NLBS #35: The Anti-Vaccination Movement and the Measles Outbreak

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Pardon?

It costs a hell of a lot more to treat a child with complications from measles than the vaccine

So why does Pharma rely on the US govt to set up a fund for adverse reactions complications. Surely that risk should be carried by the Corps/shareholders?

Ask Barbara Loe Fisher, the queen of the anti-vax brigade.
She helped set it up.
Ask all of the lawyers who are involved in srewing you out of your tax money by inventing fake issues (and in some cases even filling out a VAERS form for you...and in some cases sending false VAERS reports in...).
That should give you a bit of a hint.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: elementalgrove

Funny you should mention Bayer. According to new research the so called 1918 flu epidemic may have been caused by overuse of aspirin.


foodfreedom.wordpress.com...

People were killed by common bacteria found in the upper respiratory tract, according to research uncovered by F. William Engdahl:

“The 20 to 40 million deaths worldwide from the great 1918 Influenza Pandemic were NOT due to ‘flu’ or a virus, but to pneumonia caused by massive bacterial infection.”

The NIAID press release did not, however, address what caused the bacterial infections, but research by Dr. Karen Starko does. She implicates aspirin, dovetailing with the NIAID research on pneumonia from massive bacterial infection, and goes further in also explaining the extreme rapidity of death:

“Mortality was driven by 2 overlapping clinical-pathologic syndromes: an early, severe acute respiratory distress (ARDS)-like condition, which was estimated to have caused 10%-15% of deaths (sequential autopsy series are lacking); and a subsequent, aggressive bacterial pneumonia “superinfection,” which was present in the majority of deaths.”

order family medicine herb seed pack In looking at reports of those who died, two distinct groups became readily apparent to Starko, based on a very distinctive time frame from health to death:

1. People who died of pneumonia from a bacteria infection became sick and things deteriorated at varying rates from there to death; and

2. People who died so astoundingly fast that those deaths became a classic part of the frightening legend of the 1918 “flu” – people perfectly well in the morning and dead within a matter of hours.

In both groups, aspirin is now the likely causative agent.

"According to new research..."
The article you posted is from 2011.

Aspirin has a negligible effect on the immune system however bacterial pneumonia is common in people who have contracted influenza.
www.ijidonline.com...(12)00036-7/abstract?cc=y

It was caused by a specific and very virulent strain of flu virus, not aspirin.
www.sciencemag.org...

Some people will believe anything.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Your biggest clue that they are jacking with us about the need for vaccines is them using the term "HERD" to describe all of us. nwo at its peak.

Good lord, you're insane

a reply to: UmbraSumus

It is quite simple. If we control the people coming and going then it is all that we need to do. As xtzero showed some people travel all over th world. Those are the type that would spread such diseases. This is like debating using a five point harness in cars rather than a seat belt. One can avoid an accident alltogether by safe driving in many cases but i a not gonna stay home just because there are other cars on the road. I will take my chances in life.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Pardon?

Not so.

The incidence would decline and decline rather rapidly in fact.

If you really want to know if this is true or not, it takes a little effort to do the historical research.

The information is out there, some has been collated for us, but it can be found and compared yourself if you feel those who have produced collated proof are somehow massaging the stats to suit their arguments or agendas.

Look at stats from the turn of the 20th century until the time when mass vaccination programmes took root during the 1960's..look at infection rates in the wild specifically, pre-vaccination era.

You'll quite quickly discover that the recorded stats were in very sharp decline from 1900 onwards, due to natural immunity of populations...until the vaccinations started, where the stats show very sharp RISES in infection cases.

The real information is there for anyone to discover, in black and white...the information is not open to interpretation, it is simply fact.

The majority of childhood viruses were dying out but were effectively brought back by the vaccination programmes, the data shows this to be so.

80%+ of all reported 'Flu' is NOT influenza. Yet, the vaccine given yearly to people is simply called the 'Flu shot'...not you'll notice, the 'influenza shot'.

'Flu', naturally considered by most rational people as a contraction of the word 'Influenza' is not in reality any such contraction. It is a non-specific infection, categorised by 'influenza like symptoms', but often nothing to do with actual Influenza virus infection.

Many causes are attributed to the 'flu', such as bacterial infections, allergies, toxic reactions and others, but are not, in the large majority of cases, caused by the 'influenza virus' strains.

What is the 'flu shot' for then, containing several inactivated (supposedly) strains of actual 'Influenza', when 80%+ of 'flu' is NOT caused by such strains, but are caused by multiple other vectors described above?

It's a scam, a huge, very profitable (for all concerned, except those saps rushing to get their 'flu shot' of course) money making exercise.

