Jump to content

MUST READ FOR ALL OF US!!!!


Patrick
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 10 months later...

If I had young children, I would not let them go to a school where unvaccinated children play. We've at least still got it right in hospitals since you need to have all common childhood vaccinations in order to give direct patient care.

ahah... I hear this often from those who belive in the power of vaccines. But think a little bit: you must not really believe vaccines work, if you fear that your vaccinated kids can get the virus from unvaccinated kids. And I've got some new for ya: THERE ARE unvaccinated kids in schools and unvaccinated adults EVERYWHERE, even in hospitals. You are saying everybody entering hospitals are vaccinated... but they are sick and they got viruses. Now what will you do, never go out of your house again?

Vaccination is another big mistake perpetrated by mankind and only for money: each vaccine creates a new generation of virus which is stronger than the one targeted by the vaccine: 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger'. Just like we do with pesticides and insecticides: we need more and more of this shit. How will we turn back, if its not too late ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LETS ALL GET THE SWF VACCINE. MUST HAVE MUST HAVE, OTHERWISE WE ARE ALL SOL.
Canada ordered 50 million doses of the swine flue vaccine, what a joke ! We are not even 30 million people in canada. At least its good that some people still call it the Swine flue. In canada we call it the A Flue (H1N1) the pig farmers declared war to this name, saying there's no epidemy to pigs... so what? the virus comes from a pig.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had young children, I would not let them go to a school where unvaccinated children play. We've at least still got it right in hospitals since you need to have all common childhood vaccinations in order to give direct patient care.

ahah... I hear this often from those who belive in the power of vaccines. But think a little bit: you must not really believe vaccines work, if you fear that your vaccinated kids can get the virus from unvaccinated kids.

Heh, I agree with you there.

 

Vaccination is another big mistake perpetrated by mankind and only for money: each vaccine creates a new generation of virus which is stronger than the one targeted by the vaccine: 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger'. Just like we do with pesticides and insecticides: we need more and more of this shit. How will we turn back, if its not too late ?

But not there. Can you name any virus that has come back stronger after wide-scale vaccination? Vaccines certainly aren't perfect, but they aren't creating stronger viruses (or bacteria).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a virus finds a vaccinated person, maybe afterwards it will multiplies into a more virulent one. Like a muscle that you train to failure and then next week it is stronger.

Since massive use of insecticides and GMO's, we now find insects that are more resistant and adapted to resist those insecticides and GMO's, so they release a new poison each year. Maybe AIDS was created by mankind. Maybe this new flue virus is due to vaccines for the regular flue. Apparently its only due to transgenese of the virus in pigs maybe due to intensive farming and got to humans probably due to the farmers and meat industry. But how crazy a human being must be to be willing to be vaciinated even against the regular flue ? Or those that take Aspirin 'preventive' doses daily. In a recent documentary by the NFB we hear that today, the average American kid receive about 60 doses of vaccines before the age of 6 years old ! May be more or less, and it includes doses for the same vaccine too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a virus finds a vaccinated person, maybe afterwards it will multiplies into a more virulent one.

All I'm saying is that I don't know of any cases where this has actually happened, nor could I find any while googling. When a virus hits a person, vaccinated or not, it does one of two things: it gets wiped out by the immune system or it kills the host. All the vaccination does is prime the immune system by forcing it to develop antibodies. These same antibodies will be developed by a unvaccinated person to fight off the virus at the time of infection, but the difference is that this person will suffer the effects of the illness and the first person won't.

 

What that means is that if a virus is going to grow more virulent by surviving an interaction with a vaccinated person, it will also do so after surviving an incident with an unvaccinated person, since in both cases it's fighting the same antibodies.

 

Since massive use of insecticides and GMO's, we now find insects that are more resistant and adapted to resist those insecticides and GMO's, so they release a new poison each year.

I don't disagree. (Well, maybe a bit, but I understand your point.) However, these insecticides and GMOs are new variables introduced by humans that would normally not be encountered in nature. The same is true of antibiotics. Insects (or bacteria) adapt to those variables, and we're forced to introduce new ones.

