Vaccines Harmful, Ineffective: Mainstream Studies

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: anonentity

The results of clinical studies on zinc have been mixed to poor:

Zinc -- Your body needs zinc for its immune system to function properly, so it has long been thought that zinc could help protect against catching a cold or flu. But the evidence has been decidedly mixed, with some studies finding a benefit from zinc lozenges and others showing no effect. Recently, a review of studies that compared zinc to placebo found that most of them had flaws that made any positive results unreliable. Only 4 studies were deemed reliable, and 3 found no benefit from zinc lozenges. The remaining positive study suggested that zinc nasal sprays might help reduce nasal stuffiness, but zinc nasal sprays have been reported to cause permanent loss of smell and are not recommended for use. If you do decide to try zinc lozenges for a cold, remember that getting too much zinc (more than 50 mg per day over a long period of time) can be dangerous. People taking cisplatin, penicillamine, and quinolone or tetracycline antibiotics should not take zinc.

Source: Influenza | University of Maryland Medical Center umm.edu...
University of Maryland Medical Center

Of course they would be, if everyone did the zinc they would loose a fortune. Their is no patent on all the things they say are no good, and patents on the things that they say are good . Not to strange if you follow the money.

Having said that theirs a lot of BS. out there. Its 15 mg per day during the flue season, no more no less. From personal experience, of being around people with colds and flu I've never got it when on the zinc.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
This stuff kills kids. . . . .
But seriously it should be by choice, no one should be forced to get vaccinated.

I find it amazing that people can be so willfully ignorant....

Look into the history of vaccinations, read up on small pox and how many children it killed in the last century, and how many children it kills today.

You are also making this world a worse place to live.

I can agree that during a outbreak of Polio or something similar using vaccinations might be a good response ,to stop the spread. but blanket vaccinations, will destroy immune systems. It would be a far better , to maintain healthy diets that support immune function. Then if you get a mild form of a disease, it wouldn't be life threatening. At present we are on the brink of a dietary cataclysm, where their might be no other way out than to vaccinate.

Most disease is caused by poor living conditions and food, why not tackle that problem first. But strangely thats too difficult, as it would mean a loss of income to pharmaceutical corporations.

a reply to: anonentity

Vaccination does not destroy the immune system. Stop talking nonsense.

Most disease is caused by poor living conditions and food, why not tackle that problem first.

We do both. Your argument is an example of the Nirvana Fallacy:

The nirvana fallacy is a name given to the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.[1] It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the Perfect solution fallacy.

By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another improbable solution that could in some way be better.

a reply to: anonentity

Standard conspiratorial hand waving. "The lack of evidence is evidence of a cover-up!". You can't claim that doctors use zinc to prevent flue only to cry "cover-up!" when someone bothers to research your baseless claim. Pushing your claim into a position of unfalsifiability may make you feel warm and happy but it's not going to convince anyone with half a brain.

a reply to: soficrow

For years, ATS'ers have been saying it...'they' create an annual shot which leaves people more susceptible to an artificially created pandemic strain to be released into the wild a year or two down the road.

Who normally receive an annual flu shot in the greatest numbers? The old and the weak.

Who do the Government continually moan about when talking about care costs? The old and the weak.

Who benefits?

Who else.

originally posted by: MysterX
For years, ATS'ers have been saying it...'they' create an annual shot which leaves people more susceptible to an artificially created pandemic strain to be released into the wild a year or two down the road.

Well if folk on a conspiracy website have been saying it....

Who normally receive an annual flu shot in the greatest numbers? The old and the weak.

Who dies in large numbers each winter due to flu type viruses? The old and the weak.

Who benefits?

Satan.......no wait........the old and the weak.

a reply to: soficrow

You're displaying a fairly huge lack of understanding of the matter. That's probably why literally the first reply by Prezbo shows how you're wrong.

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
This stuff kills kids. . . . .
But seriously it should be by choice, no one should be forced to get vaccinated.

I find it amazing that people can be so willfully ignorant....

Look into the history of vaccinations, read up on small pox and how many children it killed in the last century, and how many children it kills today.

You are also making this world a worse place to live.

I can agree that during a outbreak of Polio or something similar using vaccinations might be a good response ,to stop the spread. but blanket vaccinations, will destroy immune systems. It would be a far better , to maintain healthy diets that support immune function. Then if you get a mild form of a disease, it wouldn't be life threatening. At present we are on the brink of a dietary cataclysm, where their might be no other way out than to vaccinate.

Most disease is caused by poor living conditions and food, why not tackle that problem first. But strangely thats too difficult, as it would mean a loss of income to pharmaceutical corporations.

There is no consistency of logic whatsoever in that post. You cannot logically say "Well yeah sure it makes sense to use these when the disease rears its head, because they work" and then at the same time say that the vaccines you ADMIT are effective somehow "destroy immune systems." There is a serious flaw in the logic right there...

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
This stuff kills kids. . . . .
But seriously it should be by choice, no one should be forced to get vaccinated.

I find it amazing that people can be so willfully ignorant....

Look into the history of vaccinations, read up on small pox and how many children it killed in the last century, and how many children it kills today.

You are also making this world a worse place to live.

I can agree that during a outbreak of Polio or something similar using vaccinations might be a good response ,to stop the spread. but blanket vaccinations, will destroy immune systems. It would be a far better , to maintain healthy diets that support immune function. Then if you get a mild form of a disease, it wouldn't be life threatening. At present we are on the brink of a dietary cataclysm, where their might be no other way out than to vaccinate.

