# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  TO ALL ANTI VAXXERS

## pochy1776



----------


## heavenlyboy34

Is there supposed to be something in this post?  I see a blank.

----------


## pochy1776

Its an episode of a skeptic debunking the Anti Vaccination side. Please respond with angry letters.

----------


## specsaregood

> Its an episode of a skeptic debunking the Anti Vaccination side. Please respond with angry letters.


"skeptic"?  I thought they were just comedians and entertainers.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Its an episode of a skeptic debunking the Anti Vaccination side. Please respond with angry letters.


Do whatever you think is best.

Just don't send heavily armed men with guns, dressed in government costumes, to force me and my family to do the same thing as you.

As much as you and everybody else may think so, "democracy" or "society" does not give you that right.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> "skeptic"?  I thought they were just comedians and entertainers.


Well, just like everybody else, they become beacons of knowledge and wisdom when they are re-enforcing a person's position.

----------


## BuddyRey

What AF said.  As long as everyone is left free to make the choice for themselves, I see no reason to argue for either the pros or cons of vaccine abstinence.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> What AF said.  As long as everyone is left free to make the choice for themselves, I see no reason to argue for either the pros or cons of vaccine abstinence.


I see no sense in senselessly arguing the points.  But real/valid information would be good for decision making.

----------


## donnay

> "skeptic"?  I thought they were just comedians and entertainers.


Really...where are their degrees?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I see no sense in senselessly arguing the points.  But real/valid information would be good for decision making.


That's where the rubber meets the road, sifting through it all to determine what's valid, what's bunk, what works for you as an individual and what does not.

Freedom ain't easy, which is why most people hate it.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> That's where the rubber meets the road, sifting through it all to determine what's valid, what's bunk, what works for you as an individual and what does not.
> 
> Freedom ain't easy, which is why most people hate it.


The more I deal with doctors (with my wife and uncle), the more convinced that I am right to stay away from them (as I do, except for stitches and the like).

----------


## pochy1776

> Do whatever you think is best.
> 
> Just don't send heavily armed men with guns, dressed in government costumes, to force me and my family to do the same thing as you.
> 
> As much as you and everybody else may think so, "democracy" or "society" does not give you that right.


Agreed, just don't coerce others with false claims.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

I got a flu shot yesterday.

----------


## awake

You know what? There is a pretty good chance that many of the vaccines are simply placebo at best and cause fatal immune responses at worst. The market does not ever get a chance to decide the usefulness, price and form, whether they work or not is never left to the consumer. I believe GovPharma fear the answer that voluntary purchases, not government buying programs, would reveal.

The 'for or against' hoopla always passes over this point.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

I gave you plenty of chances Pochy. Sure people can have differing opinions. But you have ignored and insulted your way through all evidence that contradicts the bull$#@! you post. You're just another troll. I hope you get paid for it though. It's far sadder to see someone waste their time promoting tyranny and Statism for free.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Agreed, just don't coerce others with false claims.


You should take your own advice.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I got a flu shot yesterday.


You ok bro?

----------


## Tpoints

Penn & Teller are obviously paid by the big pharma vaccine industry, or else they'd reveal the REAL cause of autism!

----------


## Tpoints

> I got a flu shot yesterday.


That's OK, Ray Comfort did too.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Penn & Teller are obviously paid by the big pharma vaccine industry, or else they'd reveal the REAL cause of autism!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Penn & Teller are obviously paid by the big pharma vaccine industry, or else they'd reveal the REAL cause of autism!


*ahem* correlation =/= causation *ahem*

----------


## Tpoints

> *ahem* correlation =/= causation *ahem*


tell that to the people who say autism is caused by vaccines.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> tell that to the people who say autism is caused by vaccines.


That's not the only evidence they usually cite, though.  Plus, we can't tell the two data sets in your graph are even remotely related it doesn't automatically follow that people with autism eat organic and I don't see any data that says the researchers only controlled for such people.  The anti-vaxers in my experience do make this connection (that is, sampling the same population for both vax and autism).

----------


## Tpoints

> That's not the only evidence they usually cite, though.


It's not? 

What else am I missing?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> *ahem* correlation =/= causation *ahem*


I believe that was the point.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> It's not? 
> 
> What else am I missing?


Reality. But you, Nickels, Liberdom, etc, don't understand reality.

----------


## BucksforPaul

> Well, just like everybody else, they become beacons of knowledge and wisdom when they are re-enforcing the pharmaceutical industrial complex's agenda while being on TV.


FIFY

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It's not? 
> 
> What else am I missing?


In my experience, experimenters control for environmental and dietary factors (among other things).  This is just my experience though.  It could be that the data is flawless, but I have no way of testing that.  Therefore, I shall remain skeptical.  You may take vax if you wish.  Knock yourself out.   Just don't force others into it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I believe that was the point.


Indeed.  Both sides of this debate seem to be assuming correlation=causation.  I look forward to a solid answer about this stuff.

----------


## BucksforPaul

> Reality. But you, Nickels, Liberdom, etc, don't understand reality.


Truth.

They do not understand reality because they live in an alternate reality which has been created for them by the main stream media.  Just because their favorite pundit told them something it must be true simply because that said pundit was on TV and the tube does not lie.  Only an idiot would believe the evil lie of mercury being a preservative.  LOL 

Yet these morons continue to parrot the lies verbatim despite ignoring facts such as symptoms of mercury poisoning being very similar to autism.  Or hiding behind the not well known fact of the difference between organic mercury and metallic mercury.  Hint: Concerning mercury, organic (thimerosol) is worst for you if compared to metallic mercury.  It is considered dangerous to go swimming in a pool with just one drop of mercury bet these morons want us to believe that it is safe to inject that $#@! directly into babies.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

I hate people who use comedians as if their words were irrefutable proof.  Never mind a reliable source.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I hate people who use comedians as if their words were irrefutable proof.  Never mind a reliable source.


 P&T do sometimes cite external sources, and to that extent they're useful.  But, yeah...comedians generally aren't good primary sources.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well, just like everybody else, they become beacons of knowledge and wisdom when they are re-enforcing a person's position.


Especially the so-called "skeptics" positions.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

It's so freaking convenient that these vaccines rely on 'herd immunity.'  Anytime the government wants the people to do something, all they have to do is say that everyone has to get it or it won't be able to save us.  They can make science prove anything they want if it means the people will stop asking questions because herd immunity is too important for questions about liberty or health.  

Yeah, who's the real skeptic?  The guy who goes against the established truth, or the guy who tells others to accept it because of "herd immunity".  I always thought of skeptics as people who questioned the conventional wisdom.  Now the skeptics are the people who uphold and support the established truth while viciously degrading the ones who are skeptical of their view.  Everyone from an evolutionist to a vaxxer is now a so-called skeptic because they support the conventional and don't question what "science" tells them because everybody knows that scientists are incapable of error, and science is the only acceptable answer to any question about anything.

----------


## Tpoints

> *In my experience, experimenters control for environmental and dietary factors (among other things).*  This is just my experience though.  It could be that the data is flawless, but I have no way of testing that.  Therefore, I shall remain skeptical.  You may take vax if you wish.  Knock yourself out.   Just don't force others into it.


where have you seen that for the "vaccines cause autism" side?

----------


## Tpoints

> *It's so freaking convenient that these vaccines rely on 'herd immunity.'*  Anytime the government wants the people to do something, all they have to do is say that everyone has to get it or it won't be able to save us.  They can make science prove anything they want if it means the people will stop asking questions because herd immunity is too important for questions about liberty or health.


So the problem is that herd immunity works? Or that it doesn't? I'm confused.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> P&T do sometimes cite external sources, and to that extent they're useful.  But, yeah...comedians generally aren't good primary sources.


What bothers me is that he says the Brithish anti-vax study is "possibly illegal?", obviously implying that simply putting out a study that might tarnish the reputation of vaccinations is a crime against humanity because no respectable human being questions that without being some kind of criminal.  These so-called "skeptics" think dissenting opinions should be outlawed.  Isn't that just cheeky?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What AF said.  As long as everyone is left free to make the choice for themselves, I see no reason to argue for either the pros or cons of vaccine abstinence.


Except the problem is that we are NOT free to make that choice.  We must have the vaccines in order to send our kids to school and a bunch of other things.  It's required by law.

----------


## Dr.3D

> It's so freaking convenient that these vaccines rely on 'herd immunity.'  Anytime the government wants the people to do something, all they have to do is say that everyone has to get it or it won't be able to save us.  They can make science prove anything they want if it means the people will stop asking questions because herd immunity is too important for questions about liberty or health.  
> 
> Yeah, who's the real skeptic?  The guy who goes against the established truth, or the guy who tells others to accept it because of "herd immunity".  I always thought of skeptics as people who questioned the conventional wisdom.  Now the skeptics are the people who uphold and support the established truth while viciously degrading the ones who are skeptical of their view.  Everyone from an evolutionist to a vaxxer is now a so-called skeptic because they support the conventional and don't question what "science" tells them because everybody knows that scientists are incapable of error, and science is the only acceptable answer to any question about anything.


They seem to be upset with those who don't conform to their religious views.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Agreed, just don't coerce others with false claims.


I don't think you know what coercion means.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I don't think you know what coercion means.


The Christian Science people sure know what it means.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So the problem is that herd immunity works? Or that it doesn't? I'm confused.


I didn't say anything about it working or not.  I was implying that it's a ploy, a lie to get you to fall in line and not question the conventional wisdom.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The Christian Science people sure know what it means.


Not sure what you mean by that.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Not sure what you mean by that.


Plug this into your search engine. "Christian Science vaccinations"
They don't like being told they have to go against their religious beliefs.

----------


## Tpoints

> Plug this into your search engine. "Christian Science vaccinations"
> They don't like being told they have to go against their religious beliefs.


Nobody does.

----------


## Tpoints

> I didn't say anything about it working or not.  I was implying that it's a ploy, a lie to get you to fall in line and not question the conventional wisdom.


It's not a lie if it works, is it?

----------


## KingNothing

> Reality. But you, Nickels, Liberdom, etc, don't understand reality.



You keep talking about "reality" in your posts but I don't think it means what you think it means.

----------


## KingNothing

> What bothers me is that he says the Brithish anti-vax study is "possibly illegal?", obviously implying that simply putting out a study that might tarnish the reputation of vaccinations is a crime against humanity because no respectable human being questions that without being some kind of criminal.  These so-called "skeptics" think dissenting opinions should be outlawed.  Isn't that just cheeky?



No.  He is not implying that.  He is implying that the study was faked and that legal proceedings were under way.  The journal that published the study retracted it, and I believe the man who behind it has been sued for pushing information that he knew was not true.

----------


## KingNothing

Children are dying in wealthy areas now from diseases that vaccines had previously rendered harmless.  Kids should not be dying of whooping cough in America, but thanks to lunatics like jenny McCarthy and parents who believe her, they are.

----------


## Tpoints

> You keep talking about "reality" in your posts but I don't think it means what you think it means.


You're just too blind to see it because you're either brainwashed by public education or paid off by Big Pharma.

----------


## Tpoints

> Children are dying in wealthy areas now from diseases that vaccines had previously rendered harmless.  Kids should not be dying of whooping cough in America, but thanks to lunatics like jenny McCarthy and parents who believe her, they are.


http://antivaccinebodycount.com/Anti...ount/Home.html

These people could've gotten AUTISM instead of being dead and in peace with God, who are you to make that choice for them?

----------


## pochy1776

> tell that to the people who say autism is caused by vaccines.


Did you watch the video?

----------


## pochy1776

> http://antivaccinebodycount.com/Anti...ount/Home.html
> 
> These people could've gotten AUTISM instead of being dead and in peace with God, who are you to make that choice for them?


WHats wrong with Autism? I understand it is a hard thing to cope with, but if you are blessed with HFA rather than CA than you could have a better life. Autism also is treatable and many have better lives than they did 30 years ago.

I know a few people with classical autism, it sucks having autism and lives are much harder. But, i'd rather them have some taste of life. 
Most of this autism rights fraud is made by people who are well meaning but just want power. Power always corrupts.

----------


## pochy1776

> I gave you plenty of chances Pochy. Sure people can have differing opinions. But you have ignored and insulted your way through all evidence that contradicts the bull$#@! you post. You're just another troll. I hope you get paid for it though. It's far sadder to see someone waste their time promoting tyranny and Statism for free.


I'm Not a statist nor am i a tyrant. I just don't listen to Alex Jones (not as much as i used to) nor do i like anti vax wackos. Even though i don't mind (and even support) it being voluntary. If i don't support Health Freedom or hate some facet of freedom, i am at risk of being a statist? I supported ron paul, campaigned for him, emailed his videos, contributed to my local Ron Paul Campaign office (IN NYC!) I even attended seminars on liberty by cool professors from the Austrian school. I stood up for him in school and made sure he got his voice. i did as much as all of you did for him, So why am I a Statist? WHat makes you, a paragon of liberty?

----------


## UWDude

PAY ATTENTION TO MY TROLL THREAD!!  I ACTUALLY MADE IT ALL CAPS!!!  I WANT YOU TO PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!! WAAAAHHHH!!! WAAAAHHH!  MMM MMMM MMMM WAAAAAH!! WAAAAAH!!!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> PAY ATTENTION TO MY TROLL THREAD!!  I ACTUALLY MADE IT ALL CAPS!!!  I WANT YOU TO PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!! WAAAAHHHH!!! WAAAAHHH!  MMM MMMM MMMM WAAAAAH!! WAAAAAH!!!


LOLZ

----------


## pochy1776

> PAY ATTENTION TO MY TROLL THREAD!!  I ACTUALLY MADE IT ALL CAPS!!!  I WANT YOU TO PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!! WAAAAHHHH!!! WAAAAHHH!  MMM MMMM MMMM WAAAAAH!! WAAAAAH!!!


Thank You, i made an apology

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It's not a lie if it works, is it?


Does it work?  Where's the evidence?  All I'm saying is that it's propaganda, there's no science behind it.  It's another way to tell us to obey or perish.  And no, for your information, I don't think it does work.

The whole idea of herd immunity is that we should abandon liberty in order to achieve it.  Is that what you believe?  Do you think we should all be forced to participate in this crusade for the good of humanity?  Or do you believe that non-vaccinated people can survive quite easily in this world just as they did before vaccines were invented?

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> What AF said.  As long as everyone is left free to make the choice for themselves, I see no reason to argue for either the pros or cons of vaccine abstinence.


But one side of the argument wants to force shots into your children. That says it all right there.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm Not a statist nor am i a tyrant. I just don't listen to Alex Jones (not as much as i used to) nor do i like anti vax wackos. Even though i don't mind (and even support) it being voluntary. If i don't support Health Freedom or hate some facet of freedom, i am at risk of being a statist? I supported ron paul, campaigned for him, emailed his videos, contributed to my local Ron Paul Campaign office (IN NYC!) I even attended seminars on liberty by cool professors from the Austrian school. I stood up for him in school and made sure he got his voice. i did as much as all of you did for him, So why am I a Statist? WHat makes you, a paragon of liberty?