 

However, vaccines are different. We aren't exposing the pathogens to anything they wouldn't normally encounter during an immune response. We're just using inactivated viruses and bacteria to trigger that response so that the person doesn't suffer the effects.

 

In a recent documentary by the NFB we hear that today, the average American kid receive about 60 doses of vaccines before the age of 6 years old ! May be more or less, and it includes doses for the same vaccine too.

The average American kid has been receiving those vaccines for a long time now, and there have been very few side-effects. It's not like the sample size is small, either. We have decades of evidence. For very little cost, vaccines save thousands of lives per year. Vaccines are the great back-breaking tools in the complete eradication of diseases.

 

In the vast majority of cases, of course, they're a personal choice. But I urge everyone to do a significant amount of research before making that decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But not there. Can you name any virus that has come back stronger after wide-scale vaccination? Vaccines certainly aren't perfect, but they aren't creating stronger viruses (or bacteria).

 

 

Most viruses for which vaccines were developed were in a major decline well before the vaccine was created. It was sanitation that impeded the disease, not vaccination. No vaccine ever created has shown to have a permanent effect on the course of the disease.

 

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/images/measles.gif

http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/us-deaths-1900-1965.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and also I've read that during some epidemies the people that were vaccinated were getting the virus and dying just like those who were not vaccinated.

Off-topic, but about modern medecine trying to cure cancers I've read that the rates of success of radiotherapy and chemiotherapy are good for just 3-4 common types of cancers (between 80-97% success) but in all the other types of cancers the success rate is catastrophic, like 4 or 5%, and the patients are litterally killed by the treatments, not by the cancer, which would have killed them many years later, or who knows, never, if they would have tried to heal by themselves rather than giving their life to science.

 

When a virus hits a person, vaccinated or not, it does one of two things: it gets wiped out by the immune system or it kills the host.

Or it survives to the antibodies, adapts and becomes stronger, finds new hosts by contamination, multiplies, becomes stronger, etc.
All the vaccination does is prime the immune system by forcing it to develop antibodies. These same antibodies will be developed by a unvaccinated person to fight off the virus at the time of infection, but the difference is that this person will suffer the effects of the illness and the first person won't.
If its the same antibodies than why vaccinate ? I guess you mean the unvaccinated person is hit more violently than the one who is vaccinated. But let me tell you one universial law: we never trick Nature. Science is a weak opponent to Mother Nature and even if some nuclear bombs destroy planet Earth, Nature will still remain the winner in the rest of the Universe.

 

(...) these insecticides and GMOs are new variables introduced by humans that would normally not be encountered in nature. The same is true of antibiotics. Insects (or bacteria) adapt to those variables, and we're forced to introduce new ones.
In a thread about GMO's (or it was originally about MSG but it drifted to gmo's thanks to me) a member of this forum board said that we humans are not putting anything different into Nature with those GMO's than nature would occur normally in nature anyway but by taking MORE TIME. The notion of time is important, because there is a difference between the extinction of human race NOW or in a billion years. With mutant insects it is the samething, and with vaccination it is similar: maybe we will have to face a deadly virus next year instead of in a thousand years from now. Why, despite vaccination, pandemics are still #1 threat to mankind ? (or tie with world wars or other stuff).. Because vaccines are not going to save us, but rather could be against us.

 

The average American kid has been receiving those vaccines for a long time now, and there have been very few side-effects. It's not like the sample size is small, either. We have decades of evidence. For very little cost, .
Very little cost for who ? The pharmaceutic business that makes hundreds of billion dollars ? Or us who pay with taxes the state orders millions of doses, each dose costs like 70$. About evidence, well how could we trace very precisely that many cases of autism and allergies are not caused by vaccination ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm Your Man: You will not convince certain lads about this topic in his forum. I am glad you have jumped in because you are 100% correct. Giving a child close to 60 vaccines before they reach 6 years of age is not only crazy, but criminal and the industry (all parties involved) should be charged with negligence and prosecuted to the fullest extent. Certain people can be bought. As you have pointed out Big Pharma has a vested interest in vaccines and certain global families are controlling this.

