Vaccines again...,

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
define " safe " its not a trick question - but please define " safe "

the context of this question arises from a " popular " anti vaxxer notion that because vaccines are not demonstrated to be 100% risk free - then thier use should be eschewed

this is a blatant nirvarna fallacy

one poster has - for reasons that defies logic cited peanuts - so a parrallel question - are peanuts safe ?

PS - peanuts are neither a nut [ they are a legume ] and are not poisonous [ to humans ] they CAN be allergenic [ and yes there is a diference that is understood by the scientifically literate ]

Oh wow, peanuts are a legume, I hope you get a gold star from your teacher, have bright shiny Apple clever boy

So tell me, what's a safe level of formaldehyde for a new born baby, can you guarantee it?

Clever boy, a legume, oh wow, you better go do a few quiz nights, irrelevant, "look at me I am clever" seldom goes astray at quiz nights

originally posted by: FissionSurplus
a reply to: Phage

You mean by not allowing unvaccinated children to enroll? Good. It means fewer kids will get sick.

But if they're vaccinated, they shouldn't get sick, so......there's a big hole in the vaccine theory right there.

But then the argument shifts to 'protecting those who cannot be vaccinated for various reasons' (a very small minority), ignoring the fact that it should be on them - those who have (or care for those who have) weakened immune systems - to protect themselves (those in their care), not force everyone else to inject toxic chemicals into their bodies in the hope that it will somehow make them a little safer.

"Herd immunity" has never been fully proven,

Actually, the overwhelming evidence is that the theory of herd immunity only applies in populations who get sick/recover naturally.

Any protections provided by vaccinations - setting aside for the moment the fact that their efficacy has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt - are admittedly (even by those pushing the vaccines) inferior, in most cases vastly inferior - to the immunity achieved when exposed to the disease naturally.

but I have a child who caught a raging case of the measles from the MMR vaccine (the doc said, "Whoops, guess that was a bad batch") and now suffers from GI-related issues, and will for the rest of her life. Had I known then what I know now, I would have NEVER allowed her to be shot up with it.

My heart goes out to you.

The MMR is one of those shots that has proven to be a real problem.

It is also one of the ones that sheds, and therefore anyone who receives it should be forced into quarantine during the shedding period.

I think the science with vaccines is shoddy.

Or even non-existant and/or faked/misrepresented.

I understand you disagree. I worked with autistic children in intake, and read hundreds of medical records. EVERY ONE of these children started their autistic symptoms after their set of toddler shots, which now is a ridiculous amount, shocking considering their immune system is still immature and their brains are still forming. The doctors I worked with admitted that the apparent cause and effect from vaccines to autism was too strong to ignore.

And those who quack about 'any links between vaccines and autism have been proven false' are so woefully uninformed it is ridiculous.

There have apparently only been TWO vaccines tested for any correlation to autism, and out of the 35 ingredients contained in those TWO vaccines, only ONE ingredient (mercury/thimerosol) was tested in those two tests.

Anyone that knowns or learns this, and continues claiming that links between autism and vaccines have been disproven, is either a pharmaceutical industry shill, or one of those poeple who simply cannot entertain the thought that they may have been lied to about something so big.

What is the saying about the size of the lie, and how often it is repeated?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy
But there are some people who cannot be vaccinated (allergies) and the fewer sick people they come into contact with, the less likely they are to get sick.

So it is on THEM to protect THEMSELVES, and limit their contact with others.

Also, see above, there is evidence that vaccination can reduce the severity of symptoms if someone does get sick after being vaccinated.

More bogs 'evidence' from tests that are designed to only show what those testing want the tests to show.

Sorry, until vaccines undergo true placebo controlled testing, any/all 'evidence' from any/all 'tests' is totally without merit.

Or... were you unaware that there are no placebo controlled tests of vaccines?

In all currently cited vaccine 'tests' (or 'studies'), the 'control group' was given the exact same vaccine, minus the 'virus' component, meaning, the placebo control group received a shot containing all of the adjuvants and other material contained in the vaccine. In the tests supposedly disproving the link to autism, the control group received injections minus only the thimerosol/mercury. Everything else in the vaccine was present in the shots received by the control group.

How anyone can claim tests like this are true placebo controlled tests is beyond me.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: GetHyped

Irrespective
I never made any difinitive statements, I just linked a page and hilited some statements from that page
Mon To Glon made a definitive statement
I don't see why you think anything you say should be relevant to me in the circumstance, unless being a hero is your motivation.

He doesn't have to answer the question, maybe he may like to
I am sure he/she doesn't need your help

You would have to answer that question by Ignorant_Ape to know my answer, it's why I do not have to answer it (I know the answer...you have to answer it yourself to know why we rolling our eyes).

