Quantcast

Flu vaccines: are they safe & effective?

irish 2009/10/25 14:08:02
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Flu Vaccines: Are They Safe & Effective?

By Richard Gale and Gary Null, PhD.
http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/nullandgalefluvaccines1part28...
September 28, 2009

Flu Vaccines: Are They Safe & Effective? By Richard Gale and Gary Null, PhD. (Oct. 14, 2009)

source : http://www.garynull.com/

Part 1

A central principle of democracy is freedom of choice. We can choose our political party, our religion, and the food we eat, but this does not seem to be the case when it comes to our medical choices and our freedoms to make them. The underlying foundation upon which the entire vaccine program rests is that they have been proven to be safe and effective. So much so, that if people choose not to be vaccinated they are criticized for making irresponsible and unscientific choices that will not only adversely affect themselves, but could also cause others—co-workers, family and classmates—to become infected with the pathogens their bodies harbor.

The US Public Health Service and its various agencies—the FDA, CDC, NIAID, NIH and CBER—oversee the distribution of information and the scheduling of vaccines, both voluntary and mandatory, is. These Federal agencies are the guiding light for the primary information and resources provided to Congressional oversight committees, and professional medical organizations, such as the American Medical Association and the National Academy of Sciences. From there, information and resources trickle down to the various state health commissioners, who then present information to local health officials at the state level. In addition, they provide the local media reports about pathogenic health threats and new scientific breakthroughs on vaccines. At the Federal level, health agencies are responsible for doing either original research or contracting out research initiatives to universities and pharmaceutical companies. Frequently, both the government and the private vaccine makers work in partnership. At the end of the day, conservatively, there are thousands of individuals who make policy decisions in our vaccine industrial complex. As a result, the mainstream media has taken the position that whatever the official word is about a vaccine, it goes virtually unchallenged. It becomes dogma. Those brave enough to criticize vaccines (whether they are physicians, scientists, journalists or citizens) are considered irresponsible, are discredited, immediately viewed with suspicion, which brings us to our current dilemma.

Here in New York, the swine flu vaccine, followed by the seasonal flu vaccine, has been mandated for all health care workers. The vaccine is being proposed in many other states. It is already mandated for all members of the armed forces, as well as students in various colleges and public health school systems. Simultaneously there is a growing number of voices suggesting that they or their children’s injuries are due to individual or combinations of vaccines. These include everything from Gulf War Syndrome to Autism Spectrum Disorders, debilitating neurological and autoimmune conditions and preventable infant deaths. Furthermore, there are a growing number of other disease epidemics, such as adult diabetes and cancers in children, enormous increases in allergies and gastro-intestinal disturbances, whose etiologies remain uncertain and may still be discovered to be attributable to the over-vaccination of the public. The government and the entire vaccine industrial complex have responded to all of these allegations by simply dismissing them as untrue and without proof. True science would interpret this as a radical decision. Being told that if we don’t take a vaccine, then we will be fired immediately without exemptions or options is an equally extremist attitude.

Therefore, we decided to ask four basic questions. These questions would determine the truth.

The first question: Are vaccines truly effective in protecting people based upon a gold standard that can be applied to all other areas of science? If they are effective, what is the proof? Are there long-term individual and multi-vaccine combination studies and double-blind placebo control studies? Did these studies compare fully vaccinated groups of individuals against groups that were non-vaccinated? Have there been trials that compared one group vaccination and another put on a life style modification program?

Second question: Are vaccines safe? If so, what is the proof? How do we know whether a vaccinated individual who didn’t come down with an infection that it is to the vaccine or whether it is due to their immune system? How can we reconcile a very short timeframe used throughout vaccine trials to determine safety, when much of the scientific literature shows delayed responses for more serious adverse effects? How many people are excluded from being vaccine-injured because the statutes of limitation ran out on them, although their injury was in fact due to a vaccination? Also, how do we reconcile the very low number of adverse reactions that are actually being reported by the CDC? In addition, when we study the Vaccine Compensation Act over a billion dollars has been given to victims. How do we know whether a person will be protected and the vaccine will be effective and safe, and what is the proof?