If you don't support health freedom, you are the worst kind of statist there is.  That's all there is to it.  Vaccinations are directly a result of the government-controlled pharmaceuticals market.  Why would you think they were a good thing if they are directly a result of the government's involvement?

----------


## pochy1776

> If you don't support health freedom, you are the worst kind of statist there is.  That's all there is to it.  Vaccinations are directly a result of the government-controlled pharmaceuticals market.  Why would you think they were a good thing if they are directly a result of the government's involvement?


Actually all of the world's Pharmaceutical Companies are private. Most of their drugs are then (inefficiently and very badly) regulated by the FDA. The FDA already bottlenecks lots of good stuff than could do great things. Of course, the concensus is that FDA is very much needed as a legitimate form of government. I don't think so.

Jonah Salk's Polio Vaccine was used with Private money from the (today is called) March of Dimes foundation. At that time it was the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis. 

Vaccines are also not profitable, they are least profitable medicine in Big Pharma. It is far more profitable to invent something like Lipitor.

WHat you are right about is the government money given to labs like Johns Hopkins and Mayo to formulate great things. Most of this money is spent well, much of it can also be wasted.

----------


## cbrons

> Do whatever you think is best.
> 
> Just don't send heavily armed men with guns, dressed in government costumes, to force me and my family to do the same thing as you.
> 
> As much as you and everybody else may think so, "democracy" or "society" does not give you that right.


I think people who dont vaccinate their kids are making a mistake but they certainly have a right to do so.

----------


## cbrons

> Does it work?  Where's the evidence?  All I'm saying is that it's propaganda, there's no science behind it.  It's another way to tell us to obey or perish.  And no, for your information, I don't think it does work.
> 
> The whole idea of herd immunity is that we should abandon liberty in order to achieve it.  Is that what you believe?  Do you think we should all be forced to participate in this crusade for the good of humanity?  Or do you believe that non-vaccinated people can survive quite easily in this world just as they did before vaccines were invented?


There's no science behind immunization? Your second paragraph is a straw man.

----------


## Tpoints

> I think people who dont vaccinate their kids are making a mistake but they certainly have a right to do so.


Do they have a right to do so if it puts other people at risk? I don't dispute you have a right to smash your head if you don't want to wear a helmet, but do you have a right to clog traffic and have people clean up your mess just because you don't care about your own life?

----------


## Tpoints

> Does it work?  Where's the evidence?  All I'm saying is that it's propaganda, there's no science behind it.  It's another way to tell us to obey or perish.  And no, for your information, I don't think it does work.
> 
> The whole idea of herd immunity is that we should abandon liberty in order to achieve it.  Is that what you believe?  Do you think we should all be forced to participate in this crusade for the good of humanity?  Or do you believe that non-vaccinated people can survive quite easily in this world just as they did before vaccines were invented?


Does herd immunity work. The normative question of whether it is moral is not what I am asking, DOES it work for the purpose of reducing risks of polio, m , m, r, flu, tetanus, ...etc? No, I don't believe non-vaccinated people can survive just as easily in this world since before vaccines were invented.

----------


## Kotin

I don't give a $#@! if you want to inject mercury and msg and fluoride and squalene and other auto-immune causing substances into you or your kids but if you ever think to force me to do the same you will be met with equal or greater force. I am pre- med and I research this quite a bit and there is no real science behind it. It is primitive just like lobotomy was and they also thought they were on the cutting edge drilling into brains.. I will never be forced into taking poison because someone else is uninformed. Try to force vaccines on me and see how long you last

----------


## Tpoints

> I don't give a $#@! if you want to inject mercury and msg and fluoride and squalene and other auto-immune causing substances into you or your kids but if you ever think to force me to do the same you will be met with equal or greater force. I am pre- med and I research this quite a bit and there is no real science behind it. It is primitive just like lobotomy was and they also thought they were on the cutting edge drilling into brains.. I will never be forced into taking poison because someone else is uninformed. Try to force vaccines on me and see how long you last


What poison? There is no real science behind vaccines preventing diseases? So vaccines make a person no more vulnerable to the targeted disease or infection? Is there ONE null hypothesis test behind this claim? Or did you miss the ones that say there is a noticeable difference? So vaccines are to you, snake oil, supplements, placebo? They just happen to introduce only vaccines and fake preventative measures which they can reasonably fool enough medical professions to endorse? Why didn't they make one for cancer or death?

----------


## AgentOrange

I absolutely believe that vaccines work (at least most of them.) I am convinced that vaccines work, so I get them. I see no need to force people who don't want them, to get them, and I don't see how forcing someone else to get a vaccine will help me in any way. If anything, my being vaccinated helps them, similarly to how non-gun owners are helped by being surrounded by gun owners.

----------


## pochy1776

> I don't give a $#@! if you want to inject mercury and msg and fluoride and squalene and other auto-immune causing substances into you or your kids but if you ever think to force me to do the same you will be met with equal or greater force. I am pre- med and I research this quite a bit and there is no real science behind it. It is primitive just like lobotomy was and they also thought they were on the cutting edge drilling into brains.. I will never be forced into taking poison because someone else is uninformed. Try to force vaccines on me and see how long you last


hope you get in.... Its cut throat.

----------


## Isaac Bickerstaff

FYI, this morning on Minnesota Public Radio (very bad music on my normal station, /explanation) the discussion was the increased cases of pertussis. They did not even attempt to pin it on the anti-vaxers this time because it was clearly bad vaccines. _Public radio_! And they couldn't even sell their normal BS anymore.

P.S.
Unvaccinated babies do not die of SIDS.
They don't.
Look it up.

----------


## Dr.3D

Just thought some here might like to see a video about vaccination they used to show in the schools back in the 50s when I was a kid.
http://ia700802.us.archive.org/12/it...stInvasion.mp4


Just in case the link above doesn't work, here is a link to the site where the video may be found.
http://archive.org/details/DefenseAgainstInvasion

----------


## Deborah K

> Do whatever you think is best.
> 
> Just don't send heavily armed men with guns, dressed in government costumes, to force me and my family to do the same thing as you.
> 
> As much as you and everybody else may think so, "democracy" or "society" does not give you that right.


My daughter takes my grandchildren to a Pediatrician who supports her desire not to vaccinate, and the Christian school she sends my grandson to, supports her decision as well.  And this is in Cali of all places.  So, there's still hope in pockets of this country.

----------


## ZENemy

A Good friend of mine was never sick a day in his life, he was FORCED (by force I mean take it or be fired) by his job to take an H1N1 shot. For the last 2 years he gets sick every 2 months with some weird "cold" and the doctors cannot figure out why, he gets the "flu" 2 or 3 times a year and actually lost his job that forced him to take the shot for having the flu for an extended amount of time. 

I have had NO shots of any kinda (mom is a hippie) and have never, ever, ever been any kind of sick. I have had a few colds and ONE flu (last 2 days) when I was 7.

----------


## Dr.3D

> A Good friend of mine was never sick a day in his life, he was FORCED (by force I mean take it or be fired) by his job to take an H1N1 shot. For the last 2 years he gets sick every 2 months with some weird "cold" and the doctors cannot figure out why, he gets the "flu" 2 or 3 times a year and actually lost his job that forced him to take the shot for having the flu for an extended amount of time. 
> 
> I have had NO shots of any kinda (mom is a hippie) and have never, ever, ever been any kind of sick. I have had a few colds and ONE flu (last 2 days) when I was 7.


Heh... lucky you.  When I was drafted into the military, they gave me so many injections, I have no idea what kind of stuff I have been loaded up with.  I do know, one of those shots was huge and left a big bump on my butt.  It took around a week to go away.

----------


## ZENemy

Personally I don't understand how something can be shot into your blood stream and NOT be rejected, doesn't your body basically reject anything that doesn't pass through the liver?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Personally I don't understand how something can be shot into your blood stream and NOT be rejected, doesn't your body basically reject anything that doesn't pass through the liver?


Last I knew, a vaccination was placed into the skin and muscle tissue and not directly into the blood stream.

----------


## ZENemy

> Last I knew, a vaccination was placed into the skin and muscle tissue and not directly into the blood stream.


oh ok, seems that it still would be bypassing the liver.

----------


## Dr.3D

> oh ok, seems that it still would be bypassing the liver.


They claim it goes the same way an infection would get hold in your body.   
The video I posted above in post # 71 explains it pretty well.  

Gotta love those government propaganda videos from the 40s.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> They claim it goes the same way an infection would get hold in your body.   
> The video I posted above in post # 71 explains it pretty well.  
> *
> Gotta love those government propaganda videos from the 40s*.


lulz, those things are hilarious.

----------


## Dr.3D

> lulz, those things are hilarious.


Ahhhhhhh.... I found a copy on Youtube.

----------


## jonhowe

Everyone SHOULD get vaccinated. I think you're a fool not to. And no, I am not talking out my ass.

However, it should not be forced on anyone by the government.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Everyone SHOULD get vaccinated. I think you're a fool not to. And no, I am not talking out my ass.
> 
> However, it should not be forced on anyone by the government.


I remember when people used to talk that way about seat belt use.

----------


## KingNothing

> My daughter takes my grandchildren to a Pediatrician who supports her desire not to vaccinate, and the Christian school she sends my grandson to, supports her decision as well.  And this is in Cali of all places.  So, there's still hope in pockets of this country.



And due to this anti vaccine nonsense there are still hundreds, maybe thousands, of kids dying every year from preventable diseases.  Do people not grasp the magnitude of that?

----------


## KingNothing

Vaccines stink.  Its a shame we don't have polio plaguing our children anymore!

----------


## Tpoints

> And due to this anti vaccine nonsense there are still hundreds, maybe thousands, of kids dying every year from preventable diseases.  Do people not grasp the magnitude of that?


You believe you have a right to tell a parent whether they can decide to risk their child's life?

----------


## Acala

> oh ok, seems that it still would be bypassing the liver.


Substances you inhale can go right into your bloodstream.  Things you eat are broken down and go into your bloodstream in the broken-down form.  Some substances will even pass right through your skin into your bloodstream.  In fact, I can't think of anything that goes through your liver FIRST before entering the bloodstream except substances actually created in the liver.

----------


## KingNothing

> You believe you have a right to tell a parent whether they can decide to risk their child's life?


I dont have a right to dictate common sense, but at least this will only hurt stupid people.

----------


## angelatc

> FYI, this morning on Minnesota Public Radio (very bad music on my normal station, /explanation) the discussion was the increased cases of pertussis. They did not even attempt to pin it on the anti-vaxers this time because it was clearly bad vaccines. _Public radio_! And they couldn't even sell their normal BS anymore.
> 
> P.S.
> Unvaccinated babies do not die of SIDS.
> They don't.
> Look it up.


I just looked it up, and saw tons of studies saying that unvaccinated babies do indeed die of SIDs.  In fact, SIDs predates vaccines by thousands of years.  http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/sids_faq.html Where did you get your information?

And I'm really confused about your other point too...if vaccines don't actually work, why would pertussis infections increase when bad vaccines fail?

----------


## Tpoints

> I just looked it up, and saw tons of studies saying that unvaccinated babies do indeed die of SIDs.  http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/sids_faq.html Where did you get your information?
> 
> *And I'm really confused about your other point too...if vaccines don't actually work, why would pertussis infections increase when bad vaccines fail?*


nice!

----------


## Zippyjuan

A bit of history on SIDs: (which definately disproves the unvaccinated kids don't get it theory):
http://www.thehistoryof.net/history-...-syndrome.html




> Crib death *has been with us since the Middle Ages*, but has been disguised under a number of names, and surrounded by mystery and superstition. *Even in the Bible, sudden infant deaths were noted* and were referred to as “overlaying”. In these days it was apparently common practice to put small babies to sleep in the same bed with their parents, siblings or a nurse and it was a widely held belief these infants suffocated when an adult or older child rolled over on them during sleep.
> 
> 
> Prior to the 19th century and well into our own, sudden infant deaths were not viewed with any particular alarm. Smallpox, diphtheria, scarlet fever, cholera, whooping cough, and other diseases took their toll on all ages; infants were merely considered particularly vulnerable.
> 
> It was not until 1969 that the term Sudden Infant Death Syndrome was applied to what scientists finally recognized as a distinct disease. This was a result of the National Institute of Health Second International Conference that was held in the State of Washington, USA, in 1969 due to the opening talk “Progress in Sudden Infant Death Research”, given by Dr. Marie Valdes-Dapnea, who was accepted as the most impeccable source of scientific information on crib death at that time.


Anybody interested in a more detailed history can check out this link: http://www.ecu.edu/cs-dhs/medhum/new...1cribdeath.cfm

Meanwhile they were also dying from all of the diseases vaccines prevent.

----------


## angelatc

> A bit of history on SIDs: (which definately disproves the unvaccinated kids don't get it theory):
> http://www.thehistoryof.net/history-...-syndrome.html
> 
> 
> Anybody interested in a more detailed history can check out this link: http://www.ecu.edu/cs-dhs/medhum/new...1cribdeath.cfm
> 
> Meanwhile they were also dying from all of the diseases vaccines prevent.


The Catholic Church used to advise parents not to mourn the deaths of children younger than 7.

----------


## Deborah K

> And due to this anti vaccine nonsense there are still hundreds, maybe thousands, of kids dying every year from preventable diseases.  Do people not grasp the magnitude of that?


My grandkids rarely, if ever, get sick even with colds.  If her kids are in the minority, and most kids get vaccinated, then what do the other kids have to worry about?

----------


## Deborah K

> A bit of history on SIDs: (which definately disproves the unvaccinated kids don't get it theory):
> http://www.thehistoryof.net/history-...-syndrome.html
> 
> 
> Anybody interested in a more detailed history can check out this link: http://www.ecu.edu/cs-dhs/medhum/new...1cribdeath.cfm
> 
> Meanwhile they were also dying from all of the diseases vaccines prevent.


Many of the vaccines that are "mandatory" are for diseases that don't kill children, like chicken pox, mumps, measles.  They pump kids full of whatever preservatives are in them for diseases that don't even kill or maim you.  By the time a child is 3 they've been stuck around 50 times - it's gotten insane.

----------


## KingNothing

> My grandkids rarely, if ever, get sick even with colds.  If her kids are in the minority, and most kids get vaccinated, then what do the other kids have to worry about?



Youre assuming causation.  I was vaccinated, and I never get sick and rarely missed a day of school while young.  My brother was the same.

----------


## Deborah K

> Children are dying in wealthy areas now from diseases that vaccines had previously rendered harmless.  Kids should not be dying of whooping cough in America, but thanks to lunatics like jenny McCarthy and parents who believe her, they are.


Can you cite this?  I've heard pertussis is on the rise.  Interestingly, when my girls were little, back in the 80s, and I didn't know any better, my little Lynsay got really sick when she got the DPT shot. The doc knew exactly what was causing the high fever and rash - the pertussis vaccine in the DPT (Diptheria, Pertussis, Tetanus).  He told me for her next series of shots she wouldn't be getting any more pertussis vaccine boosters.

