Vaccines responsible for more deaths than the diseases they are supposed to fight off.

Then how do you explain the fact that SIDS has decreased with the Back to Sleep campaign.........and with more babies receiving vaccines no less?

Stats? Stats? Stats? And yes babies have been dying since the dawn of man. No kidding. I'm sure the percentage of "unexplained" deaths has gone way up hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of times since vaccines were started. Again, some babies die in their cribs from rather terrible reasons.....if only their parents would tell the truth!

[edit on 16-10-2005 by XanaX]

i'm through with this thread because you make absolutely no sense. the infant mortality rate has gone up since vaccines?????!!!!!! what?

Originally posted by XanaX
Smallpox vaccine example already given...but here it is again:

"The perils of vaccination were already known. Plain Talk magazine notes that "during the Franco-Prussian War, every German soldier was vaccinated. The result was that 53,288 otherwise healthy men developed smallpox. The death rate was high."

You mean the same Franco-Prussian War that occured from 1870-1871? Yes, I would base all my healthcare decision making on what may have happened 135 years ago.

Perhaps you'd like to dangle that "educate yourself" link again (timely edit on your part )? I would have responded to that, but I was laughing too hard...

Vaccine Monkeys, not just for surviving the pandemic anymore...

ASIP is a co-sponsor of the Back to Sleep campaign with the AAP, SIDS Alliance, NICHD, MCHB, CDC, and other PHS programs. These guidelines were developed @1994 and revised @1998 by the Association of SIDS and Infant Mortality Programs, co-authors: Kathleen Fernbach, RN, BSN; Rosanne English-Rider, RN, MHS; Mary McClain, RN, MS; and Jodi Shaefer, RN PhD. For additional information about the Back to Sleep campaign, please call the National SIDS Resource Center at (703) 821-8955 or ASIP at (410 ) 706-5062 c/o Center for Infant and Child Loss, 630 West Fayette St., RM. 5- 684, Baltimore, Maryland 21201.

Interesting that the CDC is involved in this research. Of course they won't admit to the real cause of SIDS!!....and if any of these other organizations are involved with the CDC they are just as questionable!

Originally posted by XanaX
And yes babies have been dying since the dawn of man. No kidding. I'm sure the percentage has gone way up hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of times since vaccines were started.

A concrete statement should be easily backed up by concrete and verifiable sources.

Infant mortality has increased by hundreds if not thousands in terms of percentage (deaths per "X"), due to vaccines?

I'm holding your feet to the fire on this one.

Waiting Monkeys, not just for the answer that will never come anymore...

You mean the same Franco-Prussian War that occured from 1870-1871? Yes, I would base all my healthcare decision making on what may have happened 135 years ago.

Just an example chief...if you notice one of my recent threads....there are a ton of examples from this century and mostly recent examples. Nice job trying to pinpoint one small example out of hundreds to discredit me...didn't work too well.....very poor bid....I wouldn't expect any better from you!!

Monkeys with two cents.....not even worth THAT much!

i'm through with this thread because you make absolutely no sense. the infant mortality rate has gone up since vaccines?????!!!!!! what?

I never said this....and it's not what this thread is about. Maybe that's why you're so confused.

Please document this...

quote: Originally posted by XanaX
And yes babies have been dying since the dawn of man. No kidding. I'm sure the percentage has gone way up hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of times since vaccines were started.

A concrete statement should be easily backed up by concrete and verifiable sources

No problem. Will not happen today however. Too busy to start a new project....and about to leave this evil machine!...also going on business trip for 2 days so it will have to wait until Wednesday......

Anxious Monkeys....waiting with baited breath.....

BTW....my statement is simple common sense. But I'll get your "concrete and verifiable sources" when I get back. Common sense is a beautiful thing.

Monkeys without common sense......tend to get their heads stuck in the bars alot!

There was a study in Belgium done proving that SIDS was caused by the foam in baby mattresses. It seems that the chemicals in the foam rubber react with urine and cause a sufication type situation for children when they lay on their stomachs. The mid-wives in Belgium wrapped the bed mattresses in a type of non-allergetic cover, and not one baby died of SIDS over a five year period after that when placed on their stomach.

As far as the vaccines, if you do the research, the live polio vaccine is where the issue always was. The live vaccine was the only one that brough on polio in some children. The dead vaccine had absolutely no cases of polio being brough about in children that received it. I made it a point of giving my oldest only the dead vaccine (which had to be special ordered by the doctor and was injectable, virsus the live with goes on the tongue), and when my little one was born they had already switched over exclusivly to the dead polio vaccine in the United States. This is the reason that when the live vaccine was given that you had to make sure that all of your other childrens polio vaccines were up to date as well.

It is the same way with the chicken pox vaccine. When this vaccine was made mandatory for school both of my children had to receive it at the same time, otherwise the child that didn't get would get chicken pox. Quite frankly I never understood the hype about this vaccine, since most kids only itched for a while and then were covered for life from recurring poxs. My concern with this now is that the vaccine is only good for 10 years, which means that all of these "protected" children will no longer be protected in their twenties, and chicken pox is very dangerious to adults. So instead of itches kids we will have extremely sick adults.

