Vaccines Debate
- Thread starter say what
- Start date
http://www.naturalnews.com/047651_vaccines_mercury_flu_shot.html
[h=1]Vaccine flu shots still contain 25 micrograms mercury - 100 times the concentration of 'mercury-loaded' fish[/h] Thursday, June 05, 2014 by: S. D. Wells
Tags: health news, Natural News, nutrition
Nobody asks the nurse for the box or the insert when they get a flu shot. At least, I've never known anyone who said they did or do. Why not? We flip over food and beverage products all the time, to check for contaminants or stuff that we're allergic to. Millions of Americans are getting injected every year with 100 times the mercury they're worried about in fish, because they read about the salmon or tuna in some newspaper clip or saw a quick spot on the news.
Now remember, since most of the mercury in the food will be processed by your body with the food, you may only retain 10 percent of the toxic heavy metal. But when the nurse, who doesn't offer you to look at the box or read the insert, jabs that needle into your upper arm and rubs it with a little cotton swab, while that nurse tries to help you avoid the flu, you're actually getting something much MORE dangerous to your health (mainstream, "lame-stream" media cannot and will not talk about this).
[h=1]Intramuscular injections contain 100 times the concentration of mercury you find in certain fish[/h]If you're a flu shot "frequenter" -- meaning that you get one nearly every fall or winter, you are actually doing the opposite of what the flu "industry" (CDC) tells you on the insert and the box inside which the influenza vaccine comes. Yes, read it and you will know. Ask the nurse and have him/her leave the room while you review it. The flu shot warning tells you NOT to get the shot again if you've already had it. It doesn't say how recently, or even whether that was when you were a child. It just flat out tells you not to get another one. So where does that put us with the whole vaccine schedule when you get 25 to 30 vaccines, including some flu shots, before the age of six? How much mercury are you getting and did you get, cumulatively, over the years? Is this why they warn you on the box and insert? (http://www.vaxchoicevt.com)
Have you gotten a FluLaval shot EVER before? Will you ever again? Natural health news enthusiasts are concerned for you. The ultimate health pioneer is looking out for you and is researching exactly which neurotoxins the "Medical-Industrial Complex" of the USA is pushing through those needles into the muscle tissue of kids, babies and pregnant women. Health Ranger Mike Adams uncovers this awful truth in the forensic food lab, where he tests everything from flu shots to Chicken McNuggets and Wheaties metal flakes! This is top-notch research being shared for the millions who follow Natural News and spread the word. Thanks, Mike, for all you do, digging into research that protects us from the hidden nightmares that Big Pharma besieges upon us.
[h=1]You thought mercury-loaded fish were bad for you, try a flu shot![/h]Do you take the wrong kind of fish oil supplements? Threats from mercury are greater at lower levels than thought in the past. People go out to eat at restaurants and don't even think twice about where the fish comes from. They eat tuna out of cans and can't figure out their health problems, or the root causes. Then, they go and do something really dumb -- they get a flu shot. How can something so popular be such a "common-senseless" thing to do? Maybe because the people getting them are still mentally challenged from the last one they got?
How would you like to "consume" 25,000 times as much mercury (level) as is the maximum allowed by the EPA for water? By injecting mercury into your blood directly, it also bypasses digestion, lung filtration and other natural defenses that your body would rather use to combat this heavy metal toxic nightmare. We are talking about 51 parts per million of inorganic mercury, but it's supposed to help you fight off the flu, which your body should already be able to do just fine, if you weren't eating GMOs daily and getting vaccines yearly!
Check out the free special report on The Hidden History of Medicine (disturbing facts) here:
NaturalNews.com.
Check out Vaccines.NaturalNews.com and HeavyMetals.NaturalNews.com for more information and breaking news.