----------


## Deborah K

> Youre assuming causation.  I was vaccinated, and I never get sick and rarely missed a day of school while young.  My brother was the same.


And you're assuming that causation is never acceptable.

----------


## donnay

> tell that to the people who say autism is caused by vaccines.



There is definitely a link.  You need to research a bit more to understand why the focal point of vaccines links to autism.




> Italian Court Rules MMR Vaccine Caused Autism
> 
>     Valentino Bocca was given an MMR shot in 2004, at the age of 15 months. According to his parents, the change in his behavior was immediate. That same night he refused to eat, and he developed diarrhea during the night. It quickly went downhill from there. Within days he was no longer able to put a spoon to his mouth, and he spent nights crying in pain. His parents immediately suspected the vaccination, but were told this was "impossible." Valentino progressively regressed, and received the diagnosis of autism a year later.
> 
>     In the final analysis, the Italian Health Ministry disagreed with the initial conclusion of the pediatrician, conceding that the vaccine was at fault.
> 
>     As a result, a court in Rimini, Italy recently awarded the Bocca family a 15-year annuity totaling 174,000 Euros (just under $220,000), plus reimbursement for court costs, ruling that Valentino "has been damaged by irreversible complications due to vaccination (prophylaxis trivalent MMR)i." According to a featured article in the UK newspaper, The Independentii, about 100 similar cases are now being examined by Italian lawyers, and more cases may be brought to court.
> 
>         "Luca Ventaloro the family lawyer, said yesterday: "This is very significant for Britain which uses, and has used, an MMR vaccine with the same components as the one given to Valentino.
> ...

----------


## Deborah K

Here's all the crap the doctors want you to put into your newborn baby.  Someone please tell me, how in God's holy name would a newborn be exposed to most of these diseases in the average household????




> Hepatitis B Vaccine (HepB)
> It prevents: Hepatitis B, a chronic or acute liver disease that can lead to liver failure and cancer. 
> When baby gets it: The first dose should be given before shes discharged from the hospital after birth. A second dose should happen between 1 and 2 months of age. If, for some reason, baby doesnt get the hepatitis B vaccine at the hospital, shell need three doses -- at 0, 1 and 6 months -- and the final dosage should be administered no earlier than 24 weeks old.
> If mom is hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive, baby should get the vaccine -- plus hepatitis B immune globulin -- within 12 hours of birth, and then receive three more doses of the vaccine between 9 and 18 months, and be tested for HBsAg and the antibody to HBsAg one to two months after completion of the dosages.
> Possible side effects: Brief soreness and fussiness
> 
> 
> Rotavirus Vaccine (RV)
> It prevents: Rotavirus, the most common cause of diarrhea and vomiting in infants and young children, which can cause severe dehydration in babies. Its not a shot -- this vaccine is taken orally.
> ...

----------


## Tpoints

> And you're assuming that causation is never acceptable.


Hardly.

----------


## Tpoints

> Many of the vaccines that are "mandatory" are for diseases that don't kill children, like chicken pox, mumps, measles.  They pump kids full of whatever preservatives are in them for diseases that don't even kill or maim you.  By the time a child is 3 they've been stuck around 50 times - it's gotten insane.


Meaning some do kill children, that's good enough for me

----------


## Deborah K

> Meaning some do kill children, that's good enough for me


And I have no problem with parents being selective about what vaccines to give their children and when.  My issue is with the current bombardment of vaccines at such an early age, and the connection to serious health issues that ensues for parents who abide by it.  I know it first hand within my extended family, and I have a comparison to my own vaccination record as a young child, my own children's records from the 80s, and how the number of vaccines for babies has increased exponentially for this generation.  Something is amiss.

But those of you who want to pump your healthy children up, (who live in clean environments and eat healthy food - unlike generations past) with vaccines preserved with God knows what, why you go ahead.  And while you're at it, continue with your condescending remarks (not aimed completely at you Tpoints) about thinning out the stupid masses.  LOL.  I guess we'll find out who the stupid and uninformed people really are eventually.

----------


## Deborah K

> Hardly.


As in - hardly ever?  Or, that isn't what he/she is implying.

----------


## Tpoints

> As in - hardly ever?  Or, that isn't what he/she is implying.


He/she is hardly unwilling to accept the possibility that there is causation, as with myself, we are open minded enough to consider the evidence, we just don't see enough of it.

----------


## Deborah K

> He/she is hardly unwilling to accept the possibility that there is causation, as with myself, we are open minded enough to consider the evidence, we just don't see enough of it.


It's out there.  But, as with everything else, it depends on what sources you consider reliable and trustworthy.  AMA?  CDC?  You trust them?  Or do you trust reputable pediatricians who write independent essays based on personal experience, but then often get trashed for doing so? 

Anything, anyone, or any evidence that goes against big gov't (pharma, CDC, FDA, AMA, etc.) will undoubtedly be attacked as quackery, irresponsible behavior, bladee blah!  They'll send out the big guns and trash you and your evidence.  So, just be aware of who is trashing whom.  It's out there, and it's been posted ad nauseum on this board over the many years.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Here's all the crap the doctors want you to put into your newborn baby.  Someone please tell me, how in God's holy name would a newborn be exposed to most of these diseases in the average household????


Why is it now unlikely that kids get exposed to these in the household today when some of them used to be leading killers of children?

----------


## Tpoints

> Why is it now unlikely that kids get exposed to these in the household today when some of them used to be leading killers of children?


because we already eliminated the causes and vaccinated their parents?

----------


## Deborah K

> Why is it now unlikely that kids get exposed to these in the household today when some of them used to be leading killers of children?


In recent generations children and their parents have generally lived in cleaner environments, and have access to more food, and healthier food, thus maximizing their immune systems naturally.  Also, natural exposure to certain viruses (not of the deadly kind of course) also builds the immune system - naturally.  

Again, innoculations can and do save lives, I'm not in the corner of those who say they are all bad. But I am in disagreement with how many there are these days given that our living conditions are so much better than in the past, and I am also concerned with what they use as preservatives.  Until just recently they used mercury for many years.  And look at the gov'ts usage of flouride in drinking water and tooth paste and claiming it's good for us, you have to ask yourself if you really do trust these gov't agencies to be looking out for the public's best interests.

----------


## Deborah K

> because we already eliminated the causes and vaccinated their parents?


If this is true, then why is the AMA recommending that newborns have 10x more vaccinations than my kids did, or my generation did?  I will be interested in seeing whether or not autism rates decrease since mercury has been removed as a preservative.  Time will tell.

----------


## Tpoints

> In recent generations children and their parents have generally lived in cleaner environments, *and have access to more food, and healthier food, thus maximizing their immune systems naturally.*


Really? I thought I heard that food prices are going through the roof, we're being force fed GMO, it's illegal to grow your own, and we're being poisoned with fluoridated tap water.

----------


## Deborah K

> Really? I thought I heard that food prices are going through the roof, we're being force fed GMO, it's illegal to grow your own, and we're being poisoned with fluoridated tap water.


That's very true.  And very scary, and it's another reason not to trust the gov't with your health.  And it needs to be dealt with, but it's relatively recent and not generational.  There's no arguing however, that modern America (the past 100 years) has had better access to healthy food than before.  Consider how we live now compared to when we had no electricity to preserve our food, keep us warm, and no plumbing in which to wash away sewage, or bathe regularly.  I contend that these changes also contributed to the lack of disease spreading.  As well as better diets.  

No one has explained to me why so many vaccinations are required for newborns now - what's the logic?

----------


## KingNothing

> He/she is hardly unwilling to accept the possibility that there is causation, as with myself, we are open minded enough to consider the evidence, we just don't see *any* of it.


Fixed.  

I have no allegiance to vaccines.  They do not pay my bills or feed me.  They have, however, done an absolutely remarkable job at eliminating deadly diseases.  To deny that is to deny reality.

----------


## KingNothing

> Really? I thought I heard that food prices are going through the roof, we're being force fed GMO, it's illegal to grow your own, and we're being poisoned with fluoridated tap water.




EVERYTHING IS AWFUL AND THE WORLD IS GOING TO END AND WE ARE ALL LIVING LONGER, HEALTHIER, BETTER, MORE PLEASURABLE LIVES!!!  AHHHHHHH!!!!

----------


## KingNothing

> No one has explained to me why so many vaccinations are required for newborns now - what's the logic?



To prevent disease?  Isn't that... umm... kinda self-evident?

----------


## Tpoints

> To prevent disease?  Isn't that... umm... kinda self-evident?


I thought so too...

----------


## Deborah K

> To prevent disease?  Isn't that... umm... kinda self-evident?


Explain why this generation needs more vaccinations (at LEAST 10x more) than my generation needed.  Are you claiming there are more diseases now than ever before?  Or could it be that our immune systems are so compromised that we are more vulnerable now than ever before? 


Btw, where are your stats on all the kids dying of pertussis in wealthy neighborhoods?  I'm curious.

----------


## Deborah K

> EVERYTHING IS AWFUL AND THE WORLD IS GOING TO END AND WE ARE ALL LIVING LONGER, HEALTHIER, BETTER, MORE PLEASURABLE LIVES!!!  AHHHHHHH!!!!


I'm guessing you're about.....14......am I right?

----------


## Deborah K

> Fixed.  
> 
> I have no allegiance to vaccines.  They do not pay my bills or feed me.  They have, however, done an absolutely remarkable job at eliminating deadly diseases.  To deny that is to deny reality.





> Again, innoculations can and do save lives, I'm not in the corner of those who say they are all bad. But I am in disagreement with how many there are these days given that our living conditions are so much better than in the past, and I am also concerned with what they use as preservatives.  Until just recently they used mercury for many years.  And look at the gov'ts usage of flouride in drinking water and tooth paste and claiming it's good for us, you have to ask yourself if you really do trust these gov't agencies to be looking out for the public's best interests.


Why not address the above?  Or are you and TPoints just in it for argument's sake?

----------


## KingNothing

> Explain why this generation needs more vaccinations (at LEAST 10x more) than my generation needed.  Are you claiming there are more diseases now than ever before?  Or could it be that our immune systems are so compromised that we are more vulnerable now than ever before? 
> 
> Btw, where are your stats on all the kids dying of pertussis in wealthy neighborhoods?  I'm curious.


My "stats" were posted a few pages back by another poster.  I believe it was Tpoints.  You could just Google it though.  It isn't hard to find.

And this generation doesn't "need" anything that previous generations didn't have.  People today don't "need" more vaccines, just like people today don't "need" new chemotherapy or the drug cocktails that make cancer treatment more humane.  People today don't "need" the medicine that enables individuals with rheumatoid arthritis to live comfortable, active lives either.  Sure, some vaccinations might be excessive --- I'm healthy enough that I feel I don't need a yearly flu vaccine, so I've never received one.  I think the chicken pox vaccine, for instance, might also be excessive but the numbers don't lie:  "Ten years after the vaccine was recommended in the U.S., the CDC reported as much as a 90% drop in chicken pox cases, a varicella-related hospital admission decline of 71% and a 97% drop in chicken pox deaths among those under 20."


Improvements in medicine are gradual and cumulative.  The result is that people lead much longer, more comfortable lives than they did just several generations ago.  Doctors and scientists are not all stupid, and they are not all working for The New World Order in order to sterilize, pacify, stupefy, enslave, and murder us.  Not all change is bad.  Not all advancement should be viewed with scorn.  In fact, most of it should be lauded and accepted.

I'm not saying that you're a nut-job conspiracy theorists, but the flippant comment I made above is one that is at the heart of many of the ant-vax arguments around here.

----------


## Deborah K

> My "stats" were posted a few pages back by another poster.  I believe it was Tpoints.  You could just Google it though.  It isn't hard to find.
> 
> And this generation doesn't "need" anything that previous generations didn't have.  People today don't "need" more vaccines, just like people today don't "need" new chemotherapy or the drug cocktails that make cancer treatment more humane.  People today don't "need" the medicine that enables individuals with rheumatoid arthritis to live comfortable, active lives either.  Sure, some vaccinations might be excessive --- I'm healthy enough that I feel I don't need a yearly flu vaccine, so I've never received one.  I think the chicken pox vaccine, for instance, might also be excessive but the numbers don't lie:  "Ten years after the vaccine was recommended in the U.S., the CDC reported as much as a 90% drop in chicken pox cases, a varicella-related hospital admission decline of 71% and a 97% drop in chicken pox deaths among those under 20."
> 
> 
> Improvements in medicine are gradual and cumulative.  The result is that people lead much longer, more comfortable lives than they did just several generations ago.  Doctors and scientists are not all stupid, and they are not all working for The New World Order in order to sterilize, pacify, stupefy, enslave, and murder us.  Not all change is bad.  Not all advancement should be viewed with scorn.  In fact, most of it should be lauded and accepted.
> 
> I'm not saying that you're a nut-job conspiracy theorists, but the flippant comment I made above is one that is at the heart of many of the ant-vax arguments around here.


I did look it up.  I'm not finding anything.  And I don't see the stats for your claim in this thread either.  And, all of the vaccines I listed earlier for newborns ARE indeed "needed" as well as the "needed" vaccines for toddlers, preschoolers, and school-aged children, IF you intend to put your baby/child in day-care, or school.  Unless you are fortunate enough to find a school or day care who will allow your child to attend without an up-to-date vac record.

----------


## Tpoints

> Explain why this generation needs more vaccinations (at LEAST 10x more) than my generation needed.  Are you claiming there are more diseases now than ever before?  Or could it be that our immune systems are so compromised that we are more vulnerable now than ever before? 
> 
> 
> Btw, where are your stats on all the kids dying of pertussis in wealthy neighborhoods?  I'm curious.


Or we simply found more ways to prevent certain diseases in the past, that were already a problem, just without a measure to prevent or cure.

----------


## Deborah K

> Or we simply found more ways to prevent certain diseases in the past, that were already a problem, just without a measure to prevent or cure.


Could be.  But personally, I'm glad my grandkids aren't being subjected to this craziness.

----------


## angelatc

> Many of the vaccines that are "mandatory" are for diseases that don't kill children, like chicken pox, mumps, measles.  They pump kids full of whatever preservatives are in them for diseases that don't even kill or maim you.  By the time a child is 3 they've been stuck around 50 times - it's gotten insane.


India buries hundreds of thousands of babies that died from those very diseases every year.  We have it so good we don't remember what it was like when it was bad.  That'll fix itself, one way or another.

I think a good epidemic will create support for government mandated vaccines.  Which I won't support, but won't be able to stop.  It's tough to win an argument that ends up with "I support sick and dead babies."

----------


## Deborah K

> India buries hundreds of thousands of babies that died from those very diseases every year.


Well, as I stated earlier, our living conditions help halt the spread of disease and also help build a strong immune system, blah, blah, blah, all posted previously.    I had the chicken pox and the mumps.  My daughters both had the chicken pox.  Kids in this country don't generally die from those diseases.  But again, I'm not opposed to all vaccines, I'm just very concerned about what's in them to preserve them, and how soon they're given to infants.