Are you again missing the ~% of bullets kill part(you quoted that part..)? Then you would know nothing I said was definitive.

PS;

I'm not going to argue, debate or discuss with you - We provide proof, you scream empirical evidence, god, diamonds made in trees, 6000 years old, be arrogant, insult, then you will say that you can twist a definition to how you want it to fit - You will lie to try and look like you win then act arrogant and yell like a child.

You are beyond reason.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
1 what is the NATURALLY occuring level of formaldehyde in the body of a human ? [ pick a body mass ]

2 - what is the mass of formaldehyde in a vaccine dose typically given to a patient [ of the body mass you chose for Q1 ]

3 - explain why you still think formaldehyde in vaccines = unsafe

Can you not understand that there is a huge difference between:

a) a substance that is produced naturally in and distributed throughout the body in miniscule amounts over extended periods of time, and

b) injecting any amount of the same substance directly into the body in one dose and all in one location.

?

a reply to: tanstaafl

Can you provide figures and sources for your claims or are you simply speculating from a position of ignorance?

I would have thought that the posters so sure about these harmful effects would at least be able to answer some basic questions about chemistry and biology. Or perhaps not...

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: Barliman

Yup, and I couldn't feel any prouder for my country then I am now for that!

It takes one brave country to start before the others start looking at the example and doing them same.

Stalin would be proud.

originally posted by: GetHyped
So, yeah, it is a legitimate concern for those of us who refuse to inject toxic chemicals into our babies.

I see you're from the "Literally make nonsense up as you go along" school of discussion.
What are you saying I made up?

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Can you not understand that there is a huge difference between:

a) a substance that is produced naturally in and distributed throughout the body in miniscule amounts over extended periods of time, and

b) injecting any amount of the same substance directly into the body in one dose and all in one location.

?

You and the OP are never going to ask the question by ignorant-ape, we can see that now, let me give you the figures you lack:

No, there isn't a huge difference between your point a) and b) because the level of formaldehyde produced naturally in the body is more than 100 times higher than the minuscule amount found in vaccines.

Formaldehyde is also highly soluble in water and tests have shown 99.98% is removed from the injection site within 30 minutes; it is metabolized (broken down) in the muscle.

There have been many tests that have shown the safety of formaldehyde in vaccines, here is one of them which will give you dosages and metabolic rates:

Pharmacokinetic modeling as an approach to assessing the safety of residual formaldehyde in infant vaccines

Impossible to do, because there have never, ever been any true, placebo controlled testing done on vaccines, at all, period.

There are thousands of tests on vaccines available online for your to read....... vaccines are the most tested drug in the world.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

So you are telling me that you know the dose of formaldehyde in vaccines is safe for all babys born and injecting it into them on day 1 wont cause any issues at all.

Yes, some of us have studied and understand science, see my reply above.

What happens when the allergy kids contract a disease because they cant be vaccinated? Do any die? Does their disease get treated? Do some get cured? Are they then immune after recovery?

Do vac-allergic kids get excluded in schools/society too? Why is it acceptable for an unvaccinated vac-allergic kid to go to school but not a non-allergic unvaccinated kid? Does one pose more of a risk to others than the other?

Apologies for the barrage of questions peeps, I have no knowledge of such things so please reply in layman's terms.

a reply to: Azureblue

Really cool, thanks.

a reply to: Phage

It's sort of a catch-22 system, school says they must be to attend school and then school is not compulsory but then there is always homeschooling but how many parents can afford to stay home or hire someone to homeschool?

A friend was busting her ass to pay for daycare or basically pre-K the cost of that basically took her entire pay-check. In a climate where very few men want to stick around or even have children, and then trying to take abortion off the table really leaves woman's hands tied into a life of poverty.

Why go off in a tangent of sorts? Because it is all connected together in some way to keep a profit stream always flowing.

While I don't think old diseases are a good idea coming back around... over time evolution builds a resistance, the same way scarlett fever didn't effect Europeans having evolved or grown immune to it, and yet the natives of the Americas were pretty SOL having no immunity.

Over population and a constant pad the ground in nurture instead of nature when profit is really the number one concern when really looking at many things it becomes a fit to be tied situation.

Not to mention running out and getting antibiotic injections or medicine every time one gets sick only makes that not work after a while... science going to stay ahead of the game on it? Nature moves much faster with things like MERSA and other super bugs since we have "supplemented" our immune systems to such a weak state in a sense reversing evolution of the species not having to adapt to those things.

There's many studies about all the anti-bacterial business actually making us more sick and susceptible than we have ever been to pathogens... the same filth that Europeans lived in making them very tolerant or resistant to scarlet fever etc. but didn't kill them? Was a very good thing although maybe not to the nose or the eye not enjoying the look of squalor but if it wasn't for the silverware and silver cups of the aristocracy? The black plague would have kicked them in the dirt just as easy.