But, do check those records i spoke of...most people would be very surprised to find out the truth of this, which flies contrary to everything we've been programmed to think about childhood viruses.

The upshot is mass vaccination programmes are the causal factor as to why these viruses are still with us, and not because people are increasingly abandoning vaccination...the vaccines themselves and the way they have been overused en-mass is the cause of the viruses remaining, much like the wild and irresponsible overuse of antibiotics in Humans and livestock is responsible for the increase in bacterial infections, and the creation of so-called 'super-bugs' which are causing us problems until we learn to deal with them more effectively than handing out increasingly ineffective antibiotics like sweeties.

The solution to the problem in other words, IS creating the problem.

Show me these "stats" you're citing and we can move from there.
The reason I ask is that the ones I see pretty much show the incidence to be more or less plateau-like except for the odd dip and spike.

This part's quite bizarre..

"80%+ of all reported 'Flu' is NOT influenza. Yet, the vaccine given yearly to people is simply called the 'Flu shot'...not you'll notice, the 'influenza shot'.

'Flu', naturally considered by most rational people as a contraction of the word 'Influenza' is not in reality any such contraction. It is a non-specific infection, categorised by 'influenza like symptoms', but often nothing to do with actual Influenza virus infection.

Many causes are attributed to the 'flu', such as bacterial infections, allergies, toxic reactions and others, but are not, in the large majority of cases, caused by the 'influenza virus' strains.

What is the 'flu shot' for then, containing several inactivated (supposedly) strains of actual 'Influenza', when 80%+ of 'flu' is NOT caused by such strains, but are caused by multiple other vectors described above?"

I really don't get what you mean there.

Can you show me anywhere at all where the official or generic name for the influenza vaccine is "the flu shot"?
www.patient.co.uk...

Do you mean that 80% of people who think they have the 'flu don't actually have the flu?
You're probably right. Most people only have a bad cold.
Real influenza makes you bed-bound and is extremely unpleasant at best.

Or do you mean that 80% of people who have tested positive for influenza (also known colloquially as the 'flu) don't have the 'flu?
If so then the test must be wrong.
Is that what you're suggesting, that the test is wrong?

The rest is just badly copied and pasted gobbledegook.

Must.
Try.
Harder.

originally posted by: research100

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: theNLBS

I reserve the right NOT to have mercury injected into me or mine.

ETA: Oh, and who the hell brought up Jenny McCarthy? Not me.

take a good look at the amount of mercury in that shot...that amount is the same amount a baby gets EVERY DAY from breast milk...EVERY DAY>...get a clue

I think the person who needs to get a clue is the person suggesting that drinking something like Mercury and having Mercury injected directly into your blood stream are in the same ball park.

People have a serious distrust for Big Pharma for good reason.

The testing done on these new vaccines to see their effectiveness is laughable and the data is completely eschewed (intentionally so) not to mention the other questionable ingredients in these concoctions is unknown a lot of times even to the doctors pushing these drugs onto new borns.

Are any of you aware besides Mercury there are animal cells in these vaccines?

How about human fetal tissue? Wonder where that comes from???

People have a right to object to anything being put through direct injection or any other form into their children's bodies.

And despite the other sides argument I still think it's a valid claim that if vaccines did work the only people who need worry are those not vaccinated otherwise your admitting they don't work. So again where is the point to this other than using every generation as big pharmas Guinni pigs.

If all it takes is a few "nut jobs", who don't want their children injected with Mercury, monkey kindney cells, bovine cells, human fetal tissue, aluminum, and other toxic and/or bizzarre ingredients, to make this whole herd immunity thing breakdown then I think it's time to replan the whole strategy.

Diseases that afflicted us in the early 1900's and before were rampant because of how dirty we had become as a civilization.

They were not wiped out due to vaccines, they were wiped out when we started using better cleanthliness habits.

This is the glaring fact that big pharma wants you to overlook and instead accept the idea that vaccines ended dieseases (which given the number of people vaccinated this is obviously not true considering the current outbreaks and who were affected; that is those who received vaccines and those who did not)

I thought this site was about denying ignorance not embracing it.

If you like vaccines and think they work good for you. But what is good for you is not necessarily something others want to endorse. It's really scary to see people raving that they know what is best for EVERYBODY and the rest who aren't in step need to get in line.

These vaccines currently are not forced at the barrel of a gun.....YET

It will not remain this way for long. We are getting to a point where you will be forced by law to have your child injected with whatever the federal governments health dept, AMA, CDC, and FDA call safe and neccessary.

[heavy sarcasm] I mean when have any of those groups ever led us astray on a topic such as this? [heavy sarcasm]

I beleive in freedom of choice on this subject, the touchy one that it is.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Pardon?