----------


## angelatc

> Well, as I stated earlier, our living conditions help halt the spread of disease and also help build a strong immune system, blah, blah, blah, all posted previously.    I had the chicken pox and the mumps.  My daughters both had the chicken pox.  Kids in this country don't generally die from those diseases.  But again, I'm not opposed to all vaccines, I'm just very concerned about what's in them to preserve them, and how soon they're given to infants.


Immune systems get stronger by being exposed to germs.  There are several studies that indicate our increasingly sterile environments can actually leave children less immune than they normally would be.  

My Dad had a cousin that died of chicken pox.    Most kids don't die from chicken pox, but some did.  It's a numbers game.  Anything I can do to reduce the odds that my kid is going to get sick or die is a good bet by me.

While toddlers can usually shake it off, pertussis is especially fatal in infants. That's one reason the vaccines are started ASAP.  By the time they're 3 and fully immune, the odds are that they won't pick up the disease, and also that they won't pass it along to their younger sibling. 

Of course, some of the biggest infections arise from adults who didn't get all their boosters.

----------


## Deborah K

> I think a good epidemic will create support for government mandated vaccines.  Which I won't support, but won't be able to stop.  It's tough to win an argument that ends up with "I support sick and dead babies."


On the one hand, we have people claiming the world is over populated and resources are limited, so we MUST control the population.  And on the other hand, we have laws protecting us from ourselves, and from fatal diseases. Seems a little schizophrenic to me.  

No one supports sick and dead babies (evil notwithstanding), it's really about having the option to vaccinate, we don't have it.  It's mandatory, and that's a problem because your unvaccinated child is not going to hurt my vaccinated child, and I have no right to tell you what to do with your own child - that's IF we're going to apply libertarian principles.

----------


## Tpoints

> On the one hand, we have people claiming the world is over populated and resources are limited, so we MUST control the population.  And on the other hand, we have laws protecting us from ourselves, and from fatal diseases. Seems a little schizophrenic to me.


It's schizophrenic only if you think the message is coming from the same people. But even if it is, even the people who believe in controlling population do not believe in either outright murder or sitting to let the sick die. Most who advocate population control or reduction advocate it by means of education, abortion, abstinence, and voluntary choice. So just because people want to keep those born already alive and possibly healthy, does not mean they don't want population to be controlled.

Now, let's pretend you don't know or don't care what people believe. What do YOU believe? Do you believe in saving lives and reducing deaths? Do you believe the world's resources are either unlimited or abudant, or regardless, population should never be restricted?

----------


## Deborah K

> Immune systems get stronger by being exposed to germs.  There are several studies that indicate our increasingly sterile environments can actually leave children less immune than they normally would be.  
> 
> My Dad had a cousin that died of chicken pox.    Most kids don't die from chicken pox, but some did.  It's a numbers game.  Anything I can do to reduce the odds that my kid is going to get sick or die is a good bet by me.
> 
> While toddlers can usually shake it off, pertussis is especially fatal in infants. That's one reason the vaccines are started ASAP.  By the time they're 3 and fully immune, the odds are that they won't pick up the disease, and also that they won't pass it along to their younger sibling. 
> 
> Of course, some of the biggest infections arise from adults who didn't get all their boosters.


And kids can get deathly ill from the vaccines too.  My daughter is a case in point regarding the pertussis vaccine:




> Can you cite this?  I've heard pertussis is on the rise.  Interestingly, when my girls were little, back in the 80s, and I didn't know any better, my little Lynsay got really sick when she got the DPT shot. The doc knew exactly what was causing the high fever and rash - the pertussis vaccine in the DPT (Diptheria, Pertussis, Tetanus).  He told me for her next series of shots she wouldn't be getting any more pertussis vaccine boosters.

----------


## Deborah K

> It's schizophrenic only if you think the message is coming from the same people. But even if it is, even the people who believe in controlling population do not believe in either outright murder or sitting to let the sick die. Most who advocate population control or reduction advocate it by means of education, abortion, abstinence, and voluntary choice. So just because people want to keep those born already alive and possibly healthy, does not mean they don't want population to be controlled.


My point has more to do with people trying to control other people's behavior.

----------


## Deborah K

> Now, let's pretend you don't know or don't care what people believe. What do YOU believe? Do you believe in saving lives and reducing deaths? Do you believe the world's resources are either unlimited or abudant, or regardless, population should never be restricted?


I'll tell what I don't believe.  I don't believe the gov't has the right to force me to vaccinate my children, or force me to wear a helmet when I ride a bike, or force me to buy a permit to raise talapia for my own consumption, and on and on and on.

Do I care about saving lives and reducing deaths or the population?  Yes, and I believe educating people helps with that while protecting liberties.  Forced control does not.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> And kids can get deathly ill from the vaccines too.  My daughter is a case in point regarding the pertussis vaccine:


They can, but it is fortunately extremely rare. Adverse reactions to vaccines are far less common that adverse reactions the diseases caused or can cause.

----------


## Deborah K

> They can, but it is fortunately extremely rare. Adverse reactions to vaccines are far less common that adverse reactions the diseases caused or can cause.


That's arguable.  The AMA et.al. claim there is no link to autism, yet mercury has since been recently removed as a preservative.  I'm curious as to why they would remove it if there is no link.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> That's arguable.  The AMA et.al. claim there is no link to autism, yet mercury has since been recently removed as a preservative.  I'm curious as to why they would remove it if there is no link.


To try to calm fears about it -but that seems to have had the opposite effect for some.  But it actually provided strong proof that the thimerisol in vaccines was NOT causing autism since the rate continued to rise even after it was removed. Had it been a factor, the rate should have declined or at the very least the rate of increase should have gone down.  It didn't.  Several countries in Europe also discontinued it (even earlier than the US) and saw the same results.

----------


## Deborah K

> To try to calm fears about it -but that seems to have had the opposite effect for some.  But it actually provided strong proof that the thimerisol in vaccines was NOT causing autism since the rate continued to rise even after it was removed. Had it been a factor, the rate should have declined or at the very least the rate of increase should have gone down.  It didn't.  Several countries in Europe also discontinued it (even earlier than the US) and saw the same results.


Where did you find this?  Mercury hasn't been removed long enough to show a decline in autism yet.

----------


## Zippyjuan

It was removed in this country in 2001 http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/con..._timeline.html That gives it eleven years. In Europe, it was removed in the 1990's. 



> 2001
> 
> Except for influenza (flu), thimerosal is removed from or reduced in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and under manufactured for the U.S. market.





> January. The last children's vaccines that use thimerosal as a preservative expire.


Denmark was in 1992. That would give 20 years to see.  http://www.immunizationinfo.org/scie...l-danish-study



> The question
> 
> Did the incidence of autism in Denmark decrease after thimerosal-containing vaccines were discontinued in 1992?
> 
> The study
> 
> Thimerosal-containing vaccines were used in Denmark from the early 1950s until 1992—when thimerosal was removed from vaccines. If thimerosal-containing vaccines were causing autism in Danish children, the removal of thimerosal from vaccines should have impacted the incidence of autism.
> 
> To see if that was the case, the researchers analyzed data on autism cases from the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register dating back to 1971.
> ...


Denmark is a National Health country so they have access to records for all patients- not just a select group. The Psychiatric Central Research is their division which would be dealing with the autistic patients.

----------


## Tpoints

> Where did you find this?  Mercury hasn't been removed long enough to show a decline in autism yet.




*Actually it has.* This is completely inconsistent with the idea that autism is manifested the moment a child is injected, as the conspiracy theorists seem to insist on. So which one is it? Does thimerisol have an immediately testable cause of autism or not? 

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/ne...-autism-rising

----------


## Deborah K

> [IMG][/IMG]
> 
> *Actually it has.* This is completely inconsistent with the idea that autism is manifested the moment a child is injected, as the conspiracy theorists seem to insist on. So which one is it? Does thimerisol have an immediately testable cause of autism or not? 
> 
> http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/ne...-autism-rising


Autism isn't discovered in infants.  Sheesh.  It isn't diagnosed until around the ages of 2 or 3, by then the kid has had about 50 shots dumped in him.

----------


## Tpoints

> Autism isn't discovered in infants.  Sheesh.  It isn't diagnosed until around the ages of 2 or 3, by then the kid has had about 50 shots dumped in him.


Ok, so that still stands. Thimerisol only needs to be removed for 3 years, or the kids which had thimerisol free vaccines only need to wait 3 years to know whether they've been halted. Can you agree with me then that anybody who tells me "My child was perfectly normal, but then the moment he/she was injected they came home with autism" is *LYING?*

----------


## Zippyjuan

Age two is usually the earliest age of possible diagnosis. 

According to this chart, I count about 27 by the time they are six years old. Two recommend two doses so that would bring it to 29 (not counting the flu shot). 
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/...sch-0-6yrs.pdf

----------


## Deborah K

> Age two is usually the earliest age of possible diagnosis. 
> 
> According to this chart, I count about 27 by the time they are six years old. Two recommend two doses so that would bring it to 29 (not counting the flu shot). 
> http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/...sch-0-6yrs.pdf


Not according to this chart:  http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immu...HibChanges.pdf  by 17 months they've gotten some 31 doses.  Crazy.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Ok, so that still stands. Thimerisol only needs to be removed for 3 years, or the kids which had thimerisol free vaccines only need to wait 3 years to know whether they've been halted. Can you agree with me then that anybody who tells me "My child was perfectly normal, but then the moment he/she was injected they came home with autism" is *LYING?*


You can't say either way.  If a child goes to the doctor and gets a vaccine and becomes ill it is still difficult to say what for certain caused it. It could have been the vaccine (vaccines are supposed to cause a reaction to a foreign body to build up defenses) so you can't say they would be lying.  But it is also possible that the child was exposed to some virus while in or on the way to the hospital (being the kind of place they are, you do find sick people with viruses there) and reacted to that.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Not according to this chart:  http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immu...HibChanges.pdf  by 17 months they've gotten some 31 doses.  Crazy.


Thanks for the info.  That shows the additional doses given as well. Some I was counting as one were really as many as four (total doses seems to be a cumulative number- they list for example three polio doses by 18 months but four by six years old which would mean one more required dose between the ages of 18 months and six years old).

Update- checking those cumulative multiple doses, I am actually counting a much smaller number. 
Polio- they should have a total of three doses by that age. 
HIB- one dose. 
Measles, Mumps, and Rubela- one dose. 
DPT- three doses. 
Hepatitus B- two doses. 

Those were the vaccines required by the State of California.  By this measure, I am coming up with ten total doses by aged 17 months- not 31.

I don't have any kids so I can't personally verify these numbers. 

You can look at an example of "catch-up" vaccines for those who did not get the shots as kids and want to enroll in California public schools- they show that for example polio that it is indeed a cumulative total of four vaccines. 
(I tried to copy paste the section but it wants to give me the whole page which I don't want).

----------


## Tpoints

> You can't say either way.  If a child goes to the doctor and gets a vaccine and becomes ill it is still difficult to say what for certain caused it. It could have been the vaccine (vaccines are supposed to cause a reaction to a foreign body to build up defenses) so you can't say they would be lying.  But it is also possible that the child was exposed to some virus while in or on the way to the hospital (being the kind of place they are, you do find sick people with viruses there) and reacted to that.


I'm not talking about being ill. I'm talking about permanent autism.

----------


## Zippyjuan

There have been a couple (very rare) occasions where they HAVE shown that a vaccine did likely cause autism in a patient.  That patient had an underlying rare disease which was triggered by their body reacting to the virus in the vaccine- but again, such a condition is extremely rare and in such people, exposure to ANY virus could trigger it- even getting the flu.  So not impossible- just highly unlikely.

----------


## Deborah K

> Thanks for the info.  That shows the additional doses given as well. Some I was counting as one were really as many as four (total doses seems to be a cumulative number- they list for example three polio doses by 18 months but four by six years old which would mean one more required dose between the ages of 18 months and six years old).
> 
> Update- checking those cumulative multiple doses, I am actually counting a much smaller number. 
> Polio- they should have a total of three doses by that age. 
> HIB- one dose. 
> Measles, Mumps, and Rubela- one dose. 
> DPT- three doses. 
> Hepatitus B- two doses. 
> 
> ...


Zippy a dose is a shot, unless it's an oral dose, but in either case it's still a vaccination (preservatives and all). All of them should be counted.

----------


## Deborah K

> There have been a couple (very rare) occasions where they HAVE shown that a vaccine did likely cause autism in a patient.  That patient had an underlying rare disease which was triggered by their body reacting to the virus in the vaccine- but again, such a condition is extremely rare and in such people, exposure to ANY virus could trigger it- even getting the flu.  So not impossible- just highly unlikely.


There have been a lot more than a couple of (very rare) occasions.  Here's a lengthy but very informative article by someone who has done some in-depth research on the subject:  http://www.naturalnews.com/011764_th...l_mercury.html   - unless of course, you dismiss out of hand, anyone who isn't officially tied to a gov't agency, in which case, don't even bother yourself.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Zippy a dose is a shot, unless it's an oral dose, but in either case it's still a vaccination (preservatives and all). All of them should be counted.


Yes, I was counting the doses as shots. I still, according to the CA.gov link, counted ten by age 17 months the state was requiring. I listed them above. 

Let's run through the Polio vaccine count.  By age 2-3 months they want you to have one dose. By age 4-5 months they want you to have two total doses (an increase of one). By 15- 17 months they want one more for a total of three.

----------


## Deborah K

> Ok, so that still stands. Thimerisol only needs to be removed for 3 years, or the kids which had thimerisol free vaccines only need to wait 3 years to know whether they've been halted. Can you agree with me then that anybody who tells me "My child was perfectly normal, but then the moment he/she was injected they came home with autism" is *LYING?*


Most parents state that their child got sick right after the shots, and their health continued to decline while their behavior changed.  Research shows the accumulative effect mercury has on the brain and nervous system.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> There have been a lot more than a couple of (very rare) occasions.  Here's a lengthy but very informative article by someone who has done some in-depth research on the subject:  http://www.naturalnews.com/011764_th...l_mercury.html   - unless of course, you dismiss out of hand, anyone who isn't officially tied to a gov't agency, in which case, don't even bother yourself.


Sorry, but I do not consider Natural News to be reliable.  They do like to over-hype fears and present information in misleading ways. Them not being a government source has nothing to do with that.

----------


## Tpoints

> Most parents state that their child got sick right after the shots, and their health continued to decline while their behavior changed.  Research shows the accumulative effect mercury has on the brain and nervous system.


Excuse me, but there's a huge difference between autism and getting sick. Even that aside, you can't have it both ways, you can't on one hand tell me you immediately see the effects of vaccines, but then turn around and tell me thimerisol hasn't been removed long enough to rule it out as harmful substance. As for accumulative effect, thimerisol (organic mercury) does not accumulate, it only has a 18 day half life.