Sources:
http://www.naturalnews.com
http://labs.naturalnews.com
http://www.pressherald.com
http://science.naturalnews.com
http://science.naturalnews.com
[h=1]Vaccine flu shots still contain 25 micrograms mercury - 100 times the concentration of 'mercury-loaded' fish[/h] Thursday, June 05, 2014 by: S. D. Wells
Tags: health news, Natural News, nutrition
Nobody asks the nurse for the box or the insert when they get a flu shot. At least, I've never known anyone who said they did or do. Why not? We flip over food and beverage products all the time, to check for contaminants or stuff that we're allergic to. Millions of Americans are getting injected every year with 100 times the mercury they're worried about in fish, because they read about the salmon or tuna in some newspaper clip or saw a quick spot on the news.
Now remember, since most of the mercury in the food will be processed by your body with the food, you may only retain 10 percent of the toxic heavy metal. But when the nurse, who doesn't offer you to look at the box or read the insert, jabs that needle into your upper arm and rubs it with a little cotton swab, while that nurse tries to help you avoid the flu, you're actually getting something much MORE dangerous to your health (mainstream, "lame-stream" media cannot and will not talk about this).
[h=1]Intramuscular injections contain 100 times the concentration of mercury you find in certain fish[/h]If you're a flu shot "frequenter" -- meaning that you get one nearly every fall or winter, you are actually doing the opposite of what the flu "industry" (CDC) tells you on the insert and the box inside which the influenza vaccine comes. Yes, read it and you will know. Ask the nurse and have him/her leave the room while you review it. The flu shot warning tells you NOT to get the shot again if you've already had it. It doesn't say how recently, or even whether that was when you were a child. It just flat out tells you not to get another one. So where does that put us with the whole vaccine schedule when you get 25 to 30 vaccines, including some flu shots, before the age of six? How much mercury are you getting and did you get, cumulatively, over the years? Is this why they warn you on the box and insert? (http://www.vaxchoicevt.com)
Have you gotten a FluLaval shot EVER before? Will you ever again? Natural health news enthusiasts are concerned for you. The ultimate health pioneer is looking out for you and is researching exactly which neurotoxins the "Medical-Industrial Complex" of the USA is pushing through those needles into the muscle tissue of kids, babies and pregnant women. Health Ranger Mike Adams uncovers this awful truth in the forensic food lab, where he tests everything from flu shots to Chicken McNuggets and Wheaties metal flakes! This is top-notch research being shared for the millions who follow Natural News and spread the word. Thanks, Mike, for all you do, digging into research that protects us from the hidden nightmares that Big Pharma besieges upon us.
[h=1]You thought mercury-loaded fish were bad for you, try a flu shot![/h]Do you take the wrong kind of fish oil supplements? Threats from mercury are greater at lower levels than thought in the past. People go out to eat at restaurants and don't even think twice about where the fish comes from. They eat tuna out of cans and can't figure out their health problems, or the root causes. Then, they go and do something really dumb -- they get a flu shot. How can something so popular be such a "common-senseless" thing to do? Maybe because the people getting them are still mentally challenged from the last one they got?
How would you like to "consume" 25,000 times as much mercury (level) as is the maximum allowed by the EPA for water? By injecting mercury into your blood directly, it also bypasses digestion, lung filtration and other natural defenses that your body would rather use to combat this heavy metal toxic nightmare. We are talking about 51 parts per million of inorganic mercury, but it's supposed to help you fight off the flu, which your body should already be able to do just fine, if you weren't eating GMOs daily and getting vaccines yearly!
Check out the free special report on The Hidden History of Medicine (disturbing facts) here:
NaturalNews.com.
Check out Vaccines.NaturalNews.com and HeavyMetals.NaturalNews.com for more information and breaking news.
Sources:
http://www.naturalnews.com
http://labs.naturalnews.com
http://www.pressherald.com
http://science.naturalnews.com
http://science.naturalnews.com
http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/Headli...tein-worthless-vaccines/2014/01/16/id/547531/
Flu vaccines not effective and are not safe for pregnant women says doctor
[h=1]Top Doctor: The Flu Vaccine is Worthless[/h]
Thursday, 16 Jan 2014 04:33 PM
By Sylvia Booth Hubbard
Regardless of all the advertising touting the effectiveness of the flu vaccine, it's worthless, says board-certified family practitioner Dr. David Brownstein. When you cut through the hype and take a good, close look at the facts, you'll discover that the vaccine just plain doesn't work, he tells Newsmax Health. What's more, he says, it can be dangerous.
