FYI: In the US alone, the vaccine "court" has paid over $3.3 BILLION to victims of vaccines.

a reply to: rickymouse

A couple of people in a hundred can have serious reactions for multiple reasons.

2% have serious reactions? Define serious.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

A couple of people in a hundred can have serious reactions for multiple reasons.

2% have serious reactions? Define serious.

My cytokine storms would be considered serious reactions, they can kill a person. My one daughter and her kids have serious reactions to but my other daughter can take them and my wife can take them. I am trying to figure out why using genetics, but what is known now just shows we don't need them for type a and a few type b influenza's. No actual genetic relationship that defines the cytokine storm.

Just go to the manufacturers of the vaccines, they are the ones who state that up to two percent can have very bad reactions and should not be taking them.

a reply to: rickymouse

My cytokine storms would be considered serious reactions, they can kill a person.

Ok. That's serious.
You said 2% of people have serious reactions.

Just go to the manufacturers of the vaccines, they are the ones who state that up to two percent can have very bad reactions and should not be taking them.

It's your claim.

You can get two percent just with the egg allergy, come on now, I was being generous. The severe reaction to the flu vaccine is well known of, being around two percent of Americans was being generously understated.

Strange thing is I can't seem to find the manufacturers sites for the flu vaccine for some reason.

I must personally know twenty people who said they had violent reactions to flu shots, around here it is not rare.

I know quite a few people who don't get flu shots, and when others have the flu, they,like me, don't get it very bad at all. I might actually need it if they shut my immune system down like they did with the anti-epilepsy drugs, seems that the drugs include an immune system blocker so a person does not react to them. That blocker is actually what caused some of my side effects. During that time I had pneumonia and problems with my lymph system a lot, that was part of the reason I was taken off the meds.

The immune suppressant chemistry is put in more than a few classes of drugs.

a reply to: GetHyped

The graph that I posted references death rates, occurrences are obviously not as serious...

Healing from an illness can produce natural antibody resistance.

Regardless, although it is a kangaroo court, the VICP has paid $3.3 Billion to victims of vaccines. It is an acknowledgement that these people were harmed by vaccines.

This court was established by a government which is in collusion with the pharmaceutical industry in order to protect their profits. Why? Its anyone's guess.

If victims were permitted to sue in a civil court of law, the judgments would probably have been much greater.

Jury Awards $9 Billion in Damages in Drug Case.

a reply to: rickymouse

originally posted by: rickymouse

If you don't understand the possible risks from taking a flu shot, you should not be taking one.

I would argue that most people are unaware of any possible risks. Vaccines are promoted as harmless which is kind of being challenged in United States v. Merck & Co.

Its not as though every child, parent, guardian or adult who receives a vaccine is handed a pamphlet explaining the possible side effects (no one reads the insert even if they could understand it), and that theres a kangaroo court which may or may not entertain their concerns.

a reply to: InFriNiTee


It seems that a lot of disease is caused by the lack of certain gut bacteria's, Chron's Type 2 for two and probably a lot more. They are now wiping Caesarean section babies, with the vaginal flora, because they miss the seeding with non vaginal births, because the list of their problems increases the cleaner the birth is. A Dutch doctor is curing type 2 with faecal seeding from healthy individuals, and in New York another is getting cures for Chron's.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: rickymouse

originally posted by: rickymouse

If you don't understand the possible risks from taking a flu shot, you should not be taking one.

I would argue that most people are unaware of any possible risks. Vaccines are promoted as harmless which is kind of being challenged in United States v. Merck & Co.

Its not as though every child, parent, guardian or adult who receives a vaccine is handed a pamphlet explaining the possible side effects (no one reads the insert even if they could understand it), and that theres a kangaroo court which may or may not entertain their concerns.

Any time you stick a needle into your body, you take a risk of introducing bacteria or fungus living on or within the skin into the body. Any time you get a shot there is a risk, this risk is not considered part of the vaccine though. It is considered a normal risk of getting any shot. I see that it is possible that a lot of the side effects could have been not allocated to the shot. A doctor does not want to believe something he is doing is bad, so this may effect their judgement as to reporting or admitting that the shot they gave harmed someone. the vast majority of effects of vaccinations are just temporary and now they are admitting that there are side effects. Twenty years ago almost all doctors denied any side effects at all from the vaccines, because that is what they were told by the Pharma companies. Blame it on the patients psychosis.

