Meeting with Trump emboldens anti-vaccine activists

originally posted by: SusanJ

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: Annee

youre living in a dream world. The fact is, in any country with a healthy travel and tourism industry or with wide access to the rest of the wrolds population it is a certainty you and your child are coming in contact with unvaccinated or incomplete vaccinated people from other countries or even our own country all of the time.

No I'm not. I'm a realist.

I'm not taking my kid anywhere that doesn't have mandated vaccinations.

Annee,
You may have to put your child into a bubble because the playground, the park, the post office, the grocery store, et al public areas of the world are filled with germs and people who have not injected germs, pus or poisons into their body.

Well, right now I'm in an area - - no vaccinations, no school

That means daycare centers too.

originally posted by: SusanJ
Agartha,
I think that emergency medicine is the finest and most advanced this planet has seen (perhaps, for a LONG time). I ALSO believe that emergency medical care is vastly different from medical preventative or treatment care.
One is immediate and obviously can be life-saving.
The other is assumed to be the BEST method for addressing illness or physical disorders.

No they are not different, they are the same, they are science based medicine, both life saving, whether life is at risk due to an accident or a disease. They are based on the same principles, rules and even treatments.

It's hypocritical that people accept blood transfusions to save their life after an accident but demonize vaccines.... a countless number of pathogens can potentially be transmitted with blood transfusions (pathogens including viruses).

So no, both emergency and preventive are one and the same with just one goal in mind: saving people.

originally posted by: Annee

Well, right now I'm in an area - - no vaccinations, no school

That means daycare centers too.


Annee,

In SOME areas, schools and day care centers are currently the only places that demand vaccinations.

But.... do you go to the grocery or department stores? The post office? The Library, or any other place outside your home?

I understand people are shopping via the internet and do not leave their homes as often as years ago… but there are too many places where the unvaccinated and the vaccinated ones mingle together.

And at present it is impossible to demand vaccinations for every person who wants to leave their home; but I suppose there are those who would like to put all the NON-vaccinated people in LOCKED environments….

sigh

originally posted by: Agartha

No they are not different, they are the same, they are science based medicine, both life saving, whether life is at risk due to an accident or a disease. They are based on the same principles, rules and even treatments.

It's hypocritical that people accept blood transfusions to save their life after an accident but demonize vaccines.... a countless number of pathogens can potentially be transmitted with blood transfusions (pathogens including viruses).

So no, both emergency and preventive are one and the same with just one goal in mind: saving people.

Agartha
Emergency medical care is NOT the same as long-term medical care.
Emergency medical care is a temporary action.
Long-term medical care addresses (perhaps) years of treatment for illnesses. Note, there remains NO CURE with medications -- only long-term drug treatment and then death.
And I agree, pathogens can be transmitted via blood transfusions, so I will (of course) hope that I do not succumb to needing blood and having the unsavory fortune to encounter blood that is contaminated with some unknown and possibly dangerous microbe.
But vaccinations are NOT the same as a blood transfusion or having a broken arm set.
And I do not consider PUS injected into my veins to be a preventative type of medical care.
I also do NOT agree that PUS saves the lives of people.

originally posted by: SusanJ
Agartha
Emergency medical care is NOT the same as long-term medical care.
Emergency medical care is a temporary action.
Long-term medical care addresses (perhaps) years of treatment for illnesses. Note, there remains NO CURE with medications -- only long-term drug treatment and then death.
And I agree, pathogens can be transmitted via blood transfusions, so I will (of course) hope that I do not succumb to needing blood and having the unsavory fortune to encounter blood that is contaminated with some unknown and possibly dangerous microbe.
But vaccinations are NOT the same as a blood transfusion or having a broken arm set.

Both emergency and preventive medicine are science based medicine. Both based on the same evidence, the same science, the same principles, same rules. Emergency doctors and General practitioners do the same medical course. Emergency treatments and General treatments are both researched, analyzed and assessed following the same procedures.

You cannot discard one and embrace the other, that's hypocritical.

And I do not consider PUS injected into my veins to be a preventative type of medical care.
I also do NOT agree that PUS saves the lives of people.

Pus? Please post some evidence, thank you.

Agartha,

Apple pies and apple-scented room deodorizers are both based on the science of using apples; but the two end products are vastly different.

Further, I will use the apple pies and reject the apple-scented room-deodorizer as a toxic intrusion with less benefit.

Similarly, I will accept the immediate and temporary use of toxic and dangerous drug use in an Emergency room; but I will reject a long-term, debilitating treatment of toxic and dangerous drug use for cancer, et al.

Meanwhile, the major difference between Emergency Care versus supposed "preventative immunization therapy" and long-term illness Medical care is that Emergency rooms may provide “scientific-based, life-saving care” that is immediate and temporary.

Conversely, (and although you classify the chemical and drug treatments for long term illness Medical care as “scientific” and even life-saving) I have never seen any data that identifies any toxic chemical or prescription drug that can cure/heal cancer or other illness versus just treat the symptoms. I therefore, question the validity of any toxic drug treatment as truly life-saving, as opposed to the label life-treating until death.
However, I do accept that some people prefer the temporary relief from prescription drug use (with adverse effects) over painful conditions; and I believe each person has the right to choose their own medical treatment, whether that be with prescription drugs, (Chinese) herbs, diet, or stem-cell therapy.

