Nationwide Revolt Against Dangerous Vaccines Accelerates

reply to post by interestedalways


I'm mostly with Bitraiser on this one. Cow milk is for baby cows.

However, I know at least one very wise man who believes cow milk can be used as a medicine under certain circumstances. Although the milk he's referring to is organic, fresh milk from 'free range' cows, not the antibiotic and hormone laden pasturized stuff we generally consume.

One man's poison is another man's medicine - just like vaccines

reply to post by RogerT


Yes, this is true, people dont like to read the facts before they post there opinions, lets us take my post for example i read through wiki.com carefully before i posted anything.

Reading is good.

Originally posted by BitRaiser
You mentioned curing asthma as being "easily curable via natural means".

I apologise if I used the word 'easily'. I should have used 'simple'. Natural healing is simple, but not necessarily easy.

No amount of homopathy can cure asthma. Anyone who suggests otherwise has been a crook when I've investigated.

I wasn't referring to homeopathy.

I've used homeopathy with great success at times and with no result whatsoever at others. I wouldn't throw it out of the arsenal but don't rely on it either when the # hits the fan.

The vast majority of these people selling their books are no better than the Pharma-Corps. They're crooks trying to make money off of people's fears and ignorance. What's worse is that often they turn people away from medical paths that could save their lives.

Whether it's a vast majority, a simple majority or a minority is something that neither you or I are really able to assess - be honest.

Given that we're talking about vaccines here, and not Natural Healing per se (I already got mod-slapped for that), then your suggestion that the medical path could save their life IS the debate here, or at least that's what I'm debating.

Again, I'm into eclectopathy. This means all things within reason and in their place. Anyone who tells you to dismiss any path is full of crap.

That's an opinion, and no matter how strongly held or penned, nothing more than an opinion. I tend to agree though, anyone who expresses any opinion with utter conviction is most likely full of crap, myself most certainly included

That still doesn't make vaccination a good deal though, nor safe, nor healthful, nor the saviour of the planet we are led to believe.

Because I can't produce my own drugs and antibiotics.
Or rather I could, but it's not a very good idea.

You can grow your own 'antibiotics'. Garlic is antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral, and it promotes and preserves friendly intestinal flora.

I am responsible for my own general heath and wellness.

Why not become responsible for your own healing too? It's not that difficult.

I go see the doc when nasty little bugs have managed to overpower my immune system (usually when it's been beaten down by stress, over work, or doing something stupid) and have begun running rampant through my system. The doc will know if there's been similar cases in the local area and will be able to proscribe the proper toxins that will kill those little bugs while just making me feel a bit icky.

that's certainly one way, and you are quite unusual in that you recognise the 'harm' you do to yourself and take steps to compensate

BTW, if you want a really good system flush after being on antibiotics

I don't take antibiotics anymore and don't believe there's ever a case for them if I'm willing to do the work naturally, but thanks for the flush recipe.

I was prescribed oxytet 50mg a day from the age of 12 till 20 by a local GP. I had no concept of health at that age. Imagine how angry I was when I found out what I'd been doing to myself, just for ACNE!

I found out what to do, came off the meds and cleared the condition in less than a week - after 8 years of antibiotics. A lot of other recurring health niggles also disappeared with the cessation of the drugs.

[edit on 20-10-2007 by RogerT]

Originally posted by Jazzerman

1. Small amounts of Ethylmercury in human infants can be comparable to adults with the same levels related to age. In fact, the consumption of fish and shellfish by a pregnant mother pose a much higher risk as the woman is consuming organic mercury in the form of Methylmercury. This type of mercury does bioaccumulate as the actions of bacteria on the sea floor convert the inorganic mercury into its more potent form. When a mother consumes the fish tissue containing Methylmercury the rates of exposure are quite higher than they would ever be with exposure to vaccine Ethylmercury. In fact, some recent studies I am aware of show that the the body's own ability to detoxify itself of Ethylmercury (even in infancy) is 5.8 times greater than the rate at which organic Methylmercury is able to be disposed of. Even more staggering is the fact that the half-life of inorganic Ethylmercury exposure is only 6 days as compared to the 19 day half-life of Methylmercury.
..

Oh dear, defending the practice, aren't we?

the comparison with fish has been brought up several tiimes already, let me start with a rebuttal t your claims, which are more likelay than not based on measuring serum Hg compound levels, totally ignoring the effects on health which are NOT just dose or half-life dependant.

Source

Both ethyl mercury and Hg2+ are very neuro toxic
compounds. However, ethyl mercury is more rapidly partitioned into the
hydrophobic (fatty) tissues of the central nervous system and is a
more potent neuro toxin than Hg2+ based on this "partitioning factor".
It is this partitioning factor that makes organic mercurials such as
dimethyl mercury so neuro toxically lethal (this is the compound that
caused the death of a Dartmouth University chemistry professor after
she was exposed to a drop or two on her gloved hand). The concern with
organic mercurials, such as thimerosal, is that such compounds can be
perceived as "pro toxicants" just as certain pharmaceuticals can be
classified as "pro drugs". This means that the original compound, e.g.
thimerosal, is less reactive giving the compound time to partition
into certain areas of the body before it breaks down releasing the
ethyl mercury and then further releasing Hg2+. However, while
attaching ethyl mercury to thiolsalicylate makes the ethyl mercury
less reactive it most likely allows increased partitioning into the
central nervous system before the ethyl mercury is released and
thereby, increases the neuro toxicity per unit ethyl mercury involved.
Considerable caution must be taken when stating what is the "toxic
level" of mercury and any mercury containing compound.

don't get me wrong lower half life is preferrable all else being equal.


now on to fish, posted quite a while ago and used for reference in many threads already in the Medical Issues forum.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.generationrescue.org...
The mercury received in a vaccine is no greater than in a can of tuna. Eating a can of tuna has certainly never caused autism.
This myth has received a lot of publicity because it offers an analogy anyone can understand and makes the mercury-autism connection appear trivial.

We can start by comparing a 200-pound male adult consuming tuna with the infant who receives a single vaccine on their first day of birth (since day-old infants don't eat tuna). On the first day of birth an infant receives the Hep B vaccine with about 25 micrograms of ethlymercury - this does approximate the 30 micrograms of methlymercury in an average can of tuna. Since the average infant weighs about 7 pounds, the weight equivalent number of cans of tuna for an adult would be 28 cans. (The adult male weighs 28x more than the infant.)

If you take those 28 cans of tuna and distill it down to mercury content, you would have 840 micrograms of mercury (30 micrograms per can). Keep in mind that the stomach successfully absorbs and excretes about 90% of any mercury ingested through food, leaving only about 10% of the mercury to be absorbed into the bloodstream. Since the mercury in vaccines is injected directly into the bloodstream where 100% of it can be absorbed by the organs, you would need an additional 252 cans of tuna to get the equivalent amount of mercury into the bloodstream for a total of 280 cans of tuna and 8,400 micrograms of methlymercury.

Also, remember that a developing brain is far more sensitive to toxins than an adult brain. Current estimates say mercury is 5-10x more toxic for a developing brain. We'll use the low end of that range, so multiply the 280 cans of tuna by 5 and you get 1,400 cans of tuna.

So, receiving the Hep B vaccine with Thimerosal on the first day of birth is the equivalent of a 200-pound adult male consuming 1,400 cans of tuna in a single day. One final adjustment: the adult male in the analogy needs to have no capacity to excrete mercury. As Boyd Haley, Ph.D. notes, "it is very well known that infants do not produce significant levels of bile or have adult renal capacity for several months after birth. Bilary transport is the major biochemical route by which mercury is removed from the body, and infants cannot do this very well."

So, a 200-pound male who consumes 1,400 cans of tuna in a single day and has their ability to excrete mercury severely diminished is the same as a day-old infant receiving the Hep B vaccine. Now the analogy is fair.

So, weak attempts at defending TM use are nothing new, i still vividly remember bsl4doc claiming that one needed a 'gluthathione deficiency' in order to be harmed by vaccines... guess what? a lack of adequate cystein supply or other factors now amount to a death sentence or worse??

www.abovetopsecret.com...

key snippet (note capitalisation!)

Originally posted by bsl4doc
..
They key is that the glutathione deficiency pointed out in your study is GENETIC, not caused by vaccinations. This deficiency makes them more prone to heavy metal poisoning. This means the direct cause of autism may be glutathione deficiency.
..

such are the opinions from people in the medical field. if someone has a deficiency, it's got to be GENETIC and people with GENETIC err, aberrations deserve getting a kick in the head in the form of organic mercury, right?!?

Dear Readers, you should always remember and fully consider where EUGENICS originally surfaced, developed and finally flourished - apparently to this day.

It was the Medical Establishment which invented, refined and finally used it, once politics had discovered its usefulness in the 20th' century's nefarious schemes (most notably Psychiatry).

there is every reason to put two and two together, that the killing and maiming of people not adhering to arbitrary standards (must survive so and so many mg of organic mercury) is condoned, even under false premise, because f-ex. a shortage of essential amino acids does lead to deficiencies. poor nutrition is of course not inheritable, but facts never bothered closet eugenicists anyway.

www.abovetopsecret.com... the underlying issue is motivation!

PS: considering what i've seen over the time on this forum and elsewhere i can understand if people freak out and no longer believe anything to the point of lunacy.

from my experience,most all 'professionals' are so smug, you can tell them you don't drink alcohol ever, but they know better of course, just by peeking at your liver test results.... never bothering with researching the liquor addict next door whose peripheral nerves are dying off due to constant intoxication, while his liver remains in better than normal shape. never let facts get in the way of dogma, never believe the patient (or customer in a non medical setting), tar them with your broadest brush, affirmations and evidence to the contrary be damned.

There's a reason fewer and fewer trust anyone and it's not just in their heads. denigrate people as much as you wish, but there will come a time when litterally everyone will have to be branded 'misinformed' or 'paranoid' or just stupid and negligent, probably threatening 'society as a whole' (gotta love that, eh?) by their non-compliance or better yet disobedience.

as you can guess, it's getting clearer and clearer who's threatenng what and how and you can't fool everyone forever!


[edit on 20.10.2007 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Files
I used to get the Flu shot almost every year since I was a kid. I stopped getting them last year back with found out it contained 90% mercury.

Incidentally, there are many types of flu, and they keep changing. There is never any guarantee that the type you are exposed to was in your vaccine. The CDC runs a race, trying to keep up and outguess the transmutations. There ARE other ways of persuing health, non-sorcery. And yes, I do get tetanus shots, as I too often get poked with rustys.

reply to post by BitRaiser


Bitraiser, I had asthma AFTER having my mercury fillings removed, and when my next door neighbor said, Oh that's easy. Just cut the caffeine out. Of course I tried it, and walla. No more asthma. But I have to warn you, the asthma 'may' only be all in your head! (According to those who pronounce themselves wise)

reply to post by MajorMalfunction


I have to say, the CDC, along with other bureauc-rats, have no credibility with me, and whatever they say, it is a point against their argument. And 'common sense'? When did the common sense ever get anything right?

reply to post by FredT

What is being lost here is intelligence. You have the occupation of being a nurse, therefore you do not need to read the previous posts, and read other DOCTORS and other experts who are smarter than you, and better educated? If you want to continue to post your lame opinions without reading the previous posts that refute your weak claims, and make you look 'lame', then go ahead. But you are doing your own credibility a huge disservice. And that is the height of arrogance for you to attack people smarter and better educated than you, and I really don't think any of us want to read that crap on this site. Grow up.

Originally posted by Gregarious
And 'common sense'? When did the common sense ever get anything right?

I'll take common sense over science any day.

Case in point:

Jazzerman posted a very authoritative argument that ethyl mercury is perfectly safe, based on the science he has been exposed to. Long Lance posted an equally authoritative argument, also based on science, that ethyl mercury is most certainly not safe.

Scientist rarely agree unanimously on anything, especially in medical science.

Common sense dictates that it is lunacy to INJECT a cocktail of lethal diseases (weakened or not), mixed with a cocktail of toxic chemicals, into the bloodstream of a new born baby.

Common sense dictates that the group of individuals who are best positioned to warn of possible complications from vaccinations are the mothers of the children receiving the jabs. They are seldom listened to, and often ridiculed for their concerns by health professionals.

Common sense dictates that EXTENSIVE follow up studies should be conducted over VAST periods of time following any and all immunisation campaigns. They are not.

Common sense dictates that if the very people peddling and pushing vaccinations refuse to accept the challenge of being injected themselves with adult adjusted doses of the vaccines they are sticking into babies, we should be at least a little suspicious.

Originally posted by Gregarious
And yes, I do get tetanus shots, as I too often get poked with rustys.

So you distrust the CDC and the beaurocrats yet you still get the shots? On what do you base your faith in tetanus shots?

Eibl, M.M.; at al Abnormal T-Lymphocyt subpopulations in healthy subjects after tetanus booster immunization. NEJM, 1984; 310/3:198-9

In order to study the effect of vaccination on the T-lymphocyte helper/suppressor ratio, 11 healthy persons were given a tetanus booster shot. A significant decrease in the T4/T8 ratio was observed. In 4 of the patients the ratio even fell temporarily to 1 or lower. This is a situation often observed in AIDS-patients or in persons at risk for the condition.

Prophylaxis against tetanus raises serious theoretical and, above all, practical questions, since the disease itself is known not to induce immunity. It the disease cannot induce protection, how can a vaccine?

Antibody levels do not rise until 4 days after vaccination, so vaccination at the time of injury is of no use.
Passen, E.L.; Andersen, B.; Clinical tetanus despite a protectlve level of toxin-neutralising antibody. JAMA, 1988; 25519:1171-3

Originally posted by Gregarious
Incidentally, there are many types of flu, and they keep changing. There is never any guarantee that the type you are exposed to was in your vaccine.

"In the course of a vaccination trial that took place in France on October 1st, 1981, Professor Mercie, former director of the glamorous Pasteur Institute, was asked why the Institute kept producing and selling its anti-'flu vaccine despite its recognized worthlessness. Professor Mercie's candid reply: 'Because it helps financing the Institute's research'." - (Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress p81)

"In 1976 I was working in the Gulf Country around Cape York, in an aboriginal community of about 300 people. The Health Department sent around a team and vaccinated about 100 of them against flu. Six were dead within 24 hours or so and they weren't all old people, one man being in his early twenties. They threw the bodies in trucks to take to the coast where autopsies were done. It appeared they had died from heart attacks".---Archie Kalokerinos M.D.

A recent study (Safety of Trivalent Inactivated Influenza
Vaccine in Children 6 to 23 Months Old) was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association touting the safety of flu vaccine. Nine of the studies authors had stated financial ties to vaccine manufacturers, and an additional four authors worked for the CDC. The study also stated: "It is also important to note that there is scant data on the efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccine in young children."

On October 27, 2006, the British Medical Journal published an article also questioning the efficacy of the flu vaccine. The article noted: "Evidence from systematic reviews shows that inactivated vaccines [flu vaccines] have little or no effect on the effects measured. Little comparative evidence exists on the safety of these vaccines. Reasons for the current gap between policy and evidence are unclear, but given the huge resources involved, a re-evaluation should be urgently undertaken...The optimistic and confident tone of some predictions of viral circulation and of the impact of inactivated vaccines, which are at odds with the evidence, is striking."

www.generationrescue.org...

[edit on 21-10-2007 by RogerT]

If anyone reading this thread is still under the misapprehension that vaccines are perfectly safe, you may want to check out the US Federal Govt National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which has paid out over $900 million in restitution to persons injured by vaccines, and provides a list of possible injuries by type of vaccine here:

ftp.hrsa.gov...

For those of you that don't like to click links, the Govs own body states that reactions include:

Anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock
Brachial neuritis
Encephalopathy (or encephalitis)
Chronic arthritis
Thrombocytopenic purpura
Vaccine-Strain Measles Viral Infection
Paralytic polio
Vaccine-strain polio viral infection
Intussusception

Originally posted by BitRaiser

Originally posted by RogerT
No I missed neither of those. What does that have to do with my response to your post?

I was hoping to see you respond to Jazzerman's post, actually.

OK, I've had a bit of time to look into this.

Whilst Jazzerman's post initially seems to be extremely authoritative, well balanced, scientific and conclusive, there is definitely contradictory research out there:


dx.doi.org... doi:10.1289/ehp.7712
www.putchildrenfirst.org...

Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to
Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal
Thomas M. Burbacher, Ph.D.a,c,d*, Danny D. Shen, Ph.D.b, Noelle Liberato, B.S. a,c,d,
Kimberly S. Grant, Ph.D.a,c,d, Elsa Cernichiari, M.S. e, and Thomas Clarkson, Ph.D. e

For the layman, report says that monkeys injected with ethylmercury (mercury in Thimerosal) had twice the amount of inorganic mercury in their brains compared to methylmercury (environmental mercury).

Originally posted by RogerT


OK, I've had a bit of time to look into this.

Whilst Jazzerman's post initially seems to be extremely authoritative, well balanced, scientific and conclusive, there is definitely contradictory research out there:

...

For the layman, report says that monkeys injected with ethylmercury (mercury in Thimerosal) had twice the amount of inorganic mercury in their brains compared to methylmercury (environmental mercury).

of course there is, you wouldn't believe that those who are responsible for the mess will sit idly on their thumbs while us 'laymen' uncover and proove their insanity, would you?

Mercury is Good for your Children (it makes them docile or demented...)

that's all that's left of the argument, isn't it? as long as it's wirting authoritatively, anything goes, doesn't it?

your remark about common sense vs. scientific publications is well founded, the industry makes billions a year, they can hire people who write jargon for a living and focus on irrelevant things like Hg serum levels, not toxicity itself, which isn't even understood and therefore cannot be reliably predicted. experts in the field know this of course, but they don't speak out for fear or because they are completely callous and indifferent towards human suffering (their own excluded), see the example in my last post.

i've seen these denials far too often to attribute them to ignorance alone, when you pressure then enough (7 pages sounds about rright) they will come out of their closet, defending the practice of injecting mercury, if they did that on page 1, more people would understand.


PS: layman means many things, i suggest you search for a charcter named Linus Pauling, he had two nobel prizes under his belt, but once he started talking about Chronic Scurvy he was cast out immediately. i guess that made him some sort of layman, hc.

[edit on 21.10.2007 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Long Lance
The bottom line is that there's really no reason to willingly swallow anything from people who are willingly putting thiomersal into strangers (still, think flu shots) while alledgedly declining vaccines for themselves and their relatives more often than any other single group. if someone could confirm that last point it would be greatly appreciated.

It's not quite what you asked for, but it in the right direction. I'll keep looking and see if I can add anything better with a later edit.

For example 5 percent of nonpediatricians would not use the Hib vaccine for their own child. Their reasons for declining the use of Hib for their own children included a lack of concern about the disease and the desire to reduce vaccines to a minimum. Similarly almost 5 percent of physicians did not use the MMR vaccine in their own children. According to the authors the reasons for vaccine refusal included "the wish to avoid the trivalent combined vaccines because of safety concerns, the preference for infection-driven rather than vaccine-induced immunity, and the conviction that homeopathic treatment allows a benign outcome of measles, mumps, and rubella." Almost 10 percent of nonpediatricians would delay the initiation of DTaP vaccination beyond 6 months and 15 percent would not give the first dose of measles or MMR before 2 years of age.

Posfay-Barbe KM, et al. How do physicians immunize their own children? Differences among pediatricians and nonpediatricians. Pediatrics 2005 (Nov); 116:e623-e633.

edit to add

Researcher and author Neil Z. Miller reports that approximately 66% of pediatricians and obstetricians refused the MMR shot in one study.[1] An equal percentage of doctors refused the Hepatitis B shot, mostly citing safety concerns because of rumors of animal DNA contamination in the shots.[2] The American Medical Association's (AMA) Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine cite a 1994 study where approximately 1/3 of doctors were working without mandatory flu vaccines.[3]

1) JAMA 1981 Feb 20;245(7):711-3 "Rubella vaccine and susceptible hospital employees. Poor physician participation."

2) Mendelsohn, Dr. Robert, “The Drive to Immunize Adults,” Herald of Holistic Health Newsletter, Sept.-Oct. 1985.

3) Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, Dec. 1996. (AMA).

[edit on 21-10-2007 by RogerT]

Well it's all gone quiet in this thread, so I'll take that to mean no-one managed to find any real supporting evidence for the efficacy or need for vaccinations.

Common sense doesn't really need to be vindicated, but it's always nice when it is

reply to post by RogerT


well, i've gone quite cause quite honestly this thread is now over my head. i have read everything that has been posted but i don't know what else to say.
i was kinda hoping that those smarter than myself would roll back through.
tis monday. couple hours and the boards will be busy again

reply to post by Boondock78


Hi there B.

Did you go over the info I recommended?

reply to post by RogerT


on my list of things to do today.
was pretty sick this weekend and didn't spend much time on the computer.

Personally, I don't trust anything that is "approved" by the FDA.

International speaker, writer, researcher Dr Len Horowitz has done a lot of research on vaccinations. Please check these out if you are interested in the topic of safety in vaccines.

www.tetrahedron.org...