----------


## Deborah K

> Sorry, but I do not consider Natural News to be reliable.  *They do like to over-hype fears and present information in misleading ways*. Them not being a government source has nothing to do with that.


And the gov't doesn't?  The article lists references for verification.  It lists studies, etc.  

And I see what you mean about the total doses.  I'm not sure about it since I have no frame of reference these days, being that my daughter doesn't vaccinate her children.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> *Most parents* state that their child got sick right after the shots, and their health continued to decline while their behavior changed.  Research shows the accumulative effect mercury has on the brain and nervous system.


What percent of all parents have reported this side effect?  "Most parents"?  Any data? Milions are receiving vaccines every year so there should be millions of victims including most of the people you know if that is true. 

Studies have shown that the type of mercury which was used in vaccines for kids does not build up in the body like the other kind found in say coldwater fish- instead it has a half life in the body of about seven days (meaning half of it is gone in a week).  

And again we can go back to the giant smoking gun of thimerisol being discontinued  a decade ago (two decades in Europe) with no negligable changes in Autism rates.  No better possible proof than that for anything.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

> 


Great episode and a great show overall.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> And the gov't doesn't?  The article lists references for verification.  It lists studies, etc.  
> 
> And I see what you mean about the total doses.  I'm not sure about it since I have no frame of reference these days, being that my daughter doesn't vaccinate her children.


Let's look at one of the sources they cite at the link you gave. 




> We know that *certain forms* of mercury, such as *methylmercury* and phenylmercury, are highly lipid soluble, which makes the brain especially susceptible to mercury accumulation. These forms of mercury are found in vaccines as the preservative thimerosal. Once in the brain, it tends to attach itself to protein structures, especially to the cell membrane, where it can disrupt membrane functions.23 By binding to the cell membrane, mercury changes the membrane's fluid-like quality, making it stiffer and causing the cell to age faster.24 The brain is unique in that neurons depend on special microscopic tube-like structures within the cell, appropriately called neurotubules, for their function. These neurotubules are manufactured by the cell from a substance called tubulin. We know that mercury interacts with tubulin causing it to unravel. Studies in rats have shown that doses of mercury corresponding to those seen in humans can cause a 75 percent increase in tubulin inhibition.
>  Health And Nutrition Secrets by Russell L Blaylock MD, page 53
> 
> Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/011764_th...#ixzz2GItHmSWO


I noted the type of mercury it mentions. Methyl mercury. This is indeed a toxic form of mercury if it accumultes in large amounts in the body.  But that is not the type of mercury even used in vaccines.  The vaccines which do use a perservative use ethyl mercury.  This is less toxic and is broken down by the body and much more easliy eliminated by it.  The half life - even in children- is about seven days.   That is the time for half of the amount to be gone from the body.  Natural News is using fear of the methyl type of mercury to peddle fear of the other kind- ethyl mercury. It is very misleading. 

http://open.salon.com/blog/amytuteur...out_thimerosal



> Similarly, mercury is poisonous, but that does not mean that any compound that contains mercury is also poisonous. Some mercury containing compounds, like methyl mercury, are poisonous. Methyl mercury is the found in fish and is the reason why restrictions of fish consumption are recommended for certain groups. Thimerosal is ethyl mercury and is not poisonous.
> 
> Though methyl mercury and ethyl mercury might sound like they are very similar, one is poisonous and the other is not. How can that be? Consider the case of alcohol. Methyl alcohol (methanol), also known as wood alcohol, will lead to blindness or death if you drink it. Ethyl alcohol (ethanol) is the alcohol found in wine and spirits. Chemical structure is more important than the identity of the individual atoms that make up the compound.


Another one:



> *Mercury and autism mercury toxicity is a suspected cause of a steep rise—a tenfold increase between 1984 and 1994—in diagnosed cases of autism in children around the world, according to some scientists.* Specifically, the culprit is thimerosal, a mercury-based compound used as a preservative in vaccines commonly administered to babies and infants. thimerosal-free vaccines are available. If you have a child who will be receiving vaccinations, ask for and make sure thimerosal-free vaccines are used. Kelp, with its essential minerals (especially calcium and magnesium), helps remove unwanted metal deposits.
>  Prescription For Dietary Wellness by Phyllis A Balch, page 198
> 
> Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/011764_th...#ixzz2GIvLqQM7


It points out that autism was rising (which it was) but it fails (conveniently) to ignore that after thimerisol was removed, the rate of autism STILL continued to climb.  Again, very misleading. 

While I am here, I would also like to point out that you may not want to use kelp to try to "detox" from mercury as this clip suggests.  It may be an additional source of dietary mercury.  Far more than any vaccine might give you (and the more toxic version of it). 

http://www.livestrong.com/article/22...p-supplements/



> *Mercury*
> 
> Kelp supplements can be a source of mercury poisoning. Signs of chronic exposure to mercury include swelling, soreness, bleeding and ulceration of your gums and tongue, anemia, swelling known as edema and body wasting. Chronic mercury poisoning can cause degeneration of nerve tracts that lead to weakness, loss of coordination, blindness and coma, according to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. One of the most famous cases of mercury poisoning was seen in the 1950s when residents of Minamata Bay in Japan contracted a progressive disorder of the central nervous system due to mercury-tainted foods from the sea. Symptoms of acute mercury poisoning include severe abdominal pains, diarrhea and vomiting.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/22...#ixzz2GIwLAnTI

----------


## Deborah K

> Excuse me, but there's a huge difference between autism and getting sick. Even that aside, you can't have it both ways, you can't on one hand tell me you immediately see the effects of vaccines, but then turn around and tell me thimerisol hasn't been removed long enough to rule it out as harmful substance. *As for accumulative effect, thimerisol (organic mercury) does not accumulate, it only has a 18 day half life.*


This just isn't true:  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...06899309018666

I'm not trying to have it both ways.  Apparently, I'm not making myself clear though.  I'm tired right now, sorry.  Let me try again.  I don't know of any studies showing that children who have been vaccinated w/out thimerisol as a preservative are still getting autism.  And, parents of children with autism complain that illness started right after vaccination, and continued along with subsequent behavioral issues.

----------


## Tpoints

> This just isn't true:  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...06899309018666
> 
> I'm not trying to have it both ways.  Apparently, I'm not making myself clear though.  I'm tired right now, sorry.  *Let me try again.  I don't know of any studies showing that children who have been vaccinated w/out thimerisol as a preservative are still getting autism. * And, parents of children with autism complain that illness started right after vaccination, and continued along with subsequent behavioral issues.


Ok, I gave that to you here (and I'm pretty sure it isn't the only one)
http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/ne...-autism-rising

----------


## Zippyjuan

> This just isn't true:  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...06899309018666
> 
> I'm not trying to have it both ways.  Apparently, I'm not making myself clear though.  I'm tired right now, sorry.  Let me try again.  I don't know of any studies showing that children who have been vaccinated w/out thimerisol as a preservative are still getting autism.  And, parents of children with autism complain that illness started right after vaccination, and continued along with subsequent behavioral issues.


Well, if thimerisol is no longer being used in vaccines given to children (as it hasn't been for ten years now), every child you see with autism was given vaccines without thimerisol- and they are still getting it (autism).  The same is true of all kids without autism. 

One line from that abstract:



> but this effect was transient and was gone within 14 days.


http://www.science20.com/news_articl...te_baby_bodies




> February’s issue of Pediatrics offers a study saying there is reason to rethink blaming the spike in autism diagnoses on thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative routinely used in several childhood vaccines until the late ‘90s.
> 
> *The research from the University of Rochester suggests that infants’ bodies expel the thimerosal mercury much faster than originally thought – thereby leaving little chance for a progressive build up of the toxic metal.* 
> 
> Some parents and pediatricians believe that the series of thimerosal-containing shots many infants received in the 1990s, when the average number of vaccines kids received increased sharply, had put them at risk for developmental disorders. 
> 
> Thimerosal, hailed for its bacteria-killing properties, had been a vaccine staple ingredient since the 1930s but when the Environmental Protection Agency announced in 1999 that the cumulative exposure children typically received in vaccines might exceed a safe level for intake based on methyl mercury statistics, public health officials, together with the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommended its removal.
> 
>  “Thimerosal has been used for decades, but the surge in vaccinations caused fear that possible accumulations of ethyl mercury, the kind in thimerosal, might exceed safe levels – at least, when based on the stringent risk guidelines applied to its better-understood chemical cousin, methyl mercury, which is associated with eating fish,” said Michael Pichichero, M.D., professor of Microbiology/Immunology, Pediatrics and Medicine at the University of Rochester and the study’s main author. 
> ...

----------


## Deborah K

> What percent of all parents have reported this side effect?  "Most parents"?  Any data? Milions are receiving vaccines every year so there should be millions of victims including most of the people you know if that is true.


I was referring to parents of autistic children. Sorry. Gonna have to take this up tomorrow, burned out.  Peace.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Have a good night.

----------


## angelatc

> My point has more to do with people trying to control other people's behavior.


Yes, but if the anti-vaxxers got their wildest dreams fulfilled, and a significant percentage of the population stopped vaccinating the children, more kids would get sick from preventable diseases, with death and other long term side effects coming back int vogue.

That's when the government will make it mandatory to vaccinate your kids. Never letting a crisis go to waste.

----------


## angelatc

> What percent of all parents have reported this side effect?  "Most parents"?  Any data? Milions are receiving vaccines every year so there should be millions of victims including most of the people you know if that is true. 
> 
> Studies have shown that the type of mercury which was used in vaccines for kids does not build up in the body like the other kind found in say coldwater fish- instead it has a half life in the body of about seven days (meaning half of it is gone in a week).  
> 
> And again we can go back to the giant smoking gun of thimerisol being discontinued  a decade ago (two decades in Europe) with no negligable changes in Autism rates.  No better possible proof than that for anything.


There's no evidence that mercury from fish builds up in the human body, either. (It doesn't bind with anything unless you're Jeremy Piven.)

----------


## angelatc

> That's arguable.  The AMA et.al. claim there is no link to autism, yet mercury has since been recently removed as a preservative.  I'm curious as to why they would remove it if there is no link.


They removed it because the public demanded it, regardless of the validity of the science.

----------


## Tpoints

> They removed it because the public demanded it, regardless of the validity of the science.


I was very tempted to ask why would they care what the public demands or why would they do it if they didn't think it was harmful. But really, it doesn't matter, it WAS removed for a long enough test period, and there is no noticeable decline. If there's something in the vaccine causing autism it isn't going to be thimerisol.

----------


## donnay

*Thimerosal Containing Vaccines*

Part I: In the Dark
Part 2: The WHO
Part I: In the Dark
by F. Edward Yazbak MD, FAAP
March 14, 2011 http://www.vaccinationnews.com/20110...heDarkYazbakFE

This series on thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCV) is a critical review of the subject and what is known about it at this time. (Spring 2011)

Thimerosal is not my primary area of interest. I therefore promise to be extra careful documenting the facts and even more careful commenting on them.

Because the CDC only promotes vaccines and vaccination, the write-up about Thimerosal in vaccines on the CDC web site is relatively short:

Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines and other products since the 1930's. There is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.
[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/con...al/index.html]

This is not exactly true. Thimerosal was not only used in some vaccines; it was used in most if not all vaccines since the 1930s. It is only later that the mercury preservative was not used in Live Virus Vaccines (LVV) and even later that unit-dose vaccines without preservative became available, under duress.

The second sentence is no less problematic. Objective evidence of harm in vivo and in vitro is and has been available for some time, as I will show in Part III of this series. Whether the CDC will ever be convinced of that, is another story.

The last sentence of the statement is also somewhat misleading. In fact, the Joint Statement issued by the AAP and the PHS in July 1999 "established the goal of removing the vaccine preservative thimerosal as soon as possible from vaccines routinely recommended for infants.
[http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/AAFP-AA...himerosal.htm]

So in 2011, thimerosal has indeed not been removed from vaccines. It has been mostly eliminated from pediatric vaccines with some still containing traces of the preservative. Adult vaccines and a few pediatric inactivated influenza vaccines currently available in the United States contain as much of the preservative as they did before 1999.

The above suggests that each of the three sentences of the most visible CDC information on thimerosal in vaccines is not exactly accurate.

Whether the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed whole-heartedly or had to agree is another story that will be discussed later.
***

The FDA licenses vaccines and is at least in theory ultimately responsible for them.

An enormous amount of information about thimerosal on the FDA web site starts with information not too different from that on the CDC web site except that the FDA specifies that thimerosal was removed from all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger.


Thimerosal is a mercury-containing organic compound (an organomercurial). Since the 1930s, it has been widely used as a preservative in a number of biological and drug products, including many vaccines, to help prevent potentially life threatening contamination with harmful microbes. Over the past several years, because of an increasing awareness of the theoretical potential for neurotoxicity of even low levels of organomercurials and because of the increased number of thimerosal containing vaccines that had been added to the infant immunization schedule, concerns about the use of thimerosal in vaccines and other products have been raised. Indeed, because of these concerns, the Food and Drug Administration has worked with, and continues to work with, vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal from vaccines.
Thimerosal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine. A preservative-free version of the inactivated influenza vaccine (contains trace amounts of thimerosal) is available in limited supply at this time for use in infants, children and pregnant women
[http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvac...ucm096228.htm]


Unlike the CDC, the FDA discussion of the subject is so exhaustive that one must wonder whether the goal was information or a veiled attempt at justification and or exoneration.

The United States Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) actually required the addition of a preservative to multi-dose vials of vaccines in January 1968.


Products in multi-dose containers shall contain a preservative, except that a preservative need not be added to Yellow Fever Vaccine; Polio-virus Vaccine, Live Oral; viral vaccine labeled for use with the jet injector; dried vaccines when the accompanying diluent contains a preservative; or to an Allergenic Product in 50 percent or more volume (v/v) glycerin. [21 CFR 610.15(a)]


The CFR specified that the preservative used

    [s]hall be sufficiently non-toxic so that the amount present in the recommended dose of the product will not be toxic to the recipient, and in combination used it shall not denature the specific substance in the product to result in a decrease below the minimal acceptable potency within the dating period when stored at the recommended temperature. [21 CFR 610.15(a)]

***

There were also several problems with the FDA statement. For the sake of brevity, only two will be discussed.

Under Thimerosal as a preservative, the FDA states:
Prior to its introduction in the 1930s, data were available in several animal species and humans providing evidence for its safety and effectiveness as a preservative (Powell and Jamieson 1931). Since then, thimerosal has been the subject of several studies (see Bibliography) and has a long record of safe and effective use preventing bacterial and fungal contamination of vaccines, with no ill effects established other than minor local reactions at the site of injection

The statement suggests that before thimerosal was added to vaccines, Powell and Jamieson had shown that it was safe and effective. This is not exactly true because the FDA clearly states in the same document that Powell and Jamiesons 1931 study was not specifically designed to examine toxicity; 7 of 22 subjects were observed for only one day, the specific clinical assessments were not described, and no laboratory studies were reported.