Questions three and four:

Are vaccines not effective? If so, what is the proof? And if vaccines are not safe, what is the proof? After spending several years researching each of these four questions, our conclusions are startling. Research and statistical studies show that no single vaccine and no combination of vaccines have been proven to be effective or safe for any given individual. In addition, we found that the vaccine process does not confer the protected immunization for a given individual. To the contrary, vaccines may actually compromise and adversely alter the body’s immune system.

How could modern medicine have gotten this so wrong and for so long? How could the vast majority of respected medical and health organizations—the American Medical Associations, the pediatric community, prestigious medical schools, the federal scientific community, etc.—have been so mistaken? And then why has the major media acted in such an irresponsible manner? This brings us to questions that cannot be based on true science but rather on greed. Greed is now something the average American is fully aware of. We have witnessed it on Wall Street, with multinational banks, with the healthcare and insurance industries, and increasingly with pharmaceutical companies who have an ever greater need for profits and now exploit their enormous influence and buying-power over our government’s regulatory agencies. Legislators at both the state and federal levels have permitted unwarranted influence by these same pharmaceutical giants, lobbyists and consultants to influence how laws are written and how funds are appropriated. Sadly, public policy and corporate liability have been directly written for and by pharmaceutical interests.

This story is so vast, with so many details, that we have decided to release it in two parts. Due to the urgency of a proposed state mandated swine flu vaccination, we are presenting first part that focuses principally on the new H1N1 swine flu and influenza vaccines in general. The second part will later examine in greater detail all the other vaccines. Our overall conclusion is that our vaccine program requires crucial reform.

Does Vaccination Equal Immunization?

Dr. Viera Scheibner is arguably one of the world’s most respected scientists and scholars of vaccine medical data. She is the author of Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research and Behavioral Problems in Children: The Link to Vaccination, in addition to publishing almost 100 peer-reviewed papers. During a live radio broadcast on September 18, 2009, she shared an overview of vaccine history and presented a more realistic definition of vaccination theory in light of reviewing thousands of studies, articles and books written since Edward Jenner tested the first vaccine in 1796. Her investigations uncover how the vaccine industrial complex, and national and international agencies who oversee vaccination policies continue to entertain a pseudo-science that is fraught with inconsistencies, poorly designed studies, erroneous interpretations, and conclusions that are patently false. To take one simple example, practicing physicians today will tell us there is no natural immunity for tetanus; therefore, a vaccination is necessary. Yet, a large research study in India of over 70,000 people, none having received tetanus injections, found most had natural immunity to the pathogen.

Dr. Scheibner fundamentally redefines the rationale and terminology applied to vaccine immunization:

“Ever since the turn of the century medical journals published dozens and dozens of articles demonstrating that injecting vaccines [can] cause anaphylaxis, meaning harmful, inappropriate immunological responses, which is also called sensitization. [This means there is] increased susceptibility to the disease which the vaccine is suppose to prevent, and to a host of related and other unrelated infections. We see it in vaccinated children within days, within two or three weeks. Most vaccinated children, but not all, develop runny noses, ear infections, pneumonitis , bronchiolitis. It is only a matter of degrees, which indicates immuno-suppression. So it doesn’t indicate immunity. It indicates the opposite. So I never use the word immunization because that is false advertising. It implies that vaccines immunize, which they don’t. The correct term is either vaccination or sensitization.”

“Vaccines [can] damage internal organs, particularly the pancreas… So not only is it that children develop these infections with increased severity, but they develop… these autoimmune diseases like diabetes. That’s a real pandemic….[Vaccination] is an illness industry. They cause pandemics of diabetes. They cause pandemics of other degenerative diseases. They cause pandemics of behavioral problems.”

