually part smells.  This is one possible explination for what occured. This lady IS a doctor:
> 
> From the article posted:


What a load.  There is no level of sinus congestion that will eliminate  (cause complete loss of) the sense of taste.

Have you ever considered a career as a government/corporate/industry apologist?  Your heat seems to really be in it.

----------


## osan

> Ah good old squalene.  I hope you cleaned your mouse and keyboard today.  It is covered in it.  Did you know that squalene is that oil that you leave behind in the form of fingerprints?  If you have ever eaten with your fingers or touched your food, you have ingested it- and in higher quantities that you would get from a vaccination.  Your liver produces it and it is found throughout your body.  You can even buy squalene supplements in health food stores.  This is a major risk factor I guess.


Eating/touching squalene is not the same as injecting it directly into the blood stream.

Sorry, but this earns a substantial DUH.

----------


## Zippyjuan

The point was that it is already in your body and cells- in higher quantities than you would receive in a vaccination- assuming it was in vaccines in the US which it is not. It is not harmful.

----------


## bossman068410



----------


## EndDaFed

> 


If that quote is real she just shot herself in her own foot. Polio != meningitis. An obvious crackpot.

----------


## EndDaFed

> YouTube - 12 BABY DEATHS VACCINE CONTINUED
> 
> YouTube - Gardasil Vaccine Deaths


That doesn't even count as evidence. Try harder.

----------


## EndDaFed

This forum needs a delete post function.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If that quote is real she just shot herself in her own foot. Polio != meningitis. An obvious crackpot.


Re-read her quote.  She didn't say that Polio=meningitus, she said that 30,000-50,000 cases of Polio were simply called meningitus in order to skew the statistics.

----------


## Zippyjuan

It is her opinion that they were all misdiagnosis. Unless she examined all the cases (or can cite somebody who has).  Her education is in geology and her PhD is in micropalentology- not medicine.  She has also tried to claim that vaccines include "brain eating amoebas". http://www.whale.to/vaccines/amoebas.html

A 1977 survey by the National Health Interview estimated 254,000 people living in the US who had been paralized by polio.  Other estimates go as high as 600,000. 

In 1988, there were 350,000 cases of polio reported world wide. After a massive vaccination program where 450 million world wide were vaccinated, global cases dropped to 7,000 by 1999- just eleven years later.  Were these all merely "viral meningitis" now? http://www.cloudnet.com/~edrbsass/poliotimeline.htm

So what about viral meningitis? http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1168529-overview



> Currently, more than 85% of viral meningitis cases are caused by *nonpolio enteroviruses*. Disease characteristics, clinical manifestations, and epidemiology generally mimic those of enteroviral infections.


So, yes, they do test for the source and it is rarely polio. 

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/e...meningitis.htm



> Viral, or aseptic, meningitis is the most common form of meningitis in the United States. This typically mild and non-lethal disease is *usually caused by enteroviruses—common viruses that enter the body through the mouth* and travel to the brain and surrounding tissues where they multiply. Enteroviruses are present in mucus, saliva, and feces and can be transmitted through direct contact with an infected person or an infected object or surface. Other viruses that cause meningitis include varicella zoster (the virus that causes chicken pox and can appear decades later as shingles), influenza, mumps, HIV, and herpes simplex type 2 (genital herpes). 
> 
> Many fungal infections can affect the brain. The most common form of fungal meningitis is caused by the fungus cryptococcus neoformans (found mainly in dirt and bird droppings). Cryptococcal meningitis is common in AIDS patients. Although treatable, fungal meningitis often recurs in nearly half of affected persons

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## low preference guy

> Just last week I got our pediatrician to admit that giving a hep-b vaccine to an infant was both unnecessary and not worth the risks involved.  Upon agreeing upon that, I asked, "_why do you recommend it then?_" to which he replied, "_because that is what we are supposed to do_"....


wow

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## low preference guy

> Which part is a "wow"?


"because that is what we are supposed to do"

i guess it's too much to wish that a M.D. won't be such a moron.

----------


## specsaregood

> "because that is what we are supposed to do"


ah, well yeah it sounds "shocking" but at the same time I just chalked that one up to mal-practice insurance.  ie: no doctor is gonna lose a lawsuit from recommending the vaccination.  doctoring via the CYA method.....

----------


## low preference guy

> ah, well yeah it sounds "shocking" but at the same time I just chopped that one up to mal-practice insurance.  ie: no doctor is gonna lose a lawsuit from recommending the vaccination.


i guess i retract my wow. that makes sense. stupid government interventions.

----------


## NiceGoing

> Just last week I got our pediatrician to admit that giving a hep-b vaccine to an infant was both unnecessary and not worth the risks involved.  Upon agreeing upon that, I asked, "_why do you recommend it then?_" to which he replied, "_because that is what we are supposed to do_"....


(ditto) Wow - powerful admission, that!

----------


## gabed99

Wonder what OB/GYN Ron Pauls' thoughts are on this?

----------