And then there is the mention about thimerosal being the subject of several studies and the annotation see Bibliography immediately followed by and has a long record of safe and effective use preventing bacterial and fungal contamination of vaccines, all in a chapter about Thimerosal in Vaccines.

Unlike most readers in a rush, I clicked on Bibliography to look at those studies I had never heard about. They were listed under the title:

Studies on Safety and Effectiveness of Thimerosal

The words in vaccines had disappeared and there were only 8 studies listed. The very first two studies were published in 1974, some 43 years after Powell and Jamieson and the most recent one, on preservatives in nasal preparations was published in 1989, over twenty years ago. Study # 3 was on urinary cytology and studies # 4, 5, 6 and 8 were on ophthalmological preparations. The two 1974 studies (# 2 and 7) dealt with development and standardization of the preservative in general.

There was in fact no study about the safety and efficacy of thimerosal in vaccines.

***
The second unconvincing FDA statement was under Thimerosal Toxicity. After listing the many known instances of toxicity of the preservative, the FDA decided to prove that thimerosal was safe by quoting a single reference, the 2002 study in Lancet by Pichichero et al.

The FDA proposed that the study proved that

Blood levels of mercury did not exceed safety guidelines for methyl mercury for all infants in these studies. Further, mercury was cleared from the blood in infants exposed to thimerosal faster than would be predicted for methyl mercury; infants excreted significant amounts of mercury in stool after thimerosal exposure, thus removing mercury from their bodies. These results suggest that there are differences in the way that thimerosal and methyl mercury are distributed, metabolized, and excreted. Thimerosal appears to be removed from the blood and body more rapidly than methyl mercury.


In fact, the study had several limitations affecting its conclusions:

    Only 40 infants who received TCV were included, 20 aged 2 months and 20 aged 6 months
    Just 21 infants who received thimerosal-free vaccines were used as controls
    The injected mercury was judged as a range of mean mercury doses
    Blood draws were done conveniently when the parents were able to bring the infants back
    Among Hg-exposed infants, blood samples from twelve 2-month-old were collected from 8 and 21 days after vaccination and blood samples from thirteen 6-month-old infants were collected from 8 to 27 days after vaccination, when in all probability the Hg was no longer in the blood and had settled in tissues including the brain
    The half life of thimerosal mercury, that seemed to have impressed someone at the FDA, resulted from pharmacokinetic calculations whose description was peppered with statements such as: we developed a prediction, the expected concentrations, half-lives of mercury ranging from 1 day to 45 days, we assumed, elimination of mercury from blood followed a single compartment model with first-order kinetics, possible half-life, the difference between the predicted and actual recorded concentrations in blood, reliable quantitation, and assumption that errors

***
The extensive statement on the FDA web site did not include the most important fact of all: A safe range of level of exposure to ethyl mercury.

It is worth mentioning that in spite of the present obsession with the subject, responsible agencies have yet to agree on the supposedly safe levels for methyl mercury: The EPA estimate of 0.1 µg/kg body weight/day is only a fraction of the WHO estimate of 0.47 µg/kg body weight/day.

***

The FDA information included conclusions and recommendations by the Immunization Safety Review Committee of the Institute of Medicine.

In October 2001, the committee concluded:

    That although the hypothesis that exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines could be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders is not established and rests on indirect and incomplete information, primarily from analogies with methylmercury and levels of maximum mercury exposure from vaccines given in children, the hypothesis is biologically plausible.
    That the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between thimerosal exposures from childhood vaccines and the neurodevelopmental disorders of autism, ADHD, and speech or language delay.

Among other things, the committee recommended, that full consideration be given by appropriate professional societies and government agencies to removing thimerosal from vaccines administered to infants, children, or pregnant women in the United States and that appropriate professional societies and governmental agencies review their policies about the non-vaccine biological and pharmaceutical products that contain thimerosal and are used by infants, children, and pregnant women in the United States.
[http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/IOM-thi...-10-01-01.htm]

Unfortunately in 2004, with thousands of cases of autism having been filed, the same IOM committee decided, based on epidemiological studies that the body of evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, and that hypotheses generated to date concerning a biological mechanism for such causality are theoretical only.

Multiple articles criticizing the above-mentioned epidemiological studies from Sweden, Denmark and the US have been published, including several by this writer.

***

For those interested, a bibliography review of adverse reports related to thimerosal was provided in a press release on March 17, 2002 by the well-known law firm of Waters and Kraus. [http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Daily...se3-17-02.htm]

*Continued...*


*How Mercury Causes Brain Neuron Damage - Uni. of Calgary* 





*Symptoms of Mercury Poisoning*

----------


## donnay

*Institute for Vaccine Safety* 

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/cc-thim.htm

    Limiting Infant Exposure to Thimerosal in Vaccines and Other Sources of Mercury Neal Halsey's editorial on ways to cut down on infant exposure to mercury. Limiting Infant Exposure to Thimerosal in Vaccines and Other Sources of Mercury. (JAMA 1999;282(18):1763-5). (11-10-99)

    The quantity of mercury in each vaccine should be listed on the package label. Currently, the package label lists a concentration either as a dilution (ie, 1:10,000) or as a percent (ie, 0.01%).

    As Leslie Ball from the Food and Drug Administration outlined in an earlier presentation, one must go through a two or three step calculation processes and know the molecular weight of each of the components of thimerosal in order to know that it is 49.6% mercury by weight, in order to determine the mercury content in each dose of vaccine. Since mercury is the biologically active component in thimerosal, the amount should be listed on the package label.



There are numerous factors associated with mercury toxicity, as noted on the slide. All children are not created equal with regard to their risk from exposure to mercury. We cannot control many of these factors, but we can have some control over the age and weight of children at the time they are exposed to mercury in vaccines



The smallest newborns can be less than half the weight of the largest newborns and this difference can continue until approximately 6 months of age. Guidelines should prevent potential harm from mercury exposure in this most vulnerable population, as pointed out by Kathryn R. Mahaffey, PhD, from the EPA. "If we take the weights of these children, and assume that they are receiving thimerosal-containing vaccines for each of the recommended vaccines by age, the following figure shows the dose of mercury in micrograms per kilogram that they would receive on the day vaccine is administered."





    Exposure to a fixed dose (e.g. 62.5 ug) of mercury at 2 months of age poses a greater potential risk than the same dose administered at 6 months of age because a child weighs more at 6 months and the target organ, the brain, is more vulnerable early in life.

    Similarly, exposures at 9-12 months would carry much less theoretical risk than exposure to the same dose at 2 months of age.

    The recent American Academy of Pediatrics/ Public Health Service recommendation to defer the first dose of hepatitis B vaccine for infants born to HBsAg negative mothers until 2-6 months of age has addressed the problem of exposure at birth, but the exposure to mercury at 2 months of age is much greater and we need to do more to reduce this potential exposure.





    Which reference guideline for methyl mercury exposure should be used to evaluate ethyl mercury exposures from vaccines? WHO is the only organization that put a time period for exposure of more than one day, by giving a Provisional Weekly Tolerable Intake (PWTI). As noted by John Clements from WHO and Dr. Teely from the European Union, the WHO PWTI for pregnant women, nursing women, and infants would be one-fifth the PWTI for the general population. This makes the WHO guideline approximately the same as the EPA guideline. The Public Health Service has chosen the ATSDR guideline, which were based largely on the Seychelles data and allow for more liberal exposures.

    Does that mean that we should ignore the data from the more recently generated studies in the Faroe Islands?



Dr. Lucier has summarized several possible explanations for the differences in the results of studies of children exposed in these two studies. In the Faroe Islands, there was evidence of harmful effects from maternal mercury exposures that were thought to be safe based on the Seychelles studies. In the Faroe Islands, exposure to mercury was primarily from intermittent bolus doses associated with consumption of pilot whales. Also, children in the Faroe Islands were examined at an older age than children in the Seychelles and more precise domain specific neurologic testing was performed. During the next two years, further follow-up data will become available from the Seychelles Islands using similar domain specific testing.





    Testing in the Faroe Islands follow-up study required very sophisticated testing to detect very mild, subtle neurologic defects that would not be evident on routine examinations. The results provided many interesting observations, including the fact that the minor defects were noted primarily in boys. The biologic explanation for increased susceptibility to mercury of the male fetal brain has not been determined. There are other genetic factors associated with susceptibility to mercury toxicity which we may understand some day.



This figure shows the ATSDR guidelines selected by the Public Health Service superimposed on the daily exposures to ethyl mercury for children who receive all thimerosal-containing vaccines. At 2 months of age children of all weight categories receive more than 30 times the recommended daily maximum exposure and children of the smallest weight category receive almost three months worth of daily exposures on a single day.

If the EPA or WHO guidelines are used, the smallest children receive approximately 8 months of daily exposures in a single day. None of the guidelines provide us with the safety margin for these exposures or how single large exposures should be counted. Physicians administering vaccines and parents must make a decision at the time of immunization as to the safety of the dose of mercury delivered.



We need to tell physicians and parents about the options available for reducing mercury exposures. If only a single thimerosal-containing vaccine is administered such as Hib or DTaP at two, four and six months of age, then only the very smallest infants receive more than the total monthly mercury exposure allowed under the ATSDR guidelines.



*Continued...*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I remember when people used to talk that way about seat belt use.


What's so bad about seat belt use?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I dont have a right to dictate common sense, but at least this will only hurt stupid people.


Keep telling yourself that.  You don't realize it, but you're the one who's fooled.  You've been brainwashed.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> To prevent disease?  Isn't that... umm... kinda self-evident?


So you just assume it's all for our own good and accept it without question?  Even with government-run healthcare?  You don't even consider the possibility that there's an agenda behind all this vaccine-pushing?  Why do we need so many?  Are there really that many diseases?  How did we ever survive before these vaccines?  Oh, wait, most of these vaccines are not life-saving, and we got along just fine without them.  Again, why do we need so many?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> To try to calm fears about it -but that seems to have had the opposite effect for some.  But it actually provided strong proof that the thimerisol in vaccines was NOT causing autism since the rate continued to rise even after it was removed. Had it been a factor, the rate should have declined or at the very least the rate of increase should have gone down.  It didn't.  Several countries in Europe also discontinued it (even earlier than the US) and saw the same results.


That's probably because it's offset by the rate at which the number of vaccines the kids are getting is increasing.

----------


## KingNothing

> So you just assume it's all for our own good and accept it without question?  Even with government-run healthcare?  You don't even consider the possibility that there's an agenda behind all this vaccine-pushing?  Why do we need so many?  Are there really that many diseases?  How did we ever survive before these vaccines?  Oh, wait, most of these vaccines are not life-saving, and we got along just fine without them.  Again, why do we need so many?


Look, I don't think people should be forced into doing anything.  But the numbers are there -- vaccines have been AMAZINGLY, OVERWHELMINGLY, effective at preventing death and disease.  The number of people who suffer negative complications due to vaccinations is absolutely dwarfed by the number of people whose lives are saved or made less-bad by them.

Vaccinations should not be mandatory, but for my children they would be.  The stats are there.  Vaccines work.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm not talking about being ill. I'm talking about permanent autism.


The two, in this case, are not mutually exclusive.  My sister was autistic before she got a high fever, but she could function.  She could talk to you and memorize words that you pointed to on a page.  Now she can't function.  Like at all, except for stand up, sit down, and walk.  She never responds to anyone, but will instead shout incoherent babble whenever she sees fit.

----------


## angelatc

> I was very tempted to ask why would they care what the public demands or why would they do it if they didn't think it was harmful. But really, it doesn't matter, it WAS removed for a long enough test period, and there is no noticeable decline. If there's something in the vaccine causing autism it isn't going to be thimerisol.


That's how markets work.  People were hyperventilating about the study (now known to be fraudulent) that indicated that the mercury in the vaccines might be linked to autism, and were opting to not vaccinate their kids.  The response was to remove the mercury from the vaccines, which solved the problem while waiting for science to catch up to the truth.

Of course, there are still a loud minority that will never believe in science.

----------


## angelatc

> What's so bad about seat belt use?


The point being that the government has made it mandatory.

----------


## angelatc

> So you just assume it's all for our own good and accept it without question?  Even with government-run healthcare?  You don't even consider the possibility that there's an agenda behind all this vaccine-pushing?  Why do we need so many?  Are there really that many diseases?  How did we ever survive before these vaccines?


Are you serious?  There were thousands of people who didn't survive, and millions who carry physical remnants of their diseases. Maybe it's because you're young, but people my age knew people that limped because they had polio, knew men who were sterile because of the mumps, and knew children who died of whooping cough.   These diseases didn't disappear because of hygeine - our kids are shoved into germ-harboring social situations at much younger ages now than they were then.  Nobody went to pre-school or day-care back then.  They disappeared because we were vaccinated against them.

----------


## donnay

*VACCINATION THE HIDDEN FACTS*

(...)

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics!

Albert Einstein once said that there were three types of lies--lies, damned lies and statistics! It is easy to provide statistical evidence which creates the impression that vaccination works. Here is a good example which appears in the book, Communicable Diseases Handbook by L. Claire Bennett and Sarah Searl from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. On Page 44 it states: "An effective inoculation program should obviously result in a lowered incidence of the particular disease under surveillance. For instance, since 1963 there have been more than 80 million doses of red measles vaccine given. The number of reported cases has gone from a pre-1963 total of about 500,000 to a total of about 35,000 in 1975". Now this suggests that the vaccine was indeed responsible for this decline, that is until we go back to 1958 and learn that the number of cases was 800,000! In other words, measles cases were in decline before the 1963 vaccine commenced. (In fact by 1955, still eight years before the start of this vaccine, there had been a 97% decline in the death rate from measles since the turn of the century!) What is more, medical authorities have since acknowledged that the 1963 measles vaccine was a complete failure!

This same scenario occurs with graphical evidence also.



An examination of Graph 1 suggests that measles vaccine was responsible for the decline, but if we examine Graph 2 and go back to 1900, we can clearly see that the major part of the decline had already occurred and that the commencement of vaccination had no impact on the rate of decline thereafter. If you happen to visit a medical library and examine some of the texts and medical journals, you will find that most graphical evidence on the decline of infectious disease starts from the year 1940 when antibiotics and certain vaccinations commenced. Such graphs always present a misleading picture. Is it any wonder that most doctors believe in drug therapy and vaccinations? They have never seen the whole picture. In the Natural Health magazine, July 1988, an article appeared on Vaccination Therapy, in which the author, Shirley Lewis, mentioned this very point. Ms Lewis spoke of a doctor who undertook her own research by consulting relevant material in the medical library. As Ms Lewis points out, "She showed us a graph, from a medical journal, that proved how effective antibiotics and immunization had been in eradicating scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles. But this doctor's copy of the graph started in 1940, and we had already seen the fuller graph, which started in 1850 and showed that in all four diseases, a steady decline had been happening long before the introduction of either immunization or antibiotics. So that doctor had made a conscientious decision based on a graph that had been deliberately falsified". This explains the comments of Dr Lancaster (Medical Journal of Australia Nov 1967): "Misconceptions on the importance of direct medical and surgical intervention in the progress of mortality are widely held by historians, statisticians and medical theorists".