Also I have heard claims of "disease-prevention immunizations"; but have never seen any data that identifies and verifies any PUS [ … fill in specific disease-microbe name…] immunization that will protect the body from that specific PUS microbe disease.

…. SmilingROB posted recent measles statistics in this folder-section, claiming a massive reduction from immunization use; and although I asked, he didn’t provide a link so that I may verify the information.

originally posted by: [post=21627616]Agartha

Pus? Please post some evidence, thank you.



Agartha,

I use the term PUS… (similar to the use of “disease” or “germs”), as a “catch-all” phrase to identify any microbes that are not friendly. As in the not-friendly bacteria, fungi, virus, prion, et al… microbes that harm humans.

It is my understanding that immunizations are ‘born of’/the product of, or otherwise related to the microbes of the diseases that they are intended to prevent, as in the recently-used LIVE polio vaccine….

Get here the best supplement to help you stay healthy through the holidays for your healthy body.

a reply to: SusanJ

Except that pus is dead white cells as waste from your immune system, not an outside infection.

Goes to show the level of medical illiteracy going here, really.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: SusanJ

Except that pus is dead white cells as waste from your immune system, not an outside infection.

Goes to show the level of medical illiteracy going here, really.

GetHyped,

The Merriam-Webster dictionary identifies PUS as:

“… thick. opague usually yellowish-white fluid matter formed by suppuration and composed of exudate containing white blood cells, tissue debris and microorganisms.”
www.merriam-webster.com...

I believe microorganisms are microbes, and I do not believe they are the friendly kind.

Is it still your opinion or belief that PUS does NOT contain microbes?

And is it your opinion and/or belief that immunizations are NOT related to the toxic microbes of the diseases that they are intended to prevent?

a reply to: SusanJ

it should be quite clear from my post that I am saying that pus isn't:

I use the term PUS… (similar to the use of “disease” or “germs”), as a “catch-all” phrase to identify any microbes that are not friendly. As in the not-friendly bacteria, fungi, virus, prion, et al… microbes that harm humans.

That's a definition you've made up.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: SusanJ

it should be quite clear from my post that I am saying that pus isn't:

I use the term PUS… (similar to the use of “disease” or “germs”), as a “catch-all” phrase to identify any microbes that are not friendly. As in the not-friendly bacteria, fungi, virus, prion, et al… microbes that harm humans.

That's a definition you've made up.

GetHyped

I did not make up the meaning of PUS that includes microbes.

And I provided a link to the dictionary meaning, so that anyone may view this FACT.

However, I have not found a medical dictionary meaning for PUS that identifies ALL the types of microbes.

Rather, the general consensus is that microbes are PRESENT IN PUS and are NOT friendly.

My post correctly identifies PUS as that which has microbes.

Do you deny the dictionary meaning of PUS that includes microbes?

Or do you think the microbes observed within PUS to be friendly?

originally posted by: SusanJ
The Merriam-Webster dictionary identifies PUS as:

“… thick. opague usually yellowish-white fluid matter formed by suppuration and composed of exudate containing white blood cells, tissue debris and microorganisms.”
www.merriam-webster.com...

^^ Exactly what Gethyped said.

I believe microorganisms are microbes, and I do not believe they are the friendly kind.

Is it still your opinion or belief that PUS does NOT contain microbes?

And is it your opinion and/or belief that immunizations are NOT related to the toxic microbes of the diseases that they are intended to prevent?

Vaccines are not pus, they do not contain white blood cells and tissue debris.

Vaccines do not contain 'whole live microbes'. The viruses in vaccines are either 'live attenuated' (which means unable to replicate in a human host), 'killed inactivated' (the virus is dead but still recognizable so as to create antibodies) and 'subunit conjugate' (only contain a fragment of a virus).

In short: vaccines do not contain white blood cells, do not contain tissue debris and do not contain whole live/active microbes. Vaccines therefore are not pus.

originally posted by: SusanJ

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: SusanJ

it should be quite clear from my post that I am saying that pus isn't:

I use the term PUS… (similar to the use of “disease” or “germs”), as a “catch-all” phrase to identify any microbes that are not friendly. As in the not-friendly bacteria, fungi, virus, prion, et al… microbes that harm humans.

That's a definition you've made up.

GetHyped

I did not make up the meaning of PUS that includes microbes.

And I provided a link to the dictionary meaning, so that anyone may view this FACT.

However, I have not found a medical dictionary meaning for PUS that identifies ALL the types of microbes.

Rather, the general consensus is that microbes are PRESENT IN PUS and are NOT friendly.

My post correctly identifies PUS as that which has microbes.

Do you deny the dictionary meaning of PUS that includes microbes?

Or do you think the microbes observed within PUS to be friendly?

The only "vaccines" I know of which contain or are derived from pus are nosodes.
Nosodes are homeopathic "vaccines" which made from matter from a sick animal or person. Substances such as respiratory discharges or diseased tissues are used.

Vaccines however, as Agartha said, do not contain nor are derived from pus, and that's using pus in any of the medical definitions I know of.
If you wish to call what you do pus then that's fine, go ahead but don't expect others to understand what you mean.
Having your own definition of a word doesn't work (think language and communication).
It's like you pointing at an elephant whilst shouting "Giraffe!".