People need to wake up (not only in the U.S.), [though for our sake in the U.S.], stop watching brain-washed bullshit on TV, see the Real World {not through Ameican Idol} and understand what is transpiring in North America. No, this doesn't only apply to vaccines (I guess I am going off on a tangent, but it certainly is a part of this ordeal.) Yes, and I mean Canada as well. Canadian Liberties are being robbed from citizens everyday.

WT HELL UP!

 

Ducati,

nice graph. Can you link it out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But not there. Can you name any virus that has come back stronger after wide-scale vaccination? Vaccines certainly aren't perfect, but they aren't creating stronger viruses (or bacteria).

Most viruses for which vaccines were developed were in a major decline well before the vaccine was created. It was sanitation that impeded the disease, not vaccination. No vaccine ever created has shown to have a permanent effect on the course of the disease.

Oh, there's no doubt that general sanitation and hygiene had a massive effect before vaccines were even introduced. Most of the diseases saw a 80 to 90% decline in death rate just from sanitation. However, sanitation doesn't completely eliminate the disease or provide herd immunity. As you said, it just "impedes" the disease. Vaccines can eliminate them completely. This is how diseases have been eradicated in regions without proper sanitation. Smallpox has been eliminated completely, worldwide, including places with terrible hygiene and living conditions and high population density.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and also I've read that during some epidemies the people that were vaccinated were getting the virus and dying just like those who were not vaccinated.

The fact that during an epidemic someone might get the virus despite vaccination isn't surprising. Immunity isn't immediate. I'd be interested in knowing the details of those cases, if you have them.

When a virus hits a person, vaccinated or not, it does one of two things: it gets wiped out by the immune system or it kills the host.

Or it survives to the antibodies, adapts and becomes stronger, finds new hosts by contamination, multiplies, becomes stronger, etc.

Even if it does so, it eventually gets wiped out by the immune system or wins the battle. But my point is that whatever the result, it would happen with or without the vaccine.

 

All the vaccination does is prime the immune system by forcing it to develop antibodies. These same antibodies will be developed by a unvaccinated person to fight off the virus at the time of infection, but the difference is that this person will suffer the effects of the illness and the first person won't.
If its the same antibodies than why vaccinate ? I guess you mean the unvaccinated person is hit more violently than the one who is vaccinated. But let me tell you one universial law: we never trick Nature. Science is a weak opponent to Mother Nature and even if some nuclear bombs destroy planet Earth, Nature will still remain the winner in the rest of the Universe.

That last sentence has nothing to do with the discussion, so I'm going to ignore it. Yes, the unvaccinated person suffers the effects of the disease. The vaccinated person does not. That's the whole point. It's not tricking nature, either. It's using nature. We deliver a controlled, inactive dose of the pathogen to prompt the body's natural response.

 

(...) these insecticides and GMOs are new variables introduced by humans that would normally not be encountered in nature. The same is true of antibiotics. Insects (or bacteria) adapt to those variables, and we're forced to introduce new ones.
In a thread about GMO's (or it was originally about MSG but it drifted to gmo's thanks to me) a member of this forum board said that we humans are not putting anything different into Nature with those GMO's than nature would occur normally in nature anyway but by taking MORE TIME. The notion of time is important, because there is a difference between the extinction of human race NOW or in a billion years. With mutant insects it is the samething, and with vaccination it is similar: maybe we will have to face a deadly virus next year instead of in a thousand years from now. Why, despite vaccination, pandemics are still #1 threat to mankind ? (or tie with world wars or other stuff).. Because vaccines are not going to save us, but rather could be against us.

Well, I don't necessarily agree that what we're doing with GMOs would ever happen in nature, or at least not in any sort of meaningful timeframe. But again, with vaccination we're simply priming our systems with antibodies. The pathogens are going to encounter these antibodies anyway, and not on some extremely dilated timeframe.