Dr. Brownstein recently saw an interview with a well-known physician who was extolling the virtues of the flu vaccine. "I was shocked at what the doctor said," he says. "She said that the high-dose flu vaccine for seniors aged 65 and older called Fluzone, which is four times as strong as the standard flu dose, was more effective in seniors and was 24 percent more effective at preventing flu than the standard flu shot."
That's just not true, says Dr. Brownstein, editor of the newsletter Dr. David Brownstein's Natural Way to Health. "There are no good studies showing that the flu vaccine is effective for seniors."
The trial referenced in the interview included 32,000 adults aged 65 years or older. Subjects received either the regular flu vaccine or the high-dose version. The rate of flu cases confirmed by laboratory analysis was 1.43 percent among those receiving the high-dose vaccine, and 1.89 percent for those who took the regular vaccine.
"When I saw those numbers, my first thought was, 'You gotta be kidding me,'" he says. "The 24 percent improvement with the high-dose vaccine was accurate — 1.43/1.89 equals a 24 percent improvement." But the more accurate way to interpret the results is the absolute risk deduction, which means it's .46 percent more effective.
ALERT: Flu Epidemic Hits US - What You Need to Know About Flu Shots
"Going one step further," says Dr. Brownstein, "it takes 217 elderly people to receive the high-dose flu vaccine to prevent one case of flu.
"That means that 216 out of 217 people received the vaccine for naught — it did not help prevent the flu. They paid double the price and were exposed to possible adverse effects."
Dr. Brownstein is also outraged that healthcare workers are being forced to take the vaccine or be fired. "There hasn't been a single good study documenting the effectiveness of the flu vaccine for healthcare workers," he said.
Recently, an expectant mom was fired because of her refusal to get the flu vaccine out of fear for her unborn child. "There are zero studies showing that the flu vaccine is safe for pregnant women," says Dr. Brownstein.
"I think it is ludicrous to vaccinate a pregnant mother for the flu when the vaccine is not only ineffective, it contains mercury and other toxins," he continues. "And the pregnant mother who refused the shot? I give her credit. Why would she take an ineffective vaccine that has not been properly studied in pregnancy? Furthermore, who in their right mind would advocate injecting a mercury-toxic vaccine into any living being, much less a pregnant woman?
Dr. Brownstein isn't alone in his belief that the vaccine doesn't work. Johns Hopkins scientist Peter Doshi, Ph.D., says that although the vaccines are being pushed on the public in record numbers, they are less effective and cause more side effects than admitted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock also agrees the vaccine is worthless and doesn't help seniors. "There are three reasons the government tells the elderly why they should get flu shots: secondary pneumonia, hospitalization, and death." he says. "Yet a study by the Cochrane group studied hundreds of thousands of people and found it offered zero protection for those three things in the general community."
The flu vaccine can also cause side effects including severe allergic reactions, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), and has been liked with narcolepsy in children and an increased risk of Alzheimer's in seniors.
If you suspect you are coming down with the flu, follow Dr. Brownstein's advice: "Keep hydrated, rest, and take increased amounts of vitamins A,C, and D until feeling better."
ALERT: Flu Epidemic Hits US - What You Need to Know About Flu Shots
Flu vaccines not effective and are not safe for pregnant women says doctor
[h=1]Top Doctor: The Flu Vaccine is Worthless[/h]
Thursday, 16 Jan 2014 04:33 PM
By Sylvia Booth Hubbard
Regardless of all the advertising touting the effectiveness of the flu vaccine, it's worthless, says board-certified family practitioner Dr. David Brownstein. When you cut through the hype and take a good, close look at the facts, you'll discover that the vaccine just plain doesn't work, he tells Newsmax Health. What's more, he says, it can be dangerous.