So while no one really wants spreading of illness; it has it's ups and downs all it's own on both sides of the issue.

a reply to: tanstaafl

The part where you posted what you posted. You know, the whole forced at gun point thing.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I agree with you totally.

I think America is a wonderful country, beautiful place...but i wouldn't live there if i was paid to, purely because of the Governments victimisation of Parents who choose to exercise their rights and their duty to protect their own children, but choosing not to pump them full of very shady chemicals, viral shell debris and adjuvants / adulterants.

Their Children, their responsibility and choice. Although, apparently the US state seems to think they have control over it's citizens own flesh and blood.

No...i wouldn't choose to live in a quasi-dictatorship like that, and subject my kids to that filth.

Both of my kids are happy, healthy, kind and are at the top of their respective classes, with my oldest passing both exams to gain entry to Grammar school, my other set to follow on too.

Not ONE vaccination, ever has been shoved into them and never will be.

I genuinely pity you Yanks, it's as though your kids are not your own, but instead they are profit generating machines for big pharma and the truck loads of tax the US government rakes in at the expense of your families.

a reply to: MysterX

I am not anti vaccine, I am pro knowledge and parent having a full understanding of what's in the vaccine
We have people here on this thread making it just about formaldehyde and ignoring other chemicals. Who knows formaldehyde and other chemicals cocktail in a new born could cause any reaction.
But it's turned into a formaldehyde argument
If parents think vaccines are important then that's great, just think they should be educated

Me personally, not into new born babies, that's asking for trouble, imho

Formaldehyde is a toxin, it's a small dose, not worth the risk in a new born

Each to their own as far as I am concerned, sadly the pro vaccine dictators have a different opinion. They want to force it on parents and those parents children, that's wrong

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Who knows formaldehyde and other chemicals cocktail in a new born could cause any reaction.

Who knows? We all know thanks to thousand of trials and tests done on vaccinated children, and thousands of tests done comparing the health of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children.

Tests done all over the world, UK, Germany, Argentina, Canada, Australia, Philippines, Nigeria,you name it. I can post a few here if you want to, seeing as you say to be pro-knowledge.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
but some how - with only the WHO vaccine program being the " variable that was changed " - rinderpest was erradicated

how [ if not vaccine efficiacy ] ?

First, citing one possible example of success with one vaccine for cattle. not humans, does not automatically equate to a general 'vaccine efficacy' for humans, especially infants and small children.

Each and every vaccine/disease is a totally separate and individual case/study.

So, maybe that one case was actually a real case of a successful vaccine/vaccinations program. Personally, I'd like to see the list of ingredients of the vaccine. I'll wager it doesn't have most or all of the toxic chemical soup of ingredients that the ones we use here have (mercury, aluminum, etc).

Regardless, it sure as hell doesn't automatically mean that the dozens and dozens of vaccines given to children every day are safe and/or effective.

For the record I have always maintained that I believe that vaccines have the POTENTIAL for being effective, in some cases and under certain circumstances.

BUT...

Are you unaware of just how willing both of these entities are to to experiment on people without their knowledge or consent, even to the point of killing them?

Sorry, but I simply will never, ever trust our government or big pharma with this kind of power over my body and the bodies of my children.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
b) injecting any amount of the same substance directly into the body in one dose and all in one location.

?

Let alone, injecting said amount into the body of a tiny newborn with a 'virgin' immune system.

originally posted by: Agartha
There are thousands of tests on vaccines available online for your to read....... vaccines are the most tested drug in the world.

Sorry, but you fail to grasp the way vaccine studies are done.

They do NOT use true control groups. The control groups they use still receive the vaccine, just minus a single ingredient. For it to be a real control, they would have to receive a simple saline injection.

Also, the studies are done by the pharmaceutical companies themselves. The CDC just takes their word for it.

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Who knows formaldehyde and other chemicals cocktail in a new born could cause any reaction.

Who knows? We all know thanks to thousand of trials and tests done on vaccinated children, and thousands of tests done comparing the health of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children.

Tests done all over the world, UK, Germany, Argentina, Canada, Australia, Philippines, Nigeria,you name it. I can post a few here if you want to, seeing as you say to be pro-knowledge.

Agartha
Please pay attention

Thanks
Just a few grabs
Did you know that vaccine manufacturers run their own safety studies?

That the government passes these drugs based on those studies?

That vaccine manufacturers are protected from legal action for any harm their supposedly ‘safe products’ do?

Why have we entrusted the safety of millions of children to the oversight of a group of people whose sole focus is making billion dollar profits?

realnewsaustralia.com...


Yet you say you have what
"I can post a few here if you want to, seeing as you say to be pro-knowledge."

Please do, prove the link wrong, please