How do populations "develop natural immunity"? Oh yeah, by getting the disease.

Precisely.

Exactly the same way our species and every single other species on this planet managed to fight off infections naturally for millions of years.

You imagine we are only able to survive infectious diseases since the 1960's when the vaccinations started then?

Natural immunity is infinitely superior to artificial, vaccine derived immunity...both in effectiveness and levels of immunity.

The fact that our species managed to both survive and fight off infections, well enough for our populations to expand and swell, progress through the myriad stages of our development BEFORE the 1960's is a glaring and stark testament to this inescapable truth.

Far from 'saving us', the advent of mass vaccination during the 1960's and beyond has endangered us by allowing these viruses, which were well on the way to the bottom of the graphs and charts over a 60 year period, to come back and survive and prey upon us now we have largely lost our stronger, more effective natural immunity to the greatly inferior vaccine method.

Until we reach a point where levels of natural immunity are at similar levels among the populations of the pre-1960's era, we will see these viral infection 'clusters' pop up all over, and once we reach the level we were at before vaccines ruined the whole natural immunity levels, we will once again see the graph stats heading for the floor and the prevalence of infection drop right off to almost nothing.

Bad, in fact, very bad for pharma and government bottom lines, but very good for the health of people.

ETA: Incidentally, since you are accusing me of essentially being dishonest and not speaking for myself, i am making it quite clear i have copied and pasted absolutely nothing in these posts, these are my own words, typed by my own fair hands..if i paste anything, i always use quotes and a link to the source, as you ought to know is part of this websites' T&Cs.

An apology from you wouldn't go amiss, i have to say...but i won't hold my breath.

I take it you've not looked at the population numbers then?
Here's a graph to make it easy for you.
www.paulchefurka.ca...

Here's some graphs, words and number for you.
www.eoearth.org...

And no, no apology.
You do copy and paste.
Very poorly I might add. I mean, at least try to keep the writing styles and grammar similar.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: UmbraSumus

It is quite simple. If we control the people coming and going then it is all that we need to do.

I am afraid that is not quite so simple a proposition.

a reply to: kykweer

I will type this slowly so that you can understand it. This is a conspiracy theory website. Therefore, I expect to see on ATS non main stream ideas and crazy sounding conspiracy theories. If i wanted to hear whatever the government or the powers that be wanted to shove down my throat then I would watch the news.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

There's going to be an amount of mecury ingested or breathed in during a lifetime. The amount in the vaccine s
just won't matter.

We breath air everyday all day, try injecting some into your body and see how that works out for you. Never ceases to amaze me how people argue why we should be injected with poisons, same insane argument people make for justifying sodium fluoride in our drinking water.

a reply to: TsukiLunar

Not an Ebola vaccine! Say it ain't so! Now I can't catch Ebola! Evil scientist!

No vaccine will prevent you from getting sick, period!

originally posted by: UmbraSumus

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: UmbraSumus



It is quite simple. If we control the people coming and going then it is all that we need to do.

I am afraid that is not quite so simple a proposition.

Simple in concept and by educating and reacting it can be done. It is much safer than trusting old nazi tech. weilded in an underhanded attemp to herd us all into whatever they choose next. it worked in the winter with ebola and has worked in other countries well.

I really don't know what to believe on this, and indeed, many issues. In instances such as this, I have to employ "Plan B" reasoning, which involves asking myself a few logical questions and coming to the most sensible conclusion.

Basically, if you don't want to risk your child getting these diseases, get them vaccinated. If you feel the risks associated with the disease are not worth the "known" risks of getting vaccinated, then don't. If all I needed to consider were these, and I could trust that the vaccination did what it is purported to do, then the Polio/Menangitis/Hepatitus/TB vaccines would be given, the MMR vaccine would be a 50/50 decision and the Influenza vaccine would not.

The problem arises with the "unknown" risks of getting vaccinated. Back when I was a kid, afflictions such as Autism, ADHD, Asthma, Eczma, Peanut Allergy, etc. were virtually unheard of. Nowadays, it's common that children suffer from at least one of these. No doubt, there are other factors at play, such as processed foods, pesticides and lifestyle changes, but there seems to be a striking correlation between the incidence of vaccinations and the growth of these ailments. I can't help but think this correlation means something? As a result, the 50/50 decision to vaccinate for MMR in the previous paragraph, would become a "No" based on this correlation.

What about the "herd" immunity argument? I fail to see how protecting a few people who are predisposed to getting MMR regardless of measures to prevent it warrant the "unknwon" risks of mass vaccination. Basically, I feel that more harm will come from the side effects of mass forced vaccination, than from the unvaccinated minority. Whether those side effects be death, severe reaction from the MMR suite of diseases or seemingly unrelated afflictions such as Autism, I make no distinction.