“The term "immunization" should be outlawed because it’s a lie. It’s false advertising. Vaccination is the right term because it simply means injecting a vaccine. The word immunization implies vaccines prevent disease… They actually [may lead to] them. If they don’t want to use the word vaccination, they should use the word "sensitization".1

Although there are numerous voices against vaccination, and even more against mandatory vaccination, it is equally important to bring attention to the words of dissent from within the government health agencies and the vaccine industrial complex. For example, in November 2007, the UK newspaper The Scotsman, made public warnings by the inventor of the “flu jab,” Dr. Graeme Laver. Dr. Laver was a major Australian scientist involved in the invention of a flu vaccine in addition to playing a leading scientific role in the discovery of anti-flu drugs. He went on record as saying the vaccine he helped to create was ineffective and natural infection with the flu was safer. “I have never been impressed with its efficacy,” said Dr. Laver.2

Vaccines are suspensions of infectious agents used to artificially induce immunity against specific diseases. The aim of vaccination is to mimic the process of naturally occurring infection through artificial means. Theoretically, vaccines produce a mild to moderate episode of infection in the body with only temporary and slight side effects. But, in reality, they may be causing diseases rather than preventing them. According to Jamie Murphy, an investigative journalist on vaccines and author of What Every Parent Should Know About Childhood Vaccination, “Vaccines produce disease or infection in an otherwise healthy person... And so, in order to allegedly produce something good, one has to do something bad to the human body, that is, induce an infection or a disease in an otherwise healthy person that may or may not have ever happened.”

When children contract a disease such as measles or mumps, they generally develop a permanent protection against that disease. Such is not necessarily the case with vaccines. As Murphy observes,

“The medical profession does not know how long vaccine immunity lasts because it is artificial immunity. If you get measles naturally, in the vast majority of cases you have lifelong immunity..... However, if you get a measles vaccine or a DPT vaccine, [it does not guarantee 100% immunity] that the vaccine will prevent you from getting the disease.”3

Murphy continues:

“You have a situation in which everyone is being given a disease with no control over that disease, because once you inject a vaccine into a person’s body, whether it contains bacteria or viruses or split viruses or whatever--you have no control over the outcome. It’s like dumping toxic wastes into a river and saying, ‘If we just put a little bit in, it won’t pollute the river. It will be just enough to do what we want it to do.’ Of course, what they want the vaccination to do is initiate the building up of our immune defenses, just like a regular infection would do. The problem is that the medical profession and science do not know, and have never known, what the infecting dose of an infection really is. It’s not something that can be measured. So they’re really guessing at the amount of antigen and other supplementary chemicals that they put in the vaccine.”

“Vaccines are portrayed as being indispensable and somehow better at disease protection than what our innate biological defenses and nutritional resources have accomplished for thousands of years. I think it’s the height of arrogance for the medical profession to think that they have duplicated a biological process that has taken care of people since the beginning of time. People can deal with infectious diseases without vaccines. Before the introduction of the measles and mumps vaccines, children got measles and they got mumps, and in the great majority of cases those diseases were benign.”

“The most important point I want to make is that there’s no logical reason for having a vaccine when these [natually occuring] infectious agents...can stimulate the immune system to take care of that disease by itself. We don’t need anything artificial to do that for us.”4

Walene James, founder of the organization Vaccine Liberation and author of Immunizations: The Reality Beyond the Myth,5 adds that the full inflammatory response is necessary to create real immunity, and reports that in The Lancet on June 5, 1985, there was an article about measles virus infection relating to a variety of diseases in adult life. Researchers in Denmark, the article explained, examined the histories of people claiming not to have had measles in childhood, yet who had blood antibody evidence of such infection. The researchers found that some of these people had been injected in childhood with the measles vaccine after exposure to the infection. This may have suppressed the disease which was at the time developing in their bodies. A high percentage of these individuals were found in adult life to have developed immunoreactive diseases, such as sebaceous skin diseases, tumors, and degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage. The conditions included cancer, MS, lupus, and chondromalacia, which is softening of the cartilage.6

James quotes Dr. Richard Moskowitz, past president of the National Institute of Homeopathy, and a cum laude graduate of Harvard and New York Medical School, as stating,

“Vaccines trick the body so that it will no longer initiate a generalized inflammatory response. They thereby accomplish what the entire immune system seems to have evolved to prevent. They place the virus directly into the blood and give it access to the major immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it. These attenuated viruses and virus elements persist in the blood for a long time, perhaps permanently. This, in turn, implies a systematic weakening of the ability to mount an effective response, not only to childhood diseases but to other acute infections as well.’