Dr. Brownstein recently saw an interview with a well-known physician who was extolling the virtues of the flu vaccine. "I was shocked at what the doctor said," he says. "She said that the high-dose flu vaccine for seniors aged 65 and older called Fluzone, which is four times as strong as the standard flu dose, was more effective in seniors and was 24 percent more effective at preventing flu than the standard flu shot."
That's just not true, says Dr. Brownstein, editor of the newsletter Dr. David Brownstein's Natural Way to Health. "There are no good studies showing that the flu vaccine is effective for seniors."
The trial referenced in the interview included 32,000 adults aged 65 years or older. Subjects received either the regular flu vaccine or the high-dose version. The rate of flu cases confirmed by laboratory analysis was 1.43 percent among those receiving the high-dose vaccine, and 1.89 percent for those who took the regular vaccine.
"When I saw those numbers, my first thought was, 'You gotta be kidding me,'" he says. "The 24 percent improvement with the high-dose vaccine was accurate — 1.43/1.89 equals a 24 percent improvement." But the more accurate way to interpret the results is the absolute risk deduction, which means it's .46 percent more effective.
ALERT: Flu Epidemic Hits US - What You Need to Know About Flu Shots
"Going one step further," says Dr. Brownstein, "it takes 217 elderly people to receive the high-dose flu vaccine to prevent one case of flu.
"That means that 216 out of 217 people received the vaccine for naught — it did not help prevent the flu. They paid double the price and were exposed to possible adverse effects."
Dr. Brownstein is also outraged that healthcare workers are being forced to take the vaccine or be fired. "There hasn't been a single good study documenting the effectiveness of the flu vaccine for healthcare workers," he said.
Recently, an expectant mom was fired because of her refusal to get the flu vaccine out of fear for her unborn child. "There are zero studies showing that the flu vaccine is safe for pregnant women," says Dr. Brownstein.
"I think it is ludicrous to vaccinate a pregnant mother for the flu when the vaccine is not only ineffective, it contains mercury and other toxins," he continues. "And the pregnant mother who refused the shot? I give her credit. Why would she take an ineffective vaccine that has not been properly studied in pregnancy? Furthermore, who in their right mind would advocate injecting a mercury-toxic vaccine into any living being, much less a pregnant woman?
Dr. Brownstein isn't alone in his belief that the vaccine doesn't work. Johns Hopkins scientist Peter Doshi, Ph.D., says that although the vaccines are being pushed on the public in record numbers, they are less effective and cause more side effects than admitted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock also agrees the vaccine is worthless and doesn't help seniors. "There are three reasons the government tells the elderly why they should get flu shots: secondary pneumonia, hospitalization, and death." he says. "Yet a study by the Cochrane group studied hundreds of thousands of people and found it offered zero protection for those three things in the general community."
The flu vaccine can also cause side effects including severe allergic reactions, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), and has been liked with narcolepsy in children and an increased risk of Alzheimer's in seniors.
If you suspect you are coming down with the flu, follow Dr. Brownstein's advice: "Keep hydrated, rest, and take increased amounts of vitamins A,C, and D until feeling better."
ALERT: Flu Epidemic Hits US - What You Need to Know About Flu Shots
If you are worried about vaccines being a cause for autism because of supposed mercury toxicity as muir suggests, it is very easy to show that is not true. If you look at the frequency of autism cases over the past 20 years, you see a steady increase in the frequency. However, the substance that muir claims causes the autism, namely thermisol, was removed from all vaccines given to children in 2001 except the influenza vaccine, and the influenza vaccine has several options that also do not contain thermisol.
http://www.autismspeaks.org/about-u...e-report-autism-speaks-asks-what-will-it-take has a graph that shows rates increasing.
If thermisol containing mercury really was the cause, then autism rates would have dropped significantly after 2001. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Muir, this article is withholding information from the CDC article in an attempt to spread fear. If you further read the actual CDC report, you will see the following quote:
"Influenza A virus was isolated from seven of 11 nasal swab specimens selected for viral culture. These seven specimens had HA1 protein sequences that were identical to each other and differed from the 2013—14 influenza A (H3N2) A/Texas/50/2012 vaccine strain by 5 amino acid substitutions (N128A, R142G, N145S, P198S, and V347K)."