 

Also, pandemics aren't the #1 threat to mankind in any sense. From the perspective of death rate, heart disease is still tops, then cerebrovascular disease. You may be looking at it a different way, though.

 

The average American kid has been receiving those vaccines for a long time now' date=' and there have been very few side-effects. It's not like the sample size is small, either. We have decades of evidence. For very little cost, .[/quote'] Very little cost for who ? The pharmaceutic business that makes hundreds of billion dollars ? Or us who pay with taxes the state orders millions of doses, each dose costs like 70$.

I'm talking about cost in side-effects and public health, not money. I agree that the monetary cost is higher than it should be, especially for the vaccines with limited production. However, some of them are quite cost-effective. The H1N1 costs between $2.50 and $20 depending on ability to pay.

 

About evidence, well how could we trace very precisely that many cases of autism and allergies are not caused by vaccination ?

Well, one of the ways is by looking at autism incidence in unvaccinated vs vaccinated individuals, as they just did in England. Unsurprisingly, the incidence in adults who never received the MMR vaccine (the one that Wakefield started all the fuss about) is the same as that in children who have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, pandemics aren't the #1 threat to mankind in any sense. From the perspective of death rate, heart disease is still tops, then cerebrovascular disease. You may be looking at it a different way, though.

 

Heart disease is prevalent in Western societies. In most non-Western cultures, diseases or poverty are the killers. This includes viruses, bacteria, and toxins. If you add them up, then I'm Your Man is correct. Overwhelmingly correct. However, most statistics compared say Malaria versus heart disease, not pandemics versus heart disease. So, Malaria kills fewer than heart disease, but all diseases of poverty combined kill more than heart disease or anything else.

 

Oh, there's no doubt that general sanitation and hygiene had a massive effect before vaccines were even introduced. Most of the diseases saw a 80 to 90% decline in death rate just from sanitation. However, sanitation doesn't completely eliminate the disease or provide herd immunity. As you said, it just "impedes" the disease. Vaccines can eliminate them completely. This is how diseases have been eradicated in regions without proper sanitation. Smallpox has been eliminated completely, worldwide, including places with terrible hygiene and living conditions and high population density.

 

Smallpox was almost completely eradicated before vaccination. And many diseases will die out without vaccination. The only virus that won't die out is one with a 100% fatality rate. Otherwise, the people who get the disease and live develop an immunity and women pass that on to their children.

 

Here is a link about smallpox. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/smallpox_graphs_h.html

 

The smallpox vaccine killed a lot of people. It was shown to have a negative effect of immunity from the disease.

 

 

Ducati,

nice graph. Can you link it out?

 

Here is the link to the graphs. http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

 

I agree with what you said. People would be better off to scrap their TVs. There is so much propaganda in our world and most people have no clue they are being brainwashed. Vaccinations are a huge scam for money or possibly a medium to implement eugenics. No vaccination has been shown to protect against the disease, and most have shown a negative effect. Yet, people still believe our corporate controlled media and government that vaccines save lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, pandemics aren't the #1 threat to mankind in any sense. From the perspective of death rate, heart disease is still tops, then cerebrovascular disease. You may be looking at it a different way, though.

Heart disease is prevalent in Western societies. In most non-Western cultures, diseases or poverty are the killers. This includes viruses, bacteria, and toxins. If you add them up, then I'm Your Man is correct. Overwhelmingly correct. However, most statistics compared say Malaria versus heart disease, not pandemics versus heart disease. So, Malaria kills fewer than heart disease, but all diseases of poverty combined kill more than heart disease or anything else.

If you add them up, heart disease still wins. 7.2 million deaths per year. I think the problem is that you're redefining the word "pandemic." Most diseases are not pandemics, including malaria. The only two official pandemics of the past 30 years are HIV/AIDS and H1N1. If you throw together all infectious diseases the category becomes meaningless. I might as well just list "vascular diseases" as the leading cause of death and group together heart disease, stroke, etc.