Most disease is caused by poor living conditions and food, why not tackle that problem first. But strangely thats too difficult, as it would mean a loss of income to pharmaceutical corporations.

There is no consistency of logic whatsoever in that post. You cannot logically say "Well yeah sure it makes sense to use these when the disease rears its head, because they work" and then at the same time say that the vaccines you ADMIT are effective somehow "destroy immune systems." There is a serious flaw in the logic right there...

I can see your point, but the truth of the matter is never clear cut, sometimes you have to cut off a limb to save a patient. In the case of polio you could get away without the vaccinations, if people lived in less dense situations and took adequate precautions, but it only takes one kid at school to cough over the rest.

I just love the shills who just read the the title -but not the opening post- and then purport to argue with the post.



Not worth the bother.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: anonentity

Standard conspiratorial hand waving. "The lack of evidence is evidence of a cover-up!". You can't claim that doctors use zinc to prevent flue only to cry "cover-up!" when someone bothers to research your baseless claim. Pushing your claim into a position of unfalsifiability may make you feel warm and happy but it's not going to convince anyone with half a brain.

Auntie gets a flue shot, she's on her back for a couple of weeks, like really sick. last winter I take 15 mg of zinc and magnesium a day, find myself in a situation where they are all succumbing to the flue. At most I might have got a mild sniffle. So don't tell me, the blah blah blahs. Have you tried it?

Why isn't anybody pointing out that the flu vaccine for 2015 is only about 23% effective, despite the cost for getting it and potential side effects and potential environmental consequences?

source: Flu vaccine proves far less effective than usual

Note the source is actually MSM using the lack of efficacy of flu vaccines to advertise anti-viral drugs like Tamiflu, which can have bad side effects on some.

a reply to: Petros312

Because 23% effective means it works 23% of the time......and what potential environmental consequences?

All medicine has side effects, ALL MEDICINE.

And you think MSM is attempting to sell medicine by telling us how ineffective their medicine is?

Learn to read read, digest and comprehend such articles before spouting and spreading more ignorance.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Why is their, an epidemic of children in the Western world, that will now go into anaphylactic shock if they eat peanuts or dairy. In New Zealand we now have some 8,000 being diagnosed every year. This scandal is about to break, and no amount of spin will stop them asking the question of "what have they in common". This thread answers that question very well. Its a very emotive one, and overrides class and financial status.

a reply to: anonentity

[citation needed]

I think the Codex Alimentarus (or whatever the name is), which say certain kinds of chemicals have to be in our food (if I am correct) in combination with the vaccinations will lower our immune system and make us vulnerable for the virus that they will spread. Don't think it is ebola quite yet.

originally posted by: Elisa24
I think the Codex Alimentarus (or whatever the name is), which say certain kinds of chemicals have to be in our food (if I am correct) in combination with the vaccinations will lower our immune system and make us vulnerable for the virus that they will spread. Don't think it is ebola quite yet.

Considering that 75% of our immune system is in our gut. Then considering that the triggers for anaphylactic shock in this case are two majors, Peanuts and Dairy. The considering that a damaged immune system, hasn't the energy to combat the toxins already in Dairy produce. The body is overwhelmed and goes into shock. If the immune system isn't compromised, then it will be after a good dose of Dairy as it will be using all its energy to combat the accruing toxins. That's my theory anyway.

a reply to: Elisa24

which say certain kinds of chemicals have to be in our food (if I am correct)

You aren't.
www.codexalimentarius.org...

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: Elisa24
I think the Codex Alimentarus (or whatever the name is), which say certain kinds of chemicals have to be in our food (if I am correct) in combination with the vaccinations will lower our immune system and make us vulnerable for the virus that they will spread. Don't think it is ebola quite yet.

Considering that 75% of our immune system is in our gut. Then considering that the triggers for anaphylactic shock in this case are two majors, Peanuts and Dairy. The considering that a damaged immune system, hasn't the energy to combat the toxins already in Dairy produce. The body is overwhelmed and goes into shock. If the immune system isn't compromised, then it will be after a good dose of Dairy as it will be using all its energy to combat the accruing toxins. That's my theory anyway.

There aren't toxins in dairy or peanuts.
Both can provoke an IgE response to the proteins in them.
It's certainly not because of a "damaged immune system".
If anything, the immune system is working harder than it should and it releases (amongst other things) a large amount of histamines which cause swelling and can have a disastrous effect on blood-pressure.
It's extremely unlikely that vaccines precede allergies such as the above as they evoke a completely different immune response.

originally posted by: Petros312
Why isn't anybody pointing out that the flu vaccine for 2015 is only about 23% effective, despite the cost for getting it and potential side effects and potential environmental consequences?

Response:

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: Petros312
Because 23% effective means it works 23% of the time...

from the CBS news article:

The report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that this season's vaccine can reduce a person's risk for a doctor's visit due to flu symptoms by about 23 percent. That's much lower than average...

When someone supports this kind of medicine for flu "prevention" you have to wonder what's the real agenda here. The vaccine's preventative power is so low it will practically do nothing.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
And you think MSM is attempting to sell medicine by telling us how ineffective their medicine is?
Learn to read read, digest and comprehend such articles before spouting and spreading more ignorance.

Errrrr... Why am I even responding to this kind of intentional misrepresentation of what I wrote? The CBS news article OBVIOUSLY is not advertising the vaccine; they are advertising TAMIFLU and other anti-viral drugs while explaining how ineffective the vaccine is. That's as pathetic as saying if you paid for the vaccine, and you happen to get the flu anyway, now you can pay for more junk to be put into your body.

Bad deal any way you look at it. Only a blind advocate for vaccinations would disagree.