Further, Jamie Murphy insists that introducing antigens directly into the bloodstream can prove dangerous.

“When a child gets a naturally occurring infection, like measles, which is not a serious disease, the body reacts to that in a very set way. The germs go in a certain part of the body through the throat and into the different immune organs, and the body combats the disease in its own natural way. There are all sorts of immune reactions that occur. Inflammatory response reactions, macrophages, and different kinds of white blood cells are used to combat the virus. You also cough and sneeze and get rid of the virus that way.

“When you inject a vaccine into the body, you’re actually performing an unnatural act because you are injecting directly into the blood system. That is not the natural port of entry for that virus. In fact, the whole immune system in our body is geared to prevent that from happening. What we’re doing is giving the virus or the bacteria carte blanche entry into our bloodstream, which is the last place you want it to be. This increases the chance for disease because viral material from the vaccine stays in the cells, and is not completely defeated by the body’s own defenses. You overload the body.”

In his widely circulated critique of vaccines, “Vaccination: Dispelling the Myths,” Alan Phillips, a national health attorney and legal expert on vaccine policy, writes,

“The clinical evidence for vaccination is their ability to stimulate antibody production in the recipient, a fact which is not disputed. What is not clear, however, is whether or not such antibody production constitutes immunity. For example, a-gamma globulinemic children are incapable of producing antibodies, yet they recover from infectious diseases almost as quickly as other children....Natural immunization is a complex phenomenon involving many organs and systems; it cannot be fully replicated by the artificial stimulation of antibody production. Research also indicates that vaccination commits immune cells to the specific antigens involved in the vaccine, rendering them incapable of reacting to other infections. Our immunological reserve may thus actually be reduced, causing a generally lowered resistance.”7

Echoing the thinking of Walene James, Phillips adds:

“Another component of immunization theory is ‘herd immunity,’ which states that when enough people in a community are immunized, all are protected. There are many documented instances showing just the opposite--fully vaccinated populations do contract diseases; with measles, this actually seems to be the direct result of high vaccination rates. A Minnesota state epidemiologist concluded that the HiB vaccine increases the risk of illness when a study revealed that vaccinated children were five times more likely to contract meningitis than unvaccinated children.”8

How Serious Is the Swine Flu Infection?

Across the media, the World Health Organization, the FDA and CDC have been reporting that the swine flu threat is pandemic. So, why is this particular strain of influenza a pandemic when every flu season is also a pandemic: it infects multiple people in multiple countries? Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, one of America’s most knowledgeable physicians opposing vaccine theory, states that there is technically no difference in calling this particular flu stain a pandemic threat compared to any other.9

Why is this occurring during this particular flu season? And why are we being warned of a pandemic with such urgency and warming, when prior flu seasons were not advertized as such and, nevertheless, by the vast majority known conclusive scientific indicators were much less severe than what we have witnessed with the H1N1 virus so far? Although reports from scientists around the world are starting to admit that infection rates, symptoms and mortality for this particular H1N1 strain are milder than other flu viruses.

Dr. Tom Johnson, the epidemiologist for the Cochrane Database Group, said in an interview for the German magazine Der Spiegel on July 21, 2009:

“Sometimes you get the feeling that there is a whole industry almost waiting for a pandemic to occur. The WHO and public health officials, virologists and the pharmaceutical companies. They’ve built this machine around the impending pandemic. And there’s a lot of money involved, and influence, and careers, and entire institutions! And all it took was one of these viruses to mutate to start the machine grinding.”