As you can see, the virus on the ship was different than the one that the vaccine was designed to prevent. A minor difference sure, but that doesn't mean it was any less significant. That's probably why the virus was so effective at attacking the crew. They had no defence.
However I was very interested to learn this paragraph:
"CDC's mid-season VE estimates were published on February 20, 2014, in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report entitled: "Interim Estimates of 2013-14 Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness–United States." At the end of the season, CDC will provide a comprehensive estimate of VE that takes into account all of the data collected during the season. CDC's mid-season VE estimate was 61% for all age groups (95% confidence interval: 52% to 68%) against having to go to the doctor because of flu illness. This VE estimate means that getting a flu vaccine this season reduced the vaccinated population's risk of having to go to the doctor because of the flu by 60% for both children and adults.
Effectiveness against the flu A "2009 H1N1" virus, which was the predominating flu virus during the 2013-14 flu season, was 62% (95% CI: 53% to 69%) for children and adults. During the study period (Dec 2, 2013 — January 23, 2014), the 2009 H1N1 virus accounted for 98% of flu viruses detected. (Note: There were not enough influenza B or influenza A (H3N2) viruses detected during the study period to make a mid-season estimate of vaccine effectiveness against either of those viruses.)"
You are right that the influenza vaccine is not 100% effective. But do not relate this to other viruses. Influenza is weird. It has many types and subtypes and further combinations that can result in the virus getting away from being identified by the immune system to need that specific antigen response. Influenza is a major challenge to vaccinate against. However you cannot deny that 61% effectiveness is considerably better than 0% effectiveness.
Yeah virus mutate...funny that
If you trust the CDC figures and the recent whistleblower has already told us that they fiddle the figures to skew their studies in favour of the products of big pharma then this is how they come up with their vaccine effectiveness percentage....and its perhaps not what you would think when you hear a percentage like that announced:
[video=youtube;O5P8WQwrGiU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5P8WQwrGiU[/video]
No what i've said is that the vaccines are full of toxic substances including thimerosol but also aluminium and that these are related to adverse health effects
We've been over this so why don't you review all the information i've posted and refresh your memory
Your sarcasm is illogical. Viral mutations for influenza happen literally every year. It just so happens that the one that hit the ship was one that the vaccine did not treat.
You do know that this makes no sense. A 61% viral success rate with a 95% reliability is not good. If they wanted to fake their success rates, they would go higher than that to say that they are effective. When you start dipping below 20% I question the point of the vaccine. I would want 80% or higher like the meningitis vaccine (https://shcs.ucdavis.edu/topics/meningitis.html) at 85%. 60% is ok, but certainly not good.
you say thermosol is toxic, but there are far more studies showing otherwise, and several that you suggested as proof where by people who where known for fudging their results to get what they wanted. If you remember, then aluminum is not at a high enough concentration to cause problems, and the articles that you posted where by severely biased sources. Some I remember didn't even know the difference between mercury and organomercurials. You don't have to be a chem major to understand that difference.....
you know what, i'm not going through these motions with you again muir. You ignored my information before, why should I think you would do any different now? The only reason I posted was so that someone didn't only read your biased information and take it to heart.
try using logic then and what i say will make more sense
if viruses mutate then you can never vaccinate against them
The best thing you can equip people with is a healthy immune system, but for the system to do that for the population it would have to stop supporting big corporations like monsanto who want you eating their cancer causing GMO foods and big pharma companies who want you chronically ill so that they can treat you for various ailments long term or fast food companies that want to seel you junk food and drink and instead they would have to support organic food growers and this would then in turn also impact big agra companies that like chruning out all the toxic pestacides and herbicides they like to spray on your food
they'd also have to piss off the aluminium corporations who get to dump their toxic byproduct flouride into the water supply
So you see for the government to help the publics immune system it would have to choose us over the corporations and at the moment the big lobbyists that sway the politicians are the corporations
It makes perfect sense...what he is saying is that when the CDC say they have a '61%' success rate it sounds great as if it gives you a 61% better chance than someone who is not immunised but that is NOT what it means as the clip shows
It does not mean you are 61% better immunised by having a jab
Also they are now known to tweak figures to suit themselves for example look at the total figures in those samples....there are more people sampled that were immunised than were not immunised; they could have cut out the non immunised people who were not affected in the way that benefitted the outcome they wanted for their study (because they are in bed with big pharma)
You said that before and i provided more evidence to show mercury IS toxic
I'm utterly stunned that you would continue to side with the big corporations and not with humanity when you are provided with the information to show that they are criminal and are lying and that they are damaging peoples health for profit
http://www.prisonplanet.com/toxic-controversy-why-is-mercury-still-used-in-vaccines.html
Toxic Controversy: Why is Mercury Still Used in Vaccines?