There are several other ways that statistics can be manipulated or falsified in order to create the impression that vaccines work. A common and well used technique is to 're-diagnose'. This means that if a patient presents the characteristic symptoms of a particular disease, yet has already been vaccinated against that disease, the doctor will diagnose something else. The National Anti-Vaccination League in Britain provides evidence of this in much of its literature. For example, chicken pox, according to medical authorities is a non-fatal disease. Yet, "In the thirty years ending in 1934, 3,112 people are stated to have died of chicken pox in England and Wales". The truth is that these people actually died of smallpox against which they had been previously vaccinated. Because of their vaccine status, however, their deaths were recorded as chicken pox. According to The Truth Teller, January 1927, "This has been admitted by English medical officers of health, and the Ministry of Health has twice stated in answer to questions in Parliament that vaccination is one factor in the diagnosis of these cases".

George Bernard Shaw, the illustrious poet and also an ardent campaigner on public health issues, once stated:

    "During the last considerable epidemic at the turn of the century, I was a member of the Health Committee of London Borough Council, and I learned how the credit of vaccination is kept up statistically by diagnosing all the re-vaccinated cases (of smallpox) as postular eczema, varioloid or what not --except smallpox".

Explaining the practice of 're-diagnosis' and the reasons behind it, Leon Chaitow says "... faced with a patient who has all the signs and symptoms of a particular disease, from which they have been 'protected' by immunization, it is obviously difficult to make the diagnosis they would have made if faced by such a case in an unvaccinated person. By calling the disease something else they are protecting their belief system, and the integrity of the theories around which they have built their actions, such as vaccination .... All this is done to protect a system, and to help to save the public from having doubt as to the efficacy of methods. Re-diagnosis is a real phenomenon, and happens all the time. In the case of diphtheria this was rampant, and it is interesting to note that it was only the vaccinated cases of diphtheria which were diagnosed as something else. In some epidemics the figure of re-diagnosis reached 60% of cases. It is hard to see what sense can be made of statistics when they are based on inaccuracies of this sort".

*Another method of creating misleading statistics is False Diagnosis'. This involves a doctor diagnosing a particular disease, say polio, when in fact the patient does not really have polio. From his book, Hygienic Care Of Children, Herbert Shelton comments on the polio epidemics: "Polio epidemics are very largely physician made. Great numbers of cases of illness diagnosed as polio are not". Shelton goes on to say: "The apparent disappearance of polio as a result of vaccination was brought about by a clever juggling stunt. Before the Salk vaccine was introduced, thousands of cases of polio were diagnosed each year in children who had no polio. After the introduction of the vaccine, these cases were no longer diagnosed as polio, this automatically appeared to reduce the case rate to the near vanishing point".*

*Continued...*

----------


## donnay

*Vaccine Bombshell: Leaked Confidential Document Exposes 36 Infants Dead After This Vaccine*
By *Christina England*

A confidential GlaxoSmithKline document recently leaked to the press exposed that within a two-year period, a total of 36 infants died after receiving the 6-in-1 vaccine, Infanrix Hexa. [1] According to the website Initiative Citoyenne [2] who reported the news, the 1271 page document revealed that GlaxoSmithKline received a total of 1,742 reports of adverse reactions between October 23, 2009, and October 22, 2011, including 503 serious adverse reactions and 36 deaths. Initiative Citoyenne stated:

“It’s not that 14 deaths were recorded by GSK between October 2009 and end in October 2011 as we had originally calculated but 36 (14 from 2010 to 2011 and 22 from 2009 to 2010). In addition to these 36 deaths at least 37 other deaths (sudden death mainly), bringing the total to at least 73 deaths since the launch of the vaccine in 2000, and again, this concerns only the death by sudden death, no further recovery of under-reporting.”

Using the figure of 36 deaths over a two-year period, this averages 1.5 deaths per month, which by anyone’s standard is extremely high. Note that only 1 to 10% of adverse reactions to vaccines are actually reported. Therefore, in reality, the problem could potentially be far more serious and the actual number of fatalities much higher.

THE DEADLY CHEMICAL COCKTAIL

The charts show that many of the babies who died passed away within the first few days of receiving the vaccine. [3] A total of three infants were reported to have died within hours of receiving the vaccine. This tragedy is hardly surprising given the vaccine’s ingredients listed on the GSK Infanrix Hexa product information leaflet, which parents are rarely given the chance to read prior to vaccination, including non-infectious substances from tetanus, diphtheria bacteria, purified proteins of pertussis bacteria, the surface protein of the hepatitis B virus (HBsAg, derived from genetically engineered yeast cells) and inactivated poliovirus. [4] Each 0.5mL dose contains:

    diphtheria toxoid
    tetanus toxoid
    pertussis toxoid
    filamentous haemagglutinin
    pertactin
    recombinant HBsAg protein
    poliovirus Type 1
    poliovirus Type 2
    poliovirus Type 3
    purified capsular polysaccharide of Hib covalently bound to tetanus toxoid
    aluminium hydroxide
    aluminium phosphate
    2-phenoxyethanol, lactose
    Medium 199
    neomycin
    polymyxin
    polysorbate 80
    polysorbate 20
    sodium chloride
    water

TOXIC DOSES OF TOXIC CHEMICALS

In an interesting article by Dr. Harold Buttram titled “The Ultimate Gamble: Do Childhood Vaccines Result in Genetic Hybridization from Alien Human and Animal DNA Contents?” he highlighted the problems associated with just two of these ingredients, including aluminum, which is a neurotoxin associated with Alzheimer’s disease and seizures, and formaldehyde, which is a known cancer-causing agent commonly used to embalm corpses. [5]

Dr. Harold Buttram also stated:

“It is universally recognized among toxicologists that combinations of toxic chemicals may bring exponential increases in toxicity; that is, two toxic chemicals in combination will bring a ten-fold or even a hundred-fold increase in toxicity. 

A classical example of this principle was the Schubert study [21] in which it was found that the amount of lead and the amount of mercury, when each was given separately, would be lethal for one percent of rats tested, would become lethal for one hundred percent of rats tested when combined.

In vaccines this principle would apply at least to mercury and aluminum, both of which are potent neurotoxins.”
CONCLUSION

Considering this information, is it any wonder that babies are dying after receiving vaccinations containing these ingredients? GlaxoSmithKline may try and hide the facts from us but they cannot hide them forever. Infanrix Hexa should be removed from the market immediately.
References

    Confidential To Regulatory Authorities – Biological Clinical Safety and Pharmacovgilance – GlaxoSmithKline Research and Development Avenue Fleming 20 1300 Wavre Belgium http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/3/...013/confid.pdf
    Initiative Citoyenne http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/3/...onfidentie.pdf
    Initiative Citoyenne Charts http://www.initiativecitoyenne.be/ar...113251207.html
    Infanrix Hexa product information leaflet http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcmed.nsf/pages/gwcinfih/$File/gwcinfih.pdf
    Dr Harold Buttram The Ultimate Gamble: Do Childhood Vaccines Result in Genetic Hybridization from Alien Human and Animal DNA Contents?” http://vactruth.com/2012/03/13/vacci...an-animal-dna/

----------


## Zippyjuan

> *Vaccine Bombshell: Leaked Confidential Document Exposes 36 Infants Dead After This Vaccine*
> By *Christina England*
> 
> A confidential GlaxoSmithKline document recently leaked to the press exposed that within a two-year period, a total of 36 infants died after receiving the 6-in-1 vaccine, Infanrix Hexa. [1] According to the website Initiative Citoyenne [2] who reported the news, the 1271 page document revealed that GlaxoSmithKline received a total of 1,742 reports of adverse reactions between October 23, 2009, and October 22, 2011, including 503 serious adverse reactions and 36 deaths. Initiative Citoyenne stated:
> 
> “It’s not that 14 deaths were recorded by GSK between October 2009 and end in October 2011 as we had originally calculated but 36 (14 from 2010 to 2011 and 22 from 2009 to 2010). In addition to these 36 deaths at least 37 other deaths (sudden death mainly), bringing the total to at least 73 deaths since the launch of the vaccine in 2000, and again, this concerns only the death by sudden death, no further recovery of under-reporting.”
> 
> Using the figure of 36 deaths over a two-year period, this averages 1.5 deaths per month, which by anyone’s standard is extremely high. Note that only 1 to 10% of adverse reactions to vaccines are actually reported. Therefore, in reality, the problem could potentially be far more serious and the actual number of fatalities much higher.
> 
> ...


Link to the report cited in the first paragraph: http://ddata.over-blog.com/3/27/09/7...013/confid.pdf

It indicates that those 36 deaths were out of 24,283,415 doses.  Twenty four million.   Thirty six out of twenty four million is an incredibly small number. That is .000015 percent of all who received the vaccination.

----------


## KingNothing

> Link to the report cited in the first paragraph: http://ddata.over-blog.com/3/27/09/7...013/confid.pdf
> 
> It indicates that those 36 deaths were out of 24,283,415 doses.  Twenty four million.   Thirty six out of twenty four million is an incredibly small number. That is .000015 percent of all who received the vaccination.


Bah.  Details.  Nevermind that the number of deaths is significantly less than the number of deaths that we'd have seen had no vaccine existed.

----------


## KingNothing

Any time the number of people negatively impacted by ANYTHING is greater than zero, it stinks.  We all recognize that.  We've got to be careful to keep things in perspective though, and this is where Donnay has ALWAYS failed.  She's willing to throw the healthy baby out with the bathwater, because there's a 36 in 24,000,000 chance of the bathwater hurting the baby, without acknowledging that the odds of the baby being hurt would be much higher if no bathwater existed.

She provides no context to any of the drivel that she posts, and without context her "facts" are meaningless.

----------


## Tpoints

> What's so bad about seat belt use?


It forces parents to protect their children when a parent believes they have a right to risk their child's life.

----------


## Tpoints

> So you just assume it's all for our own good and accept it without question?


No, he just assumed that the person making the *extraordinary claim*, that vaccines do not help immunity, may harm immunity, or there's a collusion conspiracy between every non-conspiracist doctor with pharmaceutical companies to inject every child either purposely to harm them or to make money with no regard to their health....*has the burden of proof.* 




> Even with government-run healthcare?  You don't even consider the possibility that there's an agenda behind all this vaccine-pushing?


Whoa, what does vaccination have to do with government run healthcare? I don't doubt some people have an agenda, but I definitely know people writing for Natural News, Wakefield and the autism link industry have an agenda, it might be a good one in your book, but it is one. 




> Why do we need so many?  Are there really that many diseases?


Would you prefer we had none or, say, 1/10 of preventable but not curable diseases? *Are there that many diseases? YES.* Your question should be, do vaccines do anything to reduce the risk of infection or death as a result of these diseases. Did somebody make up a vaccine for a disease that doesn't exist? Why didn't that genius make another one up for AIDS or cancer? Surely, they want to lie to people who know the most dangerous diseases have some shred of prevention, right? 




> How did we ever survive before these vaccines?


Who said we did at the same rate? 




> Oh, wait, most of these vaccines are not life-saving, and we got along just fine without them.  Again, why do we need so many?


Something tells me that you would not surrender any other medical technology that is post 1960 (I use 1960 because that's the MMR vaccine's birthday roughly). You are happy to single this one out as "hey, we survived fine without it"

----------


## SilentBull

> Any time the number of people negatively impacted by ANYTHING is greater than zero, it stinks.  We all recognize that.  We've got to be careful to keep things in perspective though, and this is where Donnay has ALWAYS failed.  She's willing to throw the healthy baby out with the bathwater, because there's a 36 in 24,000,000 chance of the bathwater hurting the baby, without acknowledging that the odds of the baby being hurt would be much higher if no bathwater existed.
> 
> She provides no context to any of the drivel that she posts, and without context her "facts" are meaningless.


Donnay is a female??

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Look, I don't think people should be forced into doing anything.  But the numbers are there -- vaccines have been AMAZINGLY, OVERWHELMINGLY, effective at preventing death and disease.  The number of people who suffer negative complications due to vaccinations is absolutely dwarfed by the number of people whose lives are saved or made less-bad by them.
> 
> Vaccinations should not be mandatory, but for my children they would be.  The stats are there.  Vaccines work.


It depends on which numbers you're looking at, and how you interpret them.  Obviously, you are very trusting of the official story.  Let me guess, you heard the hogwash about how vaccines are supposed to work and bought it, no questions asked.  You don't really know anything about the science.  

I'm in the same boat as you.  I'm not sure how vaccines really work, but I do know that there's an agenda behind them because that much has been made clear by all the propaganda and the mercury in them.  Why else would this happen?  Statistics are used as a tool to support this, but in reality, the statistics are only a blank page on which the scientific establishment can write, and they tell you what they want you to hear.

----------


## KingNothing

> It depends on which numbers you're looking at, and how you interpret them.  Obviously, you are very trusting of the official story.  Let me guess, you heard the hogwash about how vaccines are supposed to work and bought it, no questions asked.  You don't really know anything about the science.  
> 
> I'm in the same boat as you.  I'm not sure how vaccines really work, but I do know that there's an agenda behind them because that much has been made clear by all the propaganda and the mercury in them.  Why else would this happen?  Statistics are used as a tool to support this, but in reality, the statistics are only a blank page on which the scientific establishment can write, and they tell you what they want you to hear.



How do you even make it through a day? 

And FWIW, I started as an anti-vaxxer, but then I did research.  I had even posted hedged commentss regarding vaccines here in the past but I was foolish and the nuance I tried to convey was silly.  Vaccines are absolutely amazing things.  If they were part of an attempt to control the population, the people who matter would be keeping them out of our hands, not decreasing infant mortality by offering them to us.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Donnay is a female??


Yes, and her husband and I are buds.   They're good folks.

----------


## donnay

> Link to the report cited in the first paragraph: http://ddata.over-blog.com/3/27/09/7...013/confid.pdf
> 
> It indicates that those 36 deaths were out of 24,283,415 doses.  Twenty four million.   Thirty six out of twenty four million is an incredibly small number. That is .000015 percent of all who received the vaccination.


*"Note that only 1 to 10% of adverse reactions to vaccines are actually reported."*

You need to go back and read that report again.

----------


## donnay

> Any time the number of people negatively impacted by ANYTHING is greater than zero, it stinks.  We all recognize that.  We've got to be careful to keep things in perspective though, and this is where Donnay has ALWAYS failed.  She's willing to throw the healthy baby out with the bathwater, because there's a 36 in 24,000,000 chance of the bathwater hurting the baby, without acknowledging that the odds of the baby being hurt would be much higher if no bathwater existed.
> 
> She provides no context to any of the drivel that she posts, and without context her "facts" are meaningless.



The information is there, if you took the time to read it.   You should change your moniker to KingKnowsNothing.

----------


## Tpoints

> And FWIW, I started as an anti-vaxxer, but then I did research.


