H.R.2232 - Vaccinate All Children Act of 2015

originally posted by: wasaka
a reply to: Boadicea

Michigan Baby Dies, Pathologists Confirm Vaccines Responsible
vactruth.com...

Everything was reviewed by three separate pathologists. All three confirmed the same findings. The pathologists stated vaccine-induced hypercytokinemia as the cause of my son’s asphyxiation.

What is worth noting is that the "normal" investigation by the police and coroner all conspired to delink Danny's death from the vaccines he had been given. Such deception to protect the medical profession from lawsuits has a long history, as Michelle Rosen's case with the Tylenol Murders illustrates. Innocent parents who have just lost their baby are told they killed their own baby and sent to prison for "Shaken Baby Syndrome" to protect the profits of the medical-industrial complex.

And now the government wants to make this dangerous and useless product mandatory under penalty of law!

Oh no. This is unconscionable. The health of our babies -- their very lives -- are subject to the Russian Roulette of Big Pharma's profits... and Uncle Sam's tyranny.

It's no wonder they must resort to force under color of law.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: Boadicea

The one glaring thing about all of this vaccine hyperbole is that no one sees that they don't even work.

I suspect -- I hope and I pray! -- that is changing. For too long we trusted the system and the process and believed what the lying liars spoonfed us... but as more and more children are harmed by these vaccinations, and as more and more parents research, and more and more people in general research, as more and more whistleblowers come forward, we're learning better... slowly but surely. We may not know the whole truth, but we know better than to blindly trust now.

In my opinion it is not the vaccine that is dangerous. There are quite a few diseases that have been almost literally eradicated from the earth by vaccines. It is the pure crap the companies put into them to give them a longer shelf life or supposedly to accelerate the effects. Back in my day , the drug companies DID NOT put additives in medications. They only produced what they would put into use within a given time. And in my opinion any heavy metals or other they put ion there ids dangerous.I was told one time the addition of the mercury was not enough to hurt. Seriously? Mercury ? I changed doctors quick

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: highfromphoenix

Vaccines are done in sequences they do not inject all of them in one shot.

they do many in one appointment and some are a combination, like DTap. It would be difficult to counteract any of those if you wanted to. A flue vaccine could be...if tens really works this way...I have a TENS machine to relieve knee pain and inflammation.

originally posted by: Gothmog
In my opinion it is not the vaccine that is dangerous. There are quite a few diseases that have been almost literally eradicated from the earth by vaccines. It is the pure crap the companies put into them to give them a longer shelf life or supposedly to accelerate the effects. Back in my day , the drug companies DID NOT put additives in medications. They only produced what they would put into use within a given time. And in my opinion any heavy metals or other they put ion there ids dangerous.I was told one time the addition of the mercury was not enough to hurt. Seriously? Mercury ? I changed doctors quick

Yes...right on point. Not only are there more vaccinations, but more given in one sitting and I have no idea what is in the current ones.

a reply to: KewlDaddyFatty

I never made that claim. Maybe it was misunderstood.

When my sister argued with the police officer THEY told HER that it was how it was done in the States. That 99 out of every 100 boys born in the states were mutilated that way and I use that word because personally I think it is genital mutilation. I am glad that you made the decision but from what she was led to believe it was okay that the doctor just went ahead and didn't ask.

I never thought it was that high. Last time I looked it was apparently under fifty per hundred that were circumcised but that was mostly due to beliefs but it is a wide spread thing in the states but I personally couldn't put a number on it. She was very upset and left the states afterwards (I thought it was a bit over the top to leave the whole country because I doubt every doctor is like that).

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Boadicea

They want to attach it to the schools. Simple solution, pull all kids from public schools. Of course, there are many, including some here, who thin public schools should be compulsory, too. But, hey, not related, right? No conspiracy here, just move along and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

I had the same thoughts. It seems so benign... but has such insidious implications and natural consequences. Homeschoolers are already under attack from many fronts. This will just create one more.

Indeed they are! How many cases do we see where the kids removed are from home schooling families? I know for a fact home schoolers are not all abusive, neglectful, etc. Most are not. But that's how the media would portray them.

The only true logic in forced vaccinations is that, eventually and inevitably, you want to include an ingredient people would vehemently refuse. Let the shills say their piece but this is the only fact there is.

Looks like it's come to a head for those who chose not to vaccinate in relation to where they can live without government stepping in. Sadly taking children away. States are passing similar laws as of recent as well.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: greencmp

Don't you love that, for other purposes, I can only picture the implants of microchips included in that area and mandatory from birth as part of you mandatory vaccinations.

Yikes... I was thinking 'cull the population' but... yeah. Yours is more likely.