As of September 4, 2009, the World Health Organization has reported 2,837 deaths from H1N1 infection. The WHO report further claims 250,000 have been infected worldwide; however, these numbers are unconfirmed. The United Nations argues the number is much higher. At the same time, the UN earlier has relieved its member countries from reporting individual cases of H1N1 infection.10 The media continues to make the threat look much worse than it might actually be. For example, China, with a population of 1.3 billion people, reported 5,592 cases and no deaths. Given the enormous population size compared to the US, this is far less serious than a mild normal flu season, yet it is being reported to the world as “a grim situation.”11

However, when we look at the government’s official statistics of a normal flu season, there is no indication that the new H1N1 strain poses now nor will it pose in any foreseeable future a pandemic warranting the current extreme level of alarm. For Canada, the Canadian Medical Association Journal reports that annual flu infection kills approximately 2,500 of its citizens, and about 36,000 Americans, which is the CDC’s annual estimate. Worldwide, annual flu deaths range between 250,000 and 500,000.12

In Mexico, which first brought attention to a new H1N1 strain, there were 176 flu deaths, yet only 7 of these deaths were corroborated by laboratory analysis and confirmed to be the new H1N1 swine flu strain.13

As we enter the flu season this autumn and into winter, the Southern hemisphere is now leaving its flu season and entering spring and summer. Our officials and media appear to be ignoring the reports from the developed global South, such as Australia, and pushing forward with a media blitz, predicting a dreadful scenario that will infect millions and kill thousands of people. However, scientists and researchers in the developed South have reported that, although many were infected, the symptoms have been mild and figures for hospitalization are exceptionally low. Even global South politicians concur with scientists that the risk of a H1N1 epidemic reoccurring there is over.14

Peter Doshi, a doctoral student at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has performed a thorough comparative analysis of several flu pandemics. His conclusions, published in the prestigious British Medical Journal, predict that the H1N1 swine flu is of “the same subtype as seasonal H1N1 that has been circulating since 1977.”15 He believes we may be witnessing substantial confusion between the high public attention the present H1N1 scare is receiving and the very low level of scientific certainty that H1N1 is more severe than other seasonal influenza. Determining what influenza strains should be included in a vaccine is nothing more than a prediction. There is no true science involved, which is why there are so many instances when the flu season arrives, the viruses in the vaccine do not have a close match with the virus the scientific community had predicted. Dr. R. Neustaedter describes the methods that the CDC use to make their predictions for which viral strains the vaccine industrial complex should develop for each forthcoming flu season. Their predictive methods are bizarre when reviewed rationally.

"The history of the flu vaccine reads like one stumbling fiasco after another. Take an example. Ever wonder how the particular viruses are chosen for next year’s vaccine? The answer could be drawn from a 1930s film noir of Shanghai Villainy. Scientists kill migrating ducks in Asia, culture the viruses and put those in next year’s vaccine, because they have seen an association between bird and pig viruses and the following year’s human flu epidemics. Perhaps this desperate guesswork is responsible for so many years when the flu vaccines had nothing in common with circulating virsues.”16

How accurate have been the CDC’s predictions? For the 1992-1993 flu season, the prediction made for the virus used in the vaccine was off by 84 percent. For the 1994-1995 season, it was off by 43 percent for the primary strain targeted and off 87 percent and 76 percent for the other two strains. The Laboratory Center for Disease Control’s study comparing vaccine strains with the strains appearing during the 1997-1998 season found the match was off by 84 percent. A person might consider that it may be more accurate to simply flip a coin.

Dr. Katherin Severyn, who monitors prediction results and compares them with CDC claims, makes the comment:

“Despite the poor track record in predicting which influenza viruses will infect communities, the CDC claims that influenza vaccine is ‘approximately 70%’ effective in preventing influzenza in “healthy persons less than 65 years of age,’ if ‘there is a good match between vaccine and circulating viruses”17

Depending on the study cited, vaccine efficacy actually ranges from a low of 0% to a high of 986%. And… the CDC often finds it difficult to match vaccines with circulating viruses.18

An article published in the prestigious British Medical Journal in 2005, “Are US Flu Death Figures More PR Than Science” is apropos for addressing the wildly inflated figures by the WHO and CDC to present their case for mass vaccination measures. The article begins, “US data on influenza deaths are a mess.” The study reviews the CDC’s own statistical data and finds numerous inconsistencies and incompatibilities between “official estimates and national vital statistics data.” Although the government’s predictions never came close to the “dire outcomes” being stated by health officials, the CDC’s own communication strategy was marked by high levels of fear.19