Natural Society
June 8, 2014
One of the biggest controversies raging among anti-vaccine supporters and those who still believe in being vaccinated is over the use of thimerosal. The discussion is often heated, and emotional. Some have even claimed that the CDC is hiding information linking thimerosal use to conditions like autism, while others try to debunk the claim. The mercury-based preservative is indeed still in many vaccines, but is it safe?
Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Novartis all still manufacture vaccines, which contain mercury, or thimerosal. It is even used in an influenza vaccine given to children as young as 6 years of age. Mercury is a known neurotoxin. The FDA calls thimerosal a ‘mercury-containing organic compound . . . that has been widely used since the 1930s . . . as a preservative in many drugs, including vaccines.”
They go on to say that due to concerns over neurotoxicity, thimerosal has been removed ‘or reduced to trace amounts’ in all vaccines routinely used on children 6 and younger, with the exception of the Influenza A vaccine (see Table 1). The FDA also admits that vaccines which still contain thimerosal ‘contain only 1 microgram or less of mercury per dose’.
Mercury is a heavy metal poison. You can get mercury poisoning from many things besides vaccines – eating sushi, having mercury amalgams in your teeth, or living near a coal mine or other industrial site that pollutes the environment with mercury. You can also get mercury poisoning from vaccines.
What’s more, mercury is lipophilic, which means it concentrates where there is fatty tissue. The brain is full of fatty tissue. Most brains are a whopping three pounds of fatty tissue. This means that while mercury from any source, including vaccines, may be small, it accumulates in the body - especially in the brain. Dr. Mark Hyman presented a paper at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine in New Orleans, titled, “The Impact of Mercury on Human Health and the Environment.”
What he found is consistent with the fact that mercury accumulates in fatty tissues, especially the brain. Mercury in very small doses caused central nervous system toxicity:
Related posts:
Toxic Controversy: Why is Mercury Still Used in Vaccines?
Natural Society
June 8, 2014
One of the biggest controversies raging among anti-vaccine supporters and those who still believe in being vaccinated is over the use of thimerosal. The discussion is often heated, and emotional. Some have even claimed that the CDC is hiding information linking thimerosal use to conditions like autism, while others try to debunk the claim. The mercury-based preservative is indeed still in many vaccines, but is it safe?
Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Novartis all still manufacture vaccines, which contain mercury, or thimerosal. It is even used in an influenza vaccine given to children as young as 6 years of age. Mercury is a known neurotoxin. The FDA calls thimerosal a ‘mercury-containing organic compound . . . that has been widely used since the 1930s . . . as a preservative in many drugs, including vaccines.”
They go on to say that due to concerns over neurotoxicity, thimerosal has been removed ‘or reduced to trace amounts’ in all vaccines routinely used on children 6 and younger, with the exception of the Influenza A vaccine (see Table 1). The FDA also admits that vaccines which still contain thimerosal ‘contain only 1 microgram or less of mercury per dose’.
Mercury is a heavy metal poison. You can get mercury poisoning from many things besides vaccines – eating sushi, having mercury amalgams in your teeth, or living near a coal mine or other industrial site that pollutes the environment with mercury. You can also get mercury poisoning from vaccines.