This is sort of leading towards a dictatorship type of government. The slip slide effect of this is that it will lead to a loss of our rights to refuse what they deem is necessary for the good of society. Who cares if their actions target certain groups as a side effect. Within twenty years the population of this world will be half of what it is now, and not many people of North America will be a big part of that. That is my prediction, actions of treating diseases that people did not have in the past led to massive failures which they blamed on plagues. The survivors burned or killed the alchemists and witches promoting this stuff. This massive vaccination scam will not work out. You notice that the other governments of the world are not allowing all these vaccines, they are waiting and watching to see how much damage will occur in America.

*does a happy little victory dance*

Vaccinations for everyone

originally posted by: Gothmog
In my opinion it is not the vaccine that is dangerous. There are quite a few diseases that have been almost literally eradicated from the earth by vaccines. It is the pure crap the companies put into them to give them a longer shelf life or supposedly to accelerate the effects.

I think you're right about the additives being the dangerous part. That, and the fact that doctors are giving multiple vaccines simultaneously -- even to infants. Even if it doesn't kill, it might maim in ways that cannot be easily or quickly identified. And what may not harm most people, may very well harm others. It's just a crap shoot.

a reply to: Boadicea
But of course to remove the additives , our FDA would have to go from a gang for hire back to the old days when they actually did their jobs.They would have to "bite the hands that feed them"

originally posted by: rickymouse
This is sort of leading towards a dictatorship type of government. The slip slide effect of this is that it will lead to a loss of our rights to refuse what they deem is necessary for the good of society.

The proverbial slippery slope. Yes indeed.

Our right and ability to say "no" to anything and everything is our first and primary defense against most anything. If that is taken away, anything is possible.

originally posted by: Metallicus
This is a horrific bill. No matter what your position on vaccines, it should be a red flag whenever Government wants to remove the power of choice from the people of their constituency. Now we are going to be forcing needles into the arms of young children in order to make sure we are all 'safe'.

If vaccines are effective then as long as YOUR child has it you shouldn't need to worry what some other child or parents decide. I guess having a "choice" with your body only applies when you are killing a baby in the process.

This is absolutely barbaric and Orwellian.

Most diseases were already sharply on the way down before vaccines.

look:'-

childhealthsafety.wordpress.com...

originally posted by: Metallicus
This is a horrific bill. No matter what your position on vaccines, it should be a red flag whenever Government wants to remove the power of choice from the people of their constituency. Now we are going to be forcing needles into the arms of young children in order to make sure we are all 'safe'.

If vaccines are effective then as long as YOUR child has it you shouldn't need to worry what some other child or parents decide. I guess having a "choice" with your body only applies when you are killing a baby in the process.

This is absolutely barbaric and Orwellian.

Most diseases were already sharply on the way down before vaccines.

look:'-

childhealthsafety.wordpress.com...

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Boadicea
But of course to remove the additives , our FDA would have to go from a gang for hire back to the old days when they actually did their jobs.They would have to "bite the hands that feed them"

So true! In the end, I guess it's our congress critters that are the most dangerous to us all! Even if we could remove the additives, it's much harder to remove the threats from Capitol Hill.

originally posted by: championoftruth
Most diseases were already sharply on the way down before vaccines.

look:'-

childhealthsafety.wordpress.com...

Standard antivaxer mythology. You're showing us data on mortality, but telling us it's a graph of disease incidence. The two papers at your link don't even really support the antivaxer thesis. The McKinlays' paper attributes some of the decline in mortality due to polio, pertussis, and perhaps influenza to the introduction of vaccines. They found the decline in measles mortality to be negligible, but they did not take into account the deaths that occur due to immunosuppression up to three years after the initial infection--that effect, though known for some time, was only very recently explained. Nor could they have foreseen the effects of new vaccines and new recommendations after the 1970s, e.g. booster shots for MMR (or MMR-II), vaccines for Hib, Hep A, varicella, and HPV, etc. Even if the McKinlays' conclusions mean what you think they mean, you are still engaging a fast-moving field of science with data from the 1970s. Wegman's paper only looked at infant mortality, death in the first year of life. This hardly seems relevant to the topic of vaccination, as a great many vaccine-preventable diseases can be acquired after the first year. (And there are some vaccines that are not even administered in the first year, e.g. Hep A, MMR, varicella). So this paper doesn't really shed any light on this issue. It doesn't tell us anything interesting about vaccine-preventable mortality from Hep A, measles, mumps, rubella (other than congenital), varicella, or any vaccine-preventable death after the first birthday.

Still, you claimed that "diseases" were on the way down, not mortality. Implicit in the claim is the idea that disease incidence would have continued to drop, until it reached the status quo that exists today, leading one to the conclusion that vaccines are not useful. If that's true, it should be easy to prove: Find a population that does not vaccinate, and compare the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases in that population to the vaccinated population. No need to pull up data sets from a hundred years ago, or use mortality as a proxy for incidence, or confound the data with countless hidden variables. Find an unvaccinated population, one that does not take advantage of herd immunity, and see how it compares to the vaccinated population.