 

But this is nitpicking. Yes, pandemics and regional epidemics are a threat, mostly to the third world.

 

Oh, there's no doubt that general sanitation and hygiene had a massive effect before vaccines were even introduced. Most of the diseases saw a 80 to 90% decline in death rate just from sanitation. However, sanitation doesn't completely eliminate the disease or provide herd immunity. As you said, it just "impedes" the disease. Vaccines can eliminate them completely. This is how diseases have been eradicated in regions without proper sanitation. Smallpox has been eliminated completely, worldwide, including places with terrible hygiene and living conditions and high population density.

Smallpox was almost completely eradicated before vaccination. And many diseases will die out without vaccination. The only virus that won't die out is one with a 100% fatality rate. Otherwise, the people who get the disease and live develop an immunity and women pass that on to their children.

Here is a link about smallpox. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/smallpox_graphs_h.html

The smallpox vaccine killed a lot of people. It was shown to have a negative effect of immunity from the disease.

Yes, the smallpox vaccine from 100-150 years ago was largely ineffective. There were likely incidences of contamination, too. The problem was mostly with preparation and delivery, though. We have since vastly improved.

 

As I said, look at areas with poor hygiene and sanitation. Look at Africa. Or better, look at India. Poor living conditions, high population density, but once they had a modern vaccine administered effectively, the incidences dropped from tens of thousands to zero within 3 years. That wasn't caused by improvements in sanitation or hygiene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, pandemics aren't the #1 threat to mankind in any sense. From the perspective of death rate, heart disease is still tops, then cerebrovascular disease. You may be looking at it a different way, though.

Heart disease is prevalent in Western societies. In most non-Western cultures, diseases or poverty are the killers. This includes viruses, bacteria, and toxins. If you add them up, then I'm Your Man is correct. Overwhelmingly correct. However, most statistics compared say Malaria versus heart disease, not pandemics versus heart disease. So, Malaria kills fewer than heart disease, but all diseases of poverty combined kill more than heart disease or anything else.

If you add them up, heart disease still wins. 7.2 million deaths per year. I think the problem is that you're redefining the word "pandemic." Most diseases are not pandemics, including malaria. The only two official pandemics of the past 30 years are HIV/AIDS and H1N1. If you throw together all infectious diseases the category becomes meaningless. I might as well just list "vascular diseases" as the leading cause of death and group together heart disease, stroke, etc.

 

But this is nitpicking. Yes, pandemics and regional epidemics are a threat, mostly to the third world.

 

Oh, there's no doubt that general sanitation and hygiene had a massive effect before vaccines were even introduced. Most of the diseases saw a 80 to 90% decline in death rate just from sanitation. However, sanitation doesn't completely eliminate the disease or provide herd immunity. As you said, it just "impedes" the disease. Vaccines can eliminate them completely. This is how diseases have been eradicated in regions without proper sanitation. Smallpox has been eliminated completely, worldwide, including places with terrible hygiene and living conditions and high population density.

Smallpox was almost completely eradicated before vaccination. And many diseases will die out without vaccination. The only virus that won't die out is one with a 100% fatality rate. Otherwise, the people who get the disease and live develop an immunity and women pass that on to their children.

Here is a link about smallpox. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/smallpox_graphs_h.html

The smallpox vaccine killed a lot of people. It was shown to have a negative effect of immunity from the disease.

Yes, the smallpox vaccine from 100-150 years ago was largely ineffective. There were likely incidences of contamination, too. The problem was mostly with preparation and delivery, though. We have since vastly improved.

 

As I said, look at areas with poor hygiene and sanitation. Look at Africa. Or better, look at India. Poor living conditions, high population density, but once they had a modern vaccine administered effectively, the incidences dropped from tens of thousands to zero within 3 years. That wasn't caused by improvements in sanitation or hygiene.

 

SARS wasn't considered a pandemic?