What’s more, mercury is lipophilic, which means it concentrates where there is fatty tissue. The brain is full of fatty tissue. Most brains are a whopping three pounds of fatty tissue. This means that while mercury from any source, including vaccines, may be small, it accumulates in the body - especially in the brain. Dr. Mark Hyman presented a paper at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine in New Orleans, titled, “The Impact of Mercury on Human Health and the Environment.”
What he found is consistent with the fact that mercury accumulates in fatty tissues, especially the brain. Mercury in very small doses caused central nervous system toxicity:
“. . . .incuding symptoms of erethism with symptoms of shyness, emotional labili-ty, nervousness, insomnia, memory impairment, and inability to concentrate. Other CNS symptoms may include encephalopathy, peripheral neuropathy, Parkinsonian symptoms, tremor, ataxia, impaired hearing, tunnel vision, dysarthria, headache, fatigue, impaired sexual function, and depression. Renal toxicity includes proteinuria, renal syndrome, and acute renal failure. Gastrointestinal symptoms include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and colitis. Dermal toxicity includes allergic dermatitis, chelitis, gingivitis, stomatitis, and excessive salivation.”
If vaccine supporters really want us to believe vaccines are safe – why do they still contain a substance that can cause a laundry list of health problems?
Related posts:
- Vaccine industry in panic over global effort to remove all mercury from vaccines
- FDA admits mercury in cosmetic products is extremely toxic – so how is it safe in dental fillings, vaccines?
- FDA admits in court case that vaccines still contain mercury
- What’s really in vaccines? Proof of MSG, formaldehyde, aluminum and mercury
- Missouri Provides Option Of Mercury-Free Vaccines
This is literally not true. It's not like the virus mutates after a few days. And notice that I was talking specifically about influenza. You need a new influenza vaccine because different strains can become prominent in one year or another, and because new strains can develop and often do. However this happens only about every year (with some variable mutation between the major cycles). You very much can keep up with the mutations, and that is exactly what they have been doing. It is also the case that some mutations are not sufficient to evade some specific vaccine. This is highly variable on aggressiveness, infectibility, variable strains, capability of mutation, effectiveness of the vaccine, what strains the vaccine will actually treat, what a person is actually exposed to...far more complicated than you seem to imply.
Now consider other viruses. Some times really don't mutate, at least sufficiently so to avoid recognition for the need to respond with some specific antigen. This would be things like measles or meningitis. Things you only need once because the virus or bacteria is not so adaptive. However there are other strains for each of these. Diseases can have a typical mutations. For example, my dog had bone cancer but the doctors thought she had at least 10 months. In the beginning they noted an atypical mutation in some chromosomal type if I remember correctly. Because of that mutation that they hadn't encountered before, the cancer spread far more aggressively than they expected. She was actually gone within the month. Viruses act differently than cancer, but this is nonetheless an excellent example of how mutations can significantly alter an attribute of a condition/disease. The reverse is that a significant mutation might not alter the ability to vaccinate against it. It all depends on what the mutation does and where it is at in the disease.
That is a major factor, but not the best thing you can do. in fact you need the healthy immune system in addition to the vaccine. The vaccine teaches the immune system to build an antigen and what to recognize as that disease type. That way when you encounter the actual disease, you already have an antigen to attack the disease with. Otherwise your immune system will have to go through the same process of recognizing the disease and building an effective antigen, while also fighting the aggressive disease. In that process, you can die because creating a proper antigen takes time.
Wow, I'm not going to debate your conspiracy theories right now. There are way to many flaws to go over and I know you won't listen anyways. Besides, I am busy writing my term paper on free will and determinism. However I will note that the immune system is not some magical thing to protect from diseases. It has its specific way it acts and specific things that interact to improve or lessen its effectiveness. Some of the things you mentioned potentially don't effect the immune system. That demonstrates that you are using this as an opportunity to portray your conspiracy theory when it is hardly relevant. You don't have to talk about it in terms of a conspiracy. Just talk about all that in terms of environmental factors that have a detrimental effect on the immune system. That's far more effective of a discussion than just saying the conspiracy is dumping junk into our body so bad grrr ick.