There are risks associated with every action. Many risks we take are preventable - at a cost. Don't drive and you'll reduce the risk of a car accident. Don't fly and you'll reduce the risk of plane crash. Don't speak and you'll reduce the risk of retalliation. Are the costs of doing these things worth the outcome? That's the question.

As we clearly see by the recent outbreak vaccinated people still get measles. So even if everyone is vaccinated there will still be large out breaks if we judge by current numbers being vaccinated is not really a credible factor in if you get sick or not but other factors are. exposure, prevention, treatment is the best way to handle such with normal folks but in cases of travel other steps may be needed.

If we had treated the current measles outbreak the same as we did the ebola outbreak then the numbers would be very much lower. Why are all the pro vaccine crowd that claim child abuse not taking the same measures with this as they did the ebola? I think the answer is to be able to have talking points to push more vaccines and push for mandatory vaccinations.

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

There's going to be an amount of mecury ingested or breathed in during a lifetime. The amount in the vaccine s
just won't matter.

We breath air everyday all day, try injecting some into your body and see how that works out for you. Never ceases to amaze me how people argue why we should be injected with poisons, same insane argument people make for justifying sodium fluoride in our drinking water.

It takes between 40 and 300 milliliters of air to be lethal when injected depending on where it is injected.

That's one of those fun facts to know when you want an analogy to have meaning.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Depends on where it is injected also. Just a tad in the right place and you are history. Way less than 40ml

Some people could get the job done with just the needle

a reply to: deadeyedick

Depends on where it is injected also

Try re-reading my first sentence in my post.

40 is what it would take if it was injected directly in the left ventricle of the heart.


Yes, I looked it all up before posting.

8% of Human DNA comes from viruses

Should we allow a strain of viruses inside us even if we otherwise wouldn't of been infected by it our entire life?
Could it get to the point that total eradication of a virus never comes forth because of vaccination and the way we could assist viruses to mutate trough our DNA?

Knowledge can bring more questions than answers...

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: deadeyedick

Depends on where it is injected also

Try re-reading my first sentence in my post.

40 is what it would take if it was injected directly in the left ventricle of the heart.


Yes, I looked it all up before posting.

Try re-reading what the other user said.

It definitely depends on where you inject it!
40-100 millimeters is not a scientific conclusion, just what a few highlighted cases results were.

Air entering into the blood stream through injection (any amount)creates a bubble. This bubble can be harmless and just pass through like nothing ever happened.

On the other hand , if the air bubble reaches an artery or the brain it can cause an embolism, stroke, or even death.

I also looked up what I wrote before posting so don't worry.

Getting back on topic, the main point of their correct analogy, similar to what I also posted above, is that in spite of a compound seeming to be non harmful when put into the body in one manner when administered in another manner it can be dangerous to the point of being lethal.

Don't know how you missed the point on that one but I can reiterate it another way.

We breathe oxygen every day, however if oxygen is injected into the body it can cause death. This is irrefutable, the nazis even used it as a way to kill people to save face not to mention costs.

Now again back onto the topic at hand, yes Mercury and aluminum are naturally occurring elements that find their way into our bodies in all sort of fun ways, however directly injecting them into our bodies is a whole different ball game than injesting some in our food.

And to be even clearer here, we are not talking about injecting me, a fully grown adult male with something like that, we are talking about injecting defenseless newborns sometimes only days old with a chemical cocktail that not one of us in here would knowingly put into our bodies under any circumstances given a choice.

We have known about the dangers of mercury for a while now.

The really crazy part is when you start comparing autism as we know it today to what we use to just call plain old Mercury poisoning.

The similarities between the two are shocking!

a reply to: ControlledChaos

No, I really do like the comparison but lets clear this up. 40 to 300 milliliters is the scientific conclusion. The minimum needed by directly injecting into the left ventricle of the heart is 40 milliliters in fact recent findings have said it is 50 milliliters. You can continuously inject less than 100 milliliters per second where a patient survives. I am sure you looked up a document mentioning 100 milliliters and failed to recognize that was per second. This maxes out at 300 milliliters.

It is interesting because there is a thread on ATS about this very thing. Keep in mind this is injections this doesn't apply to decompression it is important to make that distinction. Injectable arteries/veins one would generally use on the human body lead back the heart, not the brain. The arteries leading from the heart remain deeper inside the body.

But I digress.

Now as to why I like your analogy it is probably different from you but far more accurate. Air most certainly can be fatal in the right quantities, however you could inject an entire syringe full into a human and they would be fine same as the injection from a syringe of vaccine in the human body is perfectly fine.