What few people recognize is that the majority of flu vaccine programs are purchased by the US government for distribution; therefore, in the current H1NI flu predictions, the government through the National Immunization Program (NIP) will be purchasing millions of vaccine units. This is one major incentive for the CDC’s and HHS’s large media blitz upon the public to encourage flu vaccination every year. The NIP does not want to be sitting with stockpiles of unused, purchased vaccines. There is a strong financial incentive for pushing their cause for mass inoculation.

Richard Gale and Gary Null
Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • krister 2009/11/07 21:31:54
    comment
    krister
    +1
    They aren't much more than profits for the companies that make them.
  • irish krister 2009/11/07 21:32:40
    irish
    +1
    they make huge profits.
  • jayc32~just me~ 2009/11/03 06:51:44
    comment
    jayc32~just me~
  • irish jayc32~... 2009/11/03 20:24:52
    irish
    +1
    damn straight they aren't!
  • sandy60 2009/10/26 00:36:36
    comment
    sandy60
    +1
    That is the question of the day...or of this season. Because I am in health care....I had to get the flu shot..even though I don't see patients directly. I was not happy about that because I haven't had the flu in years. Luckily, a nurse in NY state filed a law suit and we now don't have to get them, meaning the H1N1. I understand back in the day (in 1975) there was an outbreak of Swine Flu and the vaccines were worse than the disease.
  • irish sandy60 2009/10/26 14:18:19
    irish
    it was good to hear that the judge agreed with the nurses. i too am in healthcare,nurse for 25 yrs,and never had a flu shot. i have seen what it does to the elderly who get one every year though.
  • sandy60 irish 2009/10/26 23:32:16
    sandy60
    +1
    What do you mean? (What is does to the elderly who get the flu shots?
  • irish sandy60 2009/10/27 18:56:28
    irish
    +1
    they get sick,pneumonia etc. they aren't sick before it.
  • Lulu 2009/10/26 00:12:06
    comment
    Lulu
    +1
    Who knows ? This is a boondoggle....might not have spelled that right....
  • DISENFRANCHISED 2009/10/25 22:54:05 (edited)
    comment
    DISENFRANCHISED
    +1
    No! They are NOT!

    http://www.pandemicfluonline....


    Flu vaccines revealed as the greatest quackery ever pushed in the history of medicine