Wow, if the bolded part is what you thought to start with then you don't understand how statistics work, lol. It would not necessarily translate like that. I suppose it could, and that is where the misconception comes into play, but that isn't necessarily the case. If you want a more extreme example of misleading scientific statistic points, then look at the concept of heritability.
And when you say known to tweak figures, that is a conspiracy theory. Not reliable because you already assume that they are lying. Your confirmation bias is showing.
as for the part about the study, you misunderstand what this data meant. There are statistical methods that easily eliminate that bias. Just because you fail to understand statistics does not mean that they are doing it wrong.
The morality of some group in no way speaks to the actions they take. That is a logical fallacy. That is literally assuming that someone did something based on your schema of what they are. Otherwise known as stereotyping or prejudice. The only relevant part is the part that you said they are damaging peoples health. From their you can see if they are doing it for profit, and from that you can say that they are criminal or lying. It is logically wrong to go in the reverse here which is exactly what you are doing. You assuming they are criminal, so then you say they are damaging peoples health and you rationalize the action to say they are doing it for profit. Then you try to convince yourself your right by looking ONLY at the reports that say it is damaging, and you don't even consider the possibility that you are wrong because you know that if you are wrong you would have to reassess your own standing on your own conspiracy theory. This is called confirmation bias. That is why you are using faulty studies and false logic to supposedly "prove" that it is harmful. You then justify the fact that they are faulty studies by saying that the conspiracy is manipulating all the other results so only the faulty ones can be correct. That's why you think you can just dismiss what I'm saying, but that's literally false.
Seriously muir, a conspiracy of all the researchers and doctors in most of the scientific community to hide this truth of death, even though there has NOT been any such pattern of death for the basically full generation that your conspiracy has been supposedly acting. You obviously don't know researchers and scientists and doctors. Most of them are moral, and if they so chose, you would have a lot of information getting out. It actually makes more sense that the few supposed leaks are from crack pots, not a conspiracy. You couldn't keep such a lid even if you tried. To many moving pieces. That's partially why I don't agree with your supposed conspiracy. Now I'm willing to debate with you on the facts of the matter, for example the effects of vaccines, but when you start saying that the proof that they are poisoning us is that the conspiracy has done nasty things in the past therefore they are doing something nasty now, that is beyond illogical. That's beyond confirmation bias to tunnel vision. Its literally wrong, you can't make such a proof like that!
For example, do you remember your "idea" about cancer really being caused by a fungus and that its treatable with sodium bicarbonate? I mean seriously, its completely ridiculous! And only one doctor thought that. But because it fit in with your conspiracy, you defended and argued it whole heartedly, skewing information and facts to suit your needs without even vaguely considering the alternative. It was literally wrong, lol. And so is your idea that the supposed criminality of the government in some way proves that vaccines are poisoning us. In my most generous attitude (and without looking at medical facts and actual biology) the most I could say about your proof is that it says that it could be, not that it is. Then when you look at the medical facts and biology, you realize that it certainly couldn't be.
They are profiting from their criminal behaviour but there is also a wider agenda of population control
And yes there is a conspiracy between the CDC, FDA and big pharma
[video=youtube;5FHnMwfVzGI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FHnMwfVzGI[/video]
Last edited:
what do you think about the fact that autism is more prevalent in boys than girls and even more so with african american children?
I'm afraid that is just an unfortunate fact of genetics. It's similar to sickle cell anemia, the way it's more prevalent in certain genetic groups. there are many diseases that are hereditary in nature, and specifically is far more prevalent in makes. Color blindness for example.
Autism Is really just a genetic predisposition to neurological disorder that is usually triggered by environmental factors early in the child's life. Some say that vaccines area possible trigger, and technically that is true. However other environmental triggers are far more likely to activate the predisposition than vaccines namely stress. Thereason why people think vaccines cause autism is because the MMR (measles mumps rubella) vaccine is given at the same time signs of autism begin to show in children. People then missatribute the cause to the vaccine. In Reality, the child already had a genetic predisposition and a stress (or other) trigger started much earlier on before symptoms began to show. As it progressed, symptoms began to show, and that happens at the same time children get that vaccine.