 

Look at the statistics. Small Pox was in a huge decline when the vaccine arrived. Most of the population already had immunity from their mothers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Ducati.

 

It's interesting what blabbate wrote and am wondering who is WE????? I can already imagine who by WE he means.

 

"That last sentence has nothing to do with the discussion, so I'm going to ignore it. Yes, the unvaccinated person suffers the effects of the disease. The vaccinated person does not. That's the whole point. It's not tricking nature, either. It's using nature. We deliver a controlled, inactive dose of the pathogen to prompt the body's natural response."

 

All that crap that goes into vaccines. Vaccines are population control. Let them vaccinate their kids with all that crap in them. This has nothing to do with science; it's profit---no more no less and who dies or gets terribly ill doesn't play a role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I said virus is #1 menace to mankind I was talking about threats that can decimate the whole population of humans on the planet. In no way heart attacks are gonna make disappear all humans -- except if there would be a virus that cause heart attacks ! But anyway, all deaths are due to heart attacks

 

 

Well, I don't necessarily agree that what we're doing with GMOs would ever happen in nature, or at least not in any sort of meaningful timeframe. But again, with vaccination we're simply priming our systems with antibodies. The pathogens are going to encounter these antibodies anyway, and not on some extremely dilated timeframe.

Its not what I mean, what I mean is, like it is the case for mutant insects exposed to insecticides, a virus may evolve to a more virulent strain faster when exposed to vaccines. With vaccines, we stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies but at the sametime we constantly stimulate viruses to become stronger by adapting to those same vaccines. Adaptation is inextricably linked to the notion of time, and Science is continuously transgressing the natural order of things so it will result in unatural things, like mutants, new diseases and new viruses and premature extinction of the human specie. We give vaccines to babies that would normally have the antibodies later once their immune system developps (as if we say: ''Nature made another mistake, it gave a weak immune system to babies and young children, let's try to fix the mistakes Nature did by injecting dozens of vaccines'').

Vaccines are useless because if we take the example of the Swine Flue, its already spread worldwide and then it may come back to America in the form of a new strain for which the vaccine is already too old and therefore worthless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nurses and workers of the hospitals are now told to get swine flue vaccine otherwise they cannot work and are sent home without pay; still, about 25% of them will refuse to get vaccinated.

In the province of Quebec, 8 million people, only ONE (1) person died of the swine flue since the month of August ! And it was a 87 year-old woman who would have died anyway of something else like the regular flue. Its a big joke, one person in 4 months and they call this a big epidemy or even a pandemy. What's sad is the state decided to print some stuff, simply to give information about ways to protect ourselves from infections but in fact it is only to promote the vaccination; it is a 12 pages booklet sent in EACH HOUSE ! Imagine how much trees this kills, a total waste of paper, and it doesn't even say a word about eating more fruits to increase Vitamin C which is probably more efficient than to be vaccinated.

Even if a virus can kill, it is natural and it is an important part of the evolution of our specie: only the strongest survive and those with the weakest immune system die. Hitler didn't have to do stupid things like he did : Nature is already taking care of everything -- natural selection. With science and technology we try to avoid natural deaths but we should focus on stoping the deaths that we are responsible for causing, like nuclear bombs, guns and wars, cars...and AIDS ! The most deadly and widespread virus was created by man; science is responsible for the biggest massacre of modern times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, look at areas with poor hygiene and sanitation. Look at Africa. Or better, look at India. Poor living conditions, high population density, but once they had a modern vaccine administered effectively, the incidences dropped from tens of thousands to zero within 3 years. That wasn't caused by improvements in sanitation or hygiene.

 

SARS wasn't considered a pandemic?

 

Look at the statistics. Small Pox was in a huge decline when the vaccine arrived. Most of the population already had immunity from their mothers.

No, SARS was not considered a pandemic. It was a regional epidemic.

 

Here are the statistics for India: http://www.smallpoxhistory.ucl.ac.uk/. Modern vaccines and controls were introduced in 1973 with full vaccination by 1975.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...