How did they get to you? You were never a true anti-vaxxer, true anti-vaxxers take the red pill and they can never fall asleep again.

----------


## Deborah K



----------


## Deborah K



----------


## KingNothing

Deb, I watched the first video but not the second because the first was so infuriating.  the editorializing was annoying as it showed nothing but word-twisting and logical leaps.  You cannot just assume that vaccines caused the autism to appear and that absent vaccinations, no autism would have been apparent.  She said that fevers are the problem, not vaccines.  Even without the vaccinations, the child may have developed a fever which could cause autism.

----------


## KingNothing

> That's how markets work.  People were hyperventilating about the study (now known to be fraudulent) that indicated that the mercury in the vaccines might be linked to autism, and were opting to not vaccinate their kids.  The response was to remove the mercury from the vaccines, which solved the problem while waiting for science to catch up to the truth.
> 
> Of course, there are still a loud minority that will never believe in science.



That fraudulent study has probably resulted in the deaths of children.  Ugly, ugly stuff.

----------


## Deborah K

As time permits, I've been doing some research on the question of why autism continues to rise after mercury has been removed as preservative.  It looks like it HAS NOT been removed from every vaccination, and aluminum has replaced mercury in some cases, and so has human tissue. Here's some info on human tissue being used in vaccinations:




> Helen Ratajczak, a former senior scientist at a pharmaceutical firm reviewed the body of published science since autism was first described in 1943. Not just one theory suggested by research such as the role of MMR shots, or the mercury preservative thimerosal; but all of them. The article discusses many potential vaccine-related culprits, including the increasing number of vaccines given in a short period of time. The article in the Journal of Immunotoxicology is entitled "Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes--A review."
> 
> Dr. Ratajczak also looks at a factor that hasn't been widely discussed: human DNA contained in vaccines. Ratajczak reports that about the same time vaccine makers took most thimerosal out of most vaccines (with the exception of flu shots which still widely contain thimerosal), they began making some vaccines using human tissue. Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23 vaccines. She discusses the increase in autism incidences corresponding with the introduction of human DNA to MMR vaccine, and suggests the two could be linked. Ratajczak also says an additional increased spike in autism occurred in 1995 when chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue.
> 
> Why could human DNA potentially cause brain damage?  "Because it's human DNA and recipients are humans, there's homologous recombination. That DNA is incorporated into the host DNA. Now it's changed, altered self and body kills it. Where is this most expressed? The neurons of the brain. Now you have body killing the brain cells and it's an ongoing inflammation. It doesn't stop, it continues through the life of that individual."
> 
> University of Pennsylvania's Dr. Brian Strom, who has served on Institute of Medicine panels advising the government on vaccine safety said he was unaware that human DNA was contained in vaccines but told us, "It does not matter...Even if human DNA were then found in vaccines, it does not mean that they cause autism." Ratajczak agrees that nobody has proven DNA causes autism; but argues nobody has shown the opposite, and scientifically, the case is still open. 
> 
> A number of independent scientists have said they've been subjected to orchestrated campaigns to discredit them when their research exposed vaccine safety issues, especially if it veered into the topic of autism. We asked Ratajczak how she came to research the controversial topic. She told us that for years while working in the pharmaceutical industry, she was restricted as to what she was allowed to publish. "I'm retired now," she told CBS News. "I can write what I want." 
> ...





> In the most recent issue of the Journal of Immunotoxicology, Helen V. Ratajczak, PhD  , had two separate reviews published. The first review, Theoretical Aspects of-Autism Causes a Review tackles a seemingly taboo topic in mainstream health: the many potential environmental causes of autism. Dr. Ratajczak writes:
> 
> Autism could result from more than  one cause, with different manifestations in different individuals that share common symptoms. Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis following vaccination. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain. The inflammation could be caused by a defective placenta, immature blood-brain barrier, the immune response of the mother to infection while pregnant, a premature birth, encephalitis in the child after birth, or a toxic environment.
> 
> Perhaps more controversially, Dr. Ratajczak also proposes a novel theory regarding the mechanism of action for a vaccine to cause autism:
> 
> The MMR II vaccine is contaminated with human DNA from the cell line in which the rubella virus is grown. This human DNA could be the cause of the spikes in incidence. An additional increased spike in incidence of autism occurred in 1995 when the chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue (Merck and Co., Inc., 2001; Breuer, 2003). The current incidence of autism in the United States, noted above, is approximately 1/100.
> 
> The human DNA from the vaccine can be randomly inserted into the recipients genes by homologous recom- bination, a process that occurs spontaneously only within a species. Hot spots for DNA insertion are found on the X chromosome in eight autism-associated genes involved in nerve cell synapse formation, central nervous system devel- opment, and mitochondrial function (Deisher, 2010). This could provide some explanation of why autism is predomi- nantly a disease of boys. Taken together, these data support the hypothesis that residual human DNA in some vaccines might cause autism.
> ...


More here:  http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/05/a...jczak-phd.html

----------


## Deborah K

> Deb, I watched the first video but not the second because the first was so infuriating.  the editorializing was annoying as it showed nothing but word-twisting and logical leaps.  You cannot just assume that vaccines caused the autism to appear and that absent vaccinations, no autism would have been apparent.  She said that fevers are the problem, not vaccines.  Even without the vaccinations, the child may have developed a fever which could cause autism.


I'm posting what I find, you and others can make of it what you will.  Those of you who believe infants should be given numerous vaccines with questionable preservatives are NOT going to change your minds, and I'm not here to try and do that.  But, for those who are undecided, I'd like them to get a different perspective.  

Again, I am not opposed to vaccination.  I am opposed to the way the gov't is mandating that infants, and toddlers be immunized so early, with so many at time, and with questionable preservatives.  The evidence is out there that not all children (hundreds of thousands) can handle the stress to their systems that some of these vaccinations (preservatives) cause.  It's like playing russian roulette with your child.  My hope is that new parents will thoroughly weigh the facts before they make the decision to vaccinate, or not vaccinate.  I am equally frustrated about the gov't forcing parents to vaccinate via day care centers/ schools (mandating them to check shot records before admittance).

----------


## Deborah K

On a side note:  The same gov't (CDC, FDA, et.al.) that insists on these vaccination mandates for infants and toddlers, also allows for the following side affects for prescription drugs.




And, as Dr. Paul has repeatedly and insistently pointed out, this SAME mindset within the gov't (albeit state) outlaws cannabis and raw milk. Something to think about.

----------


## Tpoints

> And, as Dr. Paul has repeatedly and insistently pointed out, this SAME mindset within the gov't (albeit state) outlaws cannibis and raw milk. Something to think about.


Is raw milk illegal to drink? Or just to sell? Did you know it's legal to sell breast milk? http://www.onlythebreast.com/

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Is raw milk illegal to drink? Or just to sell?* Did you know it's legal to sell breast milk?* http://www.onlythebreast.com/


No.  Did you know some people use it to make ice cream? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12569011

----------


## Zippyjuan

> *"Note that only 1 to 10% of adverse reactions to vaccines are actually reported."*
> 
> You need to go back and read that report again.


Ok. Let's assume that only ten percent is reported.  That comes to 360 out of 24 MILLION. Still incredibly rare. Fifteen in a million odds. 

Compare that to your chances of dying from:



> Cause of Death ......Lifetime Odds
> 
> Heart Disease  1-in-5
> 
> Cancer   1-in-7
> 
> Stroke   1-in-23
> 
> Accidental Injury   1-in-36
> ...


http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html

What if you did not get the vaccine and caught for example diptheria (one of the diseases the vaccine is intended to prevent)? What would be your odds of dying?  



> Diphtheria affects people of all ages, but most often it strikes unimmunized children. In temperate climates, diphtheria tends to occur during the colder months. *In 2000, 30 000 cases and 3000 deaths of diphtheria were reported worldwide*.


http://www.who.int/immunization/topi...en/index1.html

3000 deaths in 30,000 cases would be one in ten.  Compare that to the 15 in a million risk from the vaccine.  Which would be more deadly?  The disease. And that is just one of six this particular vaccine was designed to help prevent. 

What happens when fewer people get vaccinated against this disease?  We can look at some of the former Soviet states where vaccination rates declined after the fall of the USSR. 

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/18/...87_article.htm



> In 1994, following success of widespread vaccination programs earlier in the century, diphtheria was proposed as a candidate for elimination in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region; the goal was for elimination of indigenous diphtheria by 2000 (1). However, during the 1990s, when this goal seemed within sight, several factors caused a resurgence of diphtheria to epidemic proportions in the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. There were a large number of unnecessary contraindications to vaccination in guidance for these countries at that time, *which led to reductions in adequate vaccination coverage in children.* This problem was exacerbated by mistrust in vaccinations among health professionals and the public and by use of low-dose formulation vaccine for primary vaccinations. Waning immunity in the adult population, large-scale population movements caused by breakup of the former Soviet Union, disruptions in health services, and lack of adequate supplies of vaccine and antitoxin for prevention and treatment in most affected countries provided conditions under which diphtheria could spread (2,3). *At the peak of the epidemic in 1995, there were >50,000 cases* reported in the WHO European Region (2). *Intensive vaccination strategies brought the disease under control in most countries*, but some endemic transmission still continues.

----------


## cubical

Is there a good way to find a Dr who is not pro-vac? I would love for my wife and I to speak with a Dr on both sides before we have our child. I realize most DRs are pro-vac because that is what is pushed by the industry/government(rightly or wrongly), but I know there are some who are at least skeptical. Maybe some sort of a natural Dr database or something.

Thanks

----------


## cubical

> What if you did not get the vaccine and caught for example diptheria (one of the diseases the vaccine is intended to prevent)? What would be your odds of dying?  
> 
> 3000 deaths in 30,000 cases would be one in ten.  Compare that to the 15 in a million risk from the vaccine.  Which would be more deadly?  The disease. And that is just one of six this particular vaccine was designed to help prevent.


It seems you are comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing "the number of people who die from the disease"/"the number of people who get the disease" vs "reported disease from the vaccine"/"the number of people who get the vaccines". What is the commonality between the two ratios?

You should compare how many non-vaccinated people contract the disease "naturally" vs how many vaccinated people contract the disease from the vaccine and/or natually.

----------


## donnay

> Ok. Let's assume that only ten percent is reported.  That comes to 360 out of 24 MILLION. Still incredibly rare. Fifteen in a million odds. 
> 
> Compare that to your chances of dying from:
> 
> http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html
> 
> What if you did not get the vaccine and caught for example diptheria (one of the diseases the vaccine is intended to prevent)? What would be your odds of dying?  
> 
> http://www.who.int/immunization/topi...en/index1.html
> ...


Let me ask you this--why do we even have immune systems?  Many of the vaccines are for things that are not deadly.  I would also like to know why a new born baby has to immediately have the HepB vaccine?   There is no proof that HepB is caused by virus.  When children have the reaction from the vaccine, like high fever and rash not many doctors and nurse consider the vaccination as the source.  That's why a lot of the reactions go unreported.

----------


## donnay

> Is there a good way to find a Dr who is not pro-vac? I would love for my wife and I to speak with a Dr on both sides before we have our child. I realize most DRs are pro-vac because that is what is pushed by the industry/government(rightly or wrongly), but I know there are some who are at least skeptical. Maybe some sort of a natural Dr database or something.
> 
> Thanks


Try a Naturopathic physician.

http://naturopathic.org/content.asp?contentid=60
http://www.pandamedicine.com/naturop...hysicians.html
http://newborns.dunway.com/html/natu...e_newborn.html
http://www.naturesintentionsnaturopa...r-children.htm

----------


## Tpoints

> Is there a good way to find a Dr who is not pro-vac? I would love for my wife and I to speak with a Dr on both sides before we have our child. I realize most DRs are pro-vac because that is what is pushed by the industry/government(rightly or wrongly), but I know there are some who are at least skeptical. Maybe some sort of a natural Dr database or something.
> 
> Thanks


By "not pro-vac" are you saying a doctor is skeptical of the effects and benefits of a vaccine? If so, I would be skeptical of the doctor's intellectual honesty based on the scientific data available. If you are simply asking for doctor who doesn't believe everybody should be forced to take it, that's a policy question, I suspect there would be thousands of them.

----------


## cubical

> By "not pro-vac" are you saying a doctor is skeptical of the effects and benefits of a vaccine?


Yes




> If so, I would be skeptical of the doctor's intellectual honesty based on the scientific data available.


Says you. It's not something I can really research other than viewing some articles and listening to people on a message board, all of who probably have a bias. Obviously I will ask the doc what kind of evidence supports her position and I will do more research and follow up with my question/objections.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> Says you. It's not something I can really research other than viewing some articles and listening to people on a message board, all of who probably have a bias. Obviously I will ask the doc what kind of evidence supports her position and I will do more research and follow up with my question/objections.


Cubical, it is worth the time and effort to research vax and make a decision based on that research.  Biases here, or anywhere, mean nothing when it comes to your own child.  There is tons of vaccine information.  Ie.  Weston Price Foundation, Barbara Loe Fischer, Cilla Whatcott, National Vaccine Information Center.  God speed, sincerely.

----------


## HigherVision

> Its an episode of a skeptic debunking the Anti Vaccination side.


I'm sick of the word skeptic being misused and spun into a buzz word. We who are the 'anti-vaxers' are skeptical of vaccinations, therefore we are the skeptics. We're not the ones going around claiming that everyone needs to do something, i.e. get vaccinated. We're the ones who are skeptical of that claim.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I'm sick of the word skeptic being misused and spun into a buzz word. We who are the 'anti-vaxers' are skeptical of vaccinations, therefore we are the skeptics. We're not the ones going around claiming that everyone needs to do something, i.e. get vaccinated. We're the ones who are skeptical of that claim.


From the dictionary - "skepticism is the doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible and that inquiry must be a process of doubting in order to acquire approximate or relative certainty".  Don't you love it HigherVision - call me a skeptic any day.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> How do you even make it through a day? 
> 
> And FWIW, I started as an anti-vaxxer, but then I did research.  I had even posted hedged commentss regarding vaccines here in the past but I was foolish and the nuance I tried to convey was silly.  Vaccines are absolutely amazing things.  If they were part of an attempt to control the population, the people who matter would be keeping them out of our hands, not decreasing infant mortality by offering them to us.


The story is always the same.  I was "just like you", but then I did "research" and found out that vaccines were "amazing" because I looked at the "evidence".  It's so vague.  If you're going to post stuff like that, why post at all?  You provide no details about how you researched, what finally convinced you, or why vaccines are supposedly amazing.  It's just more spouting of the official story.  People like you will say they did research, but what they actually did was look at the official story from the scientific establishment.  Like I said, if you control science, you can make just about anything seem true.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> From the dictionary - "skepticism is the doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible and that inquiry must be a process of doubting in order to acquire approximate or relative certainty".  Don't you love it HigherVision - call me a skeptic any day.


That's absolutely technically true.  However, it doesn't account for semantic shift in linguistics.  It happens all the time, for better and for worse.

----------