    http://www.naturalnews.com/02...
  • irish DISENFR... 2009/10/26 14:18:42
    irish
    definitely
  • Lady Suspicious 2009/10/25 14:27:20
    comment
    Lady Suspicious
    +1
    I ♥ Disease
  • irish Lady Su... 2009/10/25 14:27:53
    irish
    +1
    masochist?
  • Lady Su... irish 2009/10/25 14:28:33
    Lady Suspicious
    +1
    Just a bit.
  • irish Lady Su... 2009/10/25 15:16:24
  • Natalie**<3 2009/10/25 14:09:37
    comment
    Natalie**<3
    +1
    I don't get them.
    My doctor usually has me get my kids them though, because they all are sick little kids, and the flu won't help.
  • irish Natalie... 2009/10/25 14:11:04
    irish
    +1
    better research this. please read the article. after my grandson almost died at 6 months from these vaccinations last year i started to research ths and am horrified that i ever got my kids these shots!
  • Natalie... irish 2009/10/25 14:13:45
    Natalie**<3
    +1
    Really?
    That's a sad thing.
    It also seems like one in a million though.
    I feel like I have to get it for my oldest, Amanda, because she has immune system problems, and the flu is not a good thing for her to get.
    My other two, Michaela and Adam, they could live without the flu shot, but doesn't it do more good than harm?
  • irish Natalie... 2009/10/25 14:18:21
    irish
    all vaccines do more harm than good. thats why i posted the article. my daughter has gotten a religious exemption and no more shots for her kids. please read up on this as i did and consider that we are doing more harm than good to our kids. even down the road these shots cause problems,10,20,or longer due to the adjuvants they add.
  • Natalie... irish 2009/10/25 14:20:04
    Natalie**<3
    +1
    I don't know I buy that though- I got all my vaccines when I was little, I turned out fine.
  • irish Natalie... 2009/10/25 14:22:56
    irish
    +1
    any auto immune disorders yet? the problem is that you may not connect them to what is wrong with you now. but research has found that diseases that were never a problem in the past are now plentiful starting with people who were among the first vaccinated. my parents and grandparents did not have any problems.
  • jayc32~... Natalie... 2009/11/03 06:56:23
    jayc32~just me~
    +1
    Mercury weakens the immune system there is mercury in flu vaccines.
  • irish jayc32~... 2009/11/03 20:25:16
    irish
    +1
    it destroys the brain.
  • jayc32~... irish 2009/11/03 20:32:47
    jayc32~just me~
    Yes it does a lot of horrible things to the body.
  • Natalie... jayc32~... 2009/11/03 21:25:07
    Natalie**<3
    +1
    Hints of mercury won't kill you.
  • jayc32~... Natalie... 2009/11/03 23:37:37
    jayc32~just me~
    +1
    There is more than a hint in the vaccines, and it is also cumulative toxin it builds up in your body.
  • Natalie... jayc32~... 2009/11/04 02:34:07
    Natalie**<3
    +1
    Peoplee haven't been dying from it yet.
  • jayc32~... Natalie... 2009/11/04 12:53:22 (edited)
    jayc32~just me~
    +1
    are you sure about that? I'm not too surprised over the general acceptance of vaccines though with what people do to their bodies every day I suppose vaccines are just one more abuse on top of many.
  • Natalie... jayc32~... 2009/11/05 20:52:57
    Natalie**<3
    +1
    When you say that, it doesn't change the fact that my daughter would die without vaccines, so I'd rather keep the vaccines.
  • jayc32~... Natalie... 2009/11/05 22:05:32 (edited)
    jayc32~just me~
    Just make sure she takes really good care of her health in other ways and since she's young her body is pretty resilient she might be able to withstand most of the toxic effects of vaccines.
  • irish jayc32~... 2009/11/06 13:29:35
    irish
    +1
    no.it is the young who are most vulnerable to the ill effects of the vaccines. they have no resistance.
  • jayc32~... irish 2009/11/06 20:55:35
    jayc32~just me~
    +1
    Yes you are right I was thinking in line of normal environmental stresses, healthy young people seem to have a good resilience in weathering those....I wasn't thinking that vaccines are not like normal environmental stresses placed on a child's body, they have no natural resistance to those and the vaccines even damage the bodies ability to withstand and recover from the normal stresses that attack the system.
  • irish jayc32~... 2009/11/07 21:27:44
    irish
    +1
    the ones who are affected by the vaccines ,adversly ,are lacking certain enzymes in the bowel that help them resist this assault on their bodies. the rest of us that seem unaffected are yrs down the road. we just never connect it.
  • jayc32~... irish 2009/11/19 13:04:08
    jayc32~just me~
    +1
    I didn't know about the lacking of enzymes...that makes sense though.
  • irish jayc32~... 2009/11/19 13:24:01
    irish
    yes it does.
  • irish Natalie... 2009/11/06 13:28:57
    irish
    why would you think that? she may die from the vaccines or worse be disabled.
  • Natalie... irish 2009/11/06 23:14:11
    Natalie**<3
    Because if she gets sick, she'll die.
    I'd rather take my chances.
  • irish Natalie... 2009/11/07 21:28:22
    irish
    from what? the human body has a wonderful immune system that is destroyed by vaccine usage.
  • Natalie... irish 2009/11/08 22:19:35
    Natalie**<3
    Unless the immune system was destroyed before hand, in which case the vaccines need to take the place of the immune system.
  • irish Natalie... 2009/11/09 00:43:14
    irish
    vaccines cannot take the place of the immune system. i see you do not understand how the body works.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/11/29 01:28:56

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals