Whooping Cough Outbreak Involved 90% Vaccinated Kids

reply to post by coruja


I do have a specific question or two regarding today's vaccines. . .

Why do they have all these known toxins in them?

Do they not have another way to introduce these pathogens into our bodies without adding them?

There has been a significant rise in autism since the newer vaccinations have been introduced. Fact which can be verified by numerous scientific studies and courts judicial decisions awarding children and parents over 1.2 billion dollars in compensation for the ill effects of these vaccinations. Judicial ruling means no jury trial, so no emotional heartstrings being pulled by unscrupulous attorneys.

I know your not a legal student, but a medical one, I am just posing this last statement to inspire you to question some of the status-quo you have been taught.

Hopefully this post isn't high-jacking the OP's thread. If so state it OP and PM me with your answers coruja.

Thanks,

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I'd love to see better sources than a site that has a page for Apocalypse Prevention Project...

This is exactly what I was thinking. Those of you neigh sayers go to government website, or scientific journal search engines like pubmed.com- look for proof there. Stop going to these advertisement-clad, false and irresponsible sites that preach about skewed, fabricated data.

Originally posted by prysmatyk
reply to post by coruja

 

I do have a specific question or two regarding today's vaccines. . .

Why do they have all these known toxins in them?

Do they not have another way to introduce these pathogens into our bodies without adding them?


Thanks,

Both great questions.

Firstly, Autism.

We have to remember that the causes for autism are still largely unknown. Twin studies have have suggested that genetics play a fundamental role. Let me explain it a little more. Identical twins may have the same phenotype (physical appearance) but may have different genotypes (genetic constitution). Twins may have up to 50% shared DNA which means that if one twin is predisposed to a disease/condition, then the other may have or may not have the same susceptibility. This is a good way of testing the genetics of many disorders. Biochemical over expression has been found around the perinatal period (time, usually weeks before and after birth) in children diagnosed with autism. This suggests that the prenatal or perinatal time influences the outcome of the condition, and not anything after birth. Also- the symptoms of autism on really start being visible around 2 years old which is precisely when the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine is administered.

As for the rise of Autism, I dont know. And the jury is still out on that subject.

Our diet and lifestyle has changed; the spectrum of diagnosis has increased; funding for diagnosis has increased. We also have to remember that we have a greater population, than what we we've ever had, and with that comes more disease diagnosis.

Why do they have all these known toxins in them?

The word toxin is probably better used for when a micro-organism produce toxic antigens that require an immunologic reaction.

Do you mean things such as Mercury/thimersoal, Aluminium and formaldehyde?

These elements/compounds have either, been eliminated from the current vaccines; or, they are at such small doses that the FDA or the Agency for Toxic Substance Disease Registry, allows them to be used safely. If you want more specifics (e.g. what are they used for) just ask.

Do they not have another way to introduce these pathogens into our bodies without adding them?

Look, it all depends on what the vaccine is for. Dr Barry Marshal (nobel prize laureate) is working on using his bacteria helicobacter pylori as a vector for a mucosal flu vaccine (if i remember right). H. pylori is native to the stomach, and he proposes a drinkable vaccine that can, once inside the stomach release the appropriate antigens that travel through the mucosal membranes of the gastrointestinal tract. This is really great, because it requires no training for the person giving the the vaccine, and it is much easier to do.

Things such as Aluminium and Formaldehyde are needed for different reasons. Aluminium salt is used as an adjuvant basically to recruit more cells to the area of the actual vaccine. If there are more cells recruited to clear the aluminium salt, then there are going to be more cells around at the same time to create the appropriate memory cells. This in turn will lead to a better, stronger response the next time the individual comes in contact with that specific antigen. Formaldehyde is used to detoxify bacterial toxins (e.g. tetanus, pertussis) and to inactivate viruses. the quantity of formaldehyde in the current vaccines are approximately 600x lower than what would be needed to induce toxicity.

Hope that answers a couple of things.

I am not going to say much about this because I am tired of this Cyber Dust and frankly, if you haven't pulled your head out your a---es by now, you deserve your fate.

If someone said, if you were hungry or starving and given a choice between some good clean food and some food laced with poison, which one would you choose? The good clean food, naturally!

Now, if you were offered a choice between a vaccine that would cure some problem you had, with no side effects or a vaccine laced with mercury, squalene and some genetically modified bird and pig virus or cancer virus, which one would you choose? The clean vaccine minus the poisons, naturally.

You closet imbeciles who mention an example of begging for rabies vaccine after being bitten by a rabid dog just don't get it; we want vaccines that cure us not kill us or our children. We are tired of Side Effects being acceptable; for the side effects being worse than the disease.

That enough. Do what you like.

I'm curious. What do you think happened to smallpox, or polio?

Originally posted by wirehead
I'm curious. What do you think happened to smallpox, or polio?

Not suprised.

Could it be that there was an outbreak (I remember an outbreak of pertussis within the last few years in the news, particularly among school children) and so parents who hadn't had their children vaccinated rushed to have it done after they were already exposed due to said outbreak?

I'm not discounting the possibility that 90% of those who fell ill had been previous vaccinated long enough to have immunity, but how soon before they became ill did they get their DPT shots? Days? Hours? Weeks? Months? That seems like pertinent information. Apologies if this has already been addressed and I missed it.

Peace.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Thank you for bringing attention to this, my family does not vaccinate and we are in the minority. I have seen and heard whooping cough first hand and when my girls got it 3-4 years ago I knew what I was dealing with and headed to the doctor. The doctor patronisingly explained to me that there hadn't been a single case of whooping cough in northern ireland in X- years and what I was suggesting was impossible. He went on to suggest that it was a cough similar to a few other cases he had dealt with recently in the office and said a 'bad cough' was just 'going around'. He evidenced this couldn't be whooping cough by citing that the other children experiencing it where vaccinated against the illness. I insisted on a blood test, the lab, the doctor....noone ever let me know the results. I eventually started digging for the answer and was given the reply 'well if it was important they would have contacted you.' Never got a straight answer.
Months and months later and we hear that many cases had been confirmed in our area. The fact is that the doctor talked us out of whooping cough diagnosis and we aren't the only ones.
The answer? More vaccinations of course, they were encouraging the population to get MORE vaccinations because of the risk ...when vaccinated children were accounting for the majority of the cases.
This is just one way the statistics are tweaked in favour of shots, he wasn't even interested in checking, if any of those cases had been checked it would have shown that the vaccines those kids had didn't work.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

The question still stands.

Why are vaccines being used for bacteria. That's not what they're suppose to be used for.

Vaccines can be used for bacteria just as they can for viruses. The idea is to stimulate the immune system so it will be able to respond much more quickly to a subsequent infection.

The adaptive immune response is specific to a particular pathogen, but it has to come into contact with the pathogen to provide immunity. So, instead of you actually getting an infection and developing immunity, a vaccine will allow the immune system to see a piece of the bacteria or virus, produce antibodies, generate memory immune cells and be ready to fight a future infection. The adaptive immune system doesn't care so much about whether the antigen is bacterial or viral, it just knows that it isn't part of you and that it needs to die.

As to your question of why don't we just use antibiotics instead of vaccines, wouldn't you prefer not get sick to begin with rather than getting sick and having to use antibiotics? Also, antibiotics are overprescribed and bacteria are forming immunity to them.

reply to post by coruja


I appreciate your response to my questions, but so as not to make this thread a conversation between us. I will PM you my response to yours.

"...why don't we just use antibiotics instead of vaccines?..."

A good answer to that was in the news just a few days ago:
life.nationalpost.com...

Gonorrhea has now developed resistance to all known antibiotics and is present in the north American population.

It takes roughly 10 years for an antibiotic to be cleared by the FDA for human consumption. Due to the rise f generic drug makers and changes to the regulatory laws protecting pharma company's market position, the big pharma companies have not been advancing antibiotic R&D as they need to be since around the year 2000.

To my knowledge, there is no new antibiotic in the pipeline that has the potential to treat these antibiotic resistant strains of pathogens that are emerging.

This means that if a breakthrough happens today, it will be a decade before we see any benefit.
Gonorrhea specifically is quite a contagious disease. In 10 years time, it is likely to have infected a huge percentage of the population just as it did in the days before penicillin.

Originally posted by MajorKarma
I am not going to say much about this because I am tired of this Cyber Dust and frankly, if you haven't pulled your head out your a---es by now, you deserve your fate.

If someone said, if you were hungry or starving and given a choice between some good clean food and some food laced with poison, which one would you choose? The good clean food, naturally!

Now, if you were offered a choice between a vaccine that would cure some problem you had, with no side effects or a vaccine laced with mercury, squalene and some genetically modified bird and pig virus or cancer virus, which one would you choose? The clean vaccine minus the poisons, naturally.

You closet imbeciles who mention an example of begging for rabies vaccine after being bitten by a rabid dog just don't get it; we want vaccines that cure us not kill us or our children. We are tired of Side Effects being acceptable; for the side effects being worse than the disease.

That enough. Do what you like.

edit on 16-1-2013 by MajorKarma because: (no reason given)

Please do not resort to name-calling.

You need to do some research into the ingredients of these vaccines, the quantities in which they're found, and why they're there. A "genetically modified bird and pig virus or cancer virus" has a lot of negative connotations in it when it really doesn't mean anything. A modified cancer virus or "bird and pig" virus is not necessarily harmful to your body in any way.

As for mercury:
"At concentrations found in vaccines, thimerosal meets the requirements for a preservative as set forth by the United States Pharmacopeia; that is, it kills the specified challenge organisms and is able to prevent the growth of the challenge fungi (U.S. Pharmacopeia 2004). Thimerosal in concentrations of 0.001% (1 part in 100,000) to 0.01% (1 part in 10,000) has been shown to be effective in clearing a broad spectrum of pathogens. A vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5 mL dose or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose." (www.fda.gov...)

A 0.01% concentration of Thimerosal is hardly high. Calling these substances "poisons" is hardly constructive when you have no evidence that any of these substances are present in any alarming amount in vaccines.

If you have a problem with these substances being present in vaccines you are free to get an immunology degree and determine how to create effective vaccines or preservatives for vaccines that you deem more acceptable.

The most disappointing part of the vaccine conspiracy theory is that it implies everyone working on vaccine development - professors, independent researchers, government workers, and anyone worldwide as well - have nothing better to do than to inject you with a poison. That's pretty insulting. For a researcher to show true evidence that ingredients in vaccines are causing harm to people, and then determine how to remove those ingredients, would make them essentially famous in their field. Who wouldn't want to do that? Why don't they do it?

Do you have any actual evidence that vaccines "kill us or our children"? Peer-reviewed, statistically significant evidence?

Originally posted by Twine

The most disappointing part of the vaccine conspiracy theory is that it implies everyone working on vaccine development - professors, independent researchers, government workers, and anyone worldwide as well - have nothing better to do than to inject you with a poison. That's pretty insulting.