There are some necessary vaccines for everyone, if the risk is high enough a vaccine is very useful. But in the case of flu vaccines, they can't protect everyone from every type of influenza, there are many kinds of flu and not all of these flues antibodies are included in vaccines. Last year the vaccine was very poor, they guessed the wrong way as to how the main selected virus was going to mutate so the vaccine was nearly worthless. The guess was the most logical guess, but since when does nature need to follow rules that science dictates.

a reply to: gladtobehere

I have seen that graph, it does talk about death rates which really declined after world war two. When we started to realize that the flu needed some special treatments, the death rate dropped right off. That graph is actually accurate, I investigated to make sure it was correct and there was some good evidence to show it was pertinent Also explanations as to what changes brought about this evidence was in one of the articles I read. I can't remember off hand what that was though.

I'm not about to go and search for that evidence again, I read it and I am convinced that it was correct and don't care if others don't believe it. If they want to go looking for it, they have the internet. They can believe whatever they want.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

but you havent really addressed my point on vaccine injury numbers. You went on a anti vaccine induced rage...

a reply to: gladtobehere

Oh yeah, being paralysed from polio isn't serious.

Riiiiiiiight.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: gladtobehere

Oh yeah, being paralysed from polio isn't serious.

Riiiiiiiight.

How about being paralyzed from a polio vaccine? I have seen many vaccine fans praise the Melinda gates Foundation for getting rid of polio.. but it seems they are in a bit of legal trouble now because of it.

Is being paralyzed from a banned polio vaccine NOT serious?

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: gladtobehere
This seldom discussed statistic (by seldom I mean never), comes directly from the Department of Health and Human Services website:
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Total compensation paid over the life of the program is approximately $3.3 billion.

We have discussed the vaccine compensation awards countless times on this forum.

Yes, $3 billions since 1988. Here are the statistics for 2006 to 2013: less than 1 injury per million doses.

I wonder what the REAL numbers would be since we can easily assume at least 95% of all the damage that has actually occurred has gone completely unpunished.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: gladtobehere

From your source:

How many petitions have been awarded compensation?

According to the CDC, from 2006 to 2014 over 2.5 billion doses of covered vaccines were distributed in the U.S. For petitions filed in this time period, 3,422 petitions were adjudicated by the Court, and of those 2,173 were compensated. This means for every 1 million doses of vaccine that were distributed, 1 individual was compensated.

That's pretty good if you ask me. Not a fan of big pharma by any means, it is certainly an entire sector of the medical/financial services field that needs to be overhauled.

But vaccine damages? Either very under reported, or just not that huge of a deal considering the amount of vaccines given vs the actual # of patients who have complications.

~Tenth

Considering our hospitals get more full by the week, and costs keep rising, I wonder what is causing all of these problems since we are all properly vaccined and know everything.

Nah, in no way could vaccines be ANY part of the problem, they are not causing all of the diseases that doctors cannot seem to identify 20 years later............................................................

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

So, you think that every claim is valid?

Do you trust a multi-trillion dollar industry to tell you how many claims are valid ?

a reply to: ParasuvO

The anti vax arguments have been soundly defeated countless times. Eventually you have to admit that some don't want to be helped. The number of lives that have been saved through vaccination is countless and our life expectancy has been so greatly increased by vaccination that it's practically impossible to argue against them. Unfortunately some people have to be left behind.

Why do anti-"anti-vax" people insist on forcing others to get vaccinations? Shouldn't they and their children be protected with their vaccines from any potential condition? If the vaccine does not minimise the risk substantially without relying on others to also get vaccinated, then what is the point in the vaccine in the first place?

Those who unquestioningly support vaccinations should think deeply about that question.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Those who unquestioningly support vaccinations should think deeply about that question.

Some have. It comes down, mostly to this:

There are some people who for various reasons, should not have vaccinations. Children and adults with certain allergies. In the case of some vaccines, pregnant women. So there are people who cannot be protected at all. Now, no vaccine is 100% effective,it is true. However, because they are quite (very) effective, it means the more people become vaccinated, the fewer sick people there are. The fewer sick people there are, the fewer there are to spread the disease to those who cannot be vaccinated and to those who don't not obtain 100% immunity from the vaccination. It's a matter of reducing the chances of becoming sick to as small a level as possible.

This can work to the extreme. For example, smallpox has, for all intents and purposed been eliminated from the planet. Not because the vaccine is 100% effective but because eventually there were too few people who became infected (because of the vaccinations) for the disease to spread. It went away because there were not enough hosts to keep it going.

originally posted by: Phage

Isn't that the supposed point of the vaccine, though? To ensure that one does not become a host of the condition?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Isn't that the supposed point of the vaccine, though? To ensure that one does not become a host of the condition?

Ideally, yes. But, I guess you missed it, everyone cannot be vaccinated and in the real world vaccines are not 100% effective. Some people will still get sick but the fewer that do, means the fewer that will, because there are fewer to spread the disease.

If you encounter 10 sick people the chances of you getting the disease are a lot more than if you encounter 1 sick person.