I didn't start my kids vaccines until they were older, and I have never had any problems with them receiving them, or with reactions to them. I waited until their immune systems were more mature, and didn't pump full of crap when they were barely born. Since asthma and exema runs in my family, and vaccines have a tendancy to bring this conditions to the surface, I waited, and thank god, neither of my kids have either illness.

vaccines bring in lots of money, so what do they care what's inside them? we're lining their pockets. there are ways to keep up an immune system and stay healthy without these things, it just isnt convienient enough. people who dont take care of themselves will naturally succumb to illness. its just another machine.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by deafence#]

i'm through with this thread because you make absolutely no sense. the infant mortality rate has gone up since vaccines?????!!!!!! what?

To clarify....I meant the "unexplained" infant mortality rates! That's what I'll be working on on Wednesday for my buddy Mirthful Monkey!!

I think this is a really interesting thread. Both sides are right, imo.

The reason I'm interested and why I think both sides are right is that some vaccinations are beneficial, while others are not. You don't hear about the ones that fail because that would be detrimental to the drug industry.

About those flu vaccines. I know a nurse, who I've closely worked with for more than 5 years, that was sure that a lot of elderly people died in hospitals as a direct result of those flu vaccinations. She, her husband and their three boys have never taken them...ever. And, she was a career nurse, not a candy striper who was involved for just a few months.

So, if a qualified nurse, with decades of nursing experience, distrusts the indiscriminate use of flu vaccinations, then, I take notice.

My own experience is this:
...where I worked had about 1000 people in close proximity on a daily basis. Every year there would be an opportunity to get a shot when flu season came around. In my particular group, (I was a supervisor for about 25 men and women) the ones that took the shot got sick more often than the ones that did not. Also, if an employee got sick who had decided against the shot, that person seemed to get over it quicker than the ones who had taken it.

Anyways, for what it's worth (1.76 cents US), that's my opinion and why I never take those flu shots.

Originally posted by XanaX
Smallpox vaccine example already given...but here it is again:

"The perils of vaccination were already known. Plain Talk magazine notes that "during the Franco-Prussian War, every German soldier was vaccinated. The result was that 53,288 otherwise healthy men developed smallpox. The death rate was high."

That was a truly sound vaccine!

Please document this fully, you seem to have a bit of difficulty resolving historical fact with your agenda.

www.strategypage.com
The German army, unlike the civilian population required vaccination of all troops and revaccination every seven years. Of the 800,000 man army a mere 8,643 caught smallpox and only 459 (5.4%) died. In France's one million man army, of whom 700,000 were taken prisoner, 125,000 men were infected and 23,470 (18.7%) died (Hopkins 1983, 90). Thus the French army lost nearly as many men to smallpox alone as the German army lost to all causes in the entire war. The French army was militarily unprepared for war, but smallpox could only have made matters worse. In one 1158 man Gardes mobiles unit, for example, over half the men developed smallpox during the war.

The French Army was not vaccinated against smallpox.

www.strategypage.com...

Also here:

www.biohazardnews.net...

And here:

www.doctorzebra.com...

And if you like Power Point presentations, here:

www.iiimef.usmc.mil...[1]%2027%20Dec%2002.ppt

Care to explain the why these historical accounts of the smallpox vaccination, and the German Army during the Franco-Prussian War is so different from yours? Could it be that what you claim is not true? Could it be that your rabid pursuit of your agenda has clouded your judgment, and your ability to post in a cogent manner?

It would lead the observer of the proceedings of this (and other threads of a similar subject) to question the validity of anything you post. Please substantiate any future claims you may make, in order to cling to at least a shred of credibility.

Thanks.

Fact Monkeys, not just for posts chock full of them anymore...

Please substantiate any future claims you may make, in order to cling to at least a shred of credibility.

I have more than substantiated any post I have ever made on here...in fact, in most cases gone well above and beyond the call of duty...because, as usual some Mods like to antagonize as you are doing here.

The "claim" regarding the Prussian war was not my "claim." It was information I obtained from a legitimate source. I posted a link to my source. I need to do no more.

edit to add: PS...if our sources disagree, so be it. Such is life. You cling to your sources and I'll cling to mine and walk off merrily in disagreement. Anyone can find conflicting sources to any topic. It's up to the individual to take the information, process it and determine what they believe to be the truth. Otherwise, there would never be a reason to argue, to debate or discuss anything.

Redundant Monkeys...better than a sleeping pill!

[edit on 16-10-2005 by XanaX]

[edit on 16-10-2005 by XanaX]

Originally posted by XanaX
I have more than substantiated any post I have ever made on here...in fact, in most cases gone well above and beyond the call of duty...because, as usual some Mods like to antagonize as you are doing here.

The "claim" regarding the Prussian war was not my "claim." It was information I obtained from a legitimate source. I posted a link to my source. I need to do no more.

You have never supported your claim regarding the German Army, the Franco-Prussian War, and the smallpox vaccine... It wasn't hard to check, you rarely support anything.

But something interesting came up while I was looking:

Maybe you’d care to explain why you copied your post on page two of this thread:

posted on 6/10/2005 at 15:20 Post Number: 1731138 (post id: 1753031)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and pasted it on page four?

posted on 16/10/2005 at 16:09 Post Number: 1748497 (post id: 1770390)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(You did screw up the "quote" tags, but it's still a copy and paste )

It’s easy to pick out the two, they’re the only ones where you have included any links to try and support your position. :shk:

Any explanation?

Just Wondering Monkeys, not just for copy and past posts anymore…

I'd also be interested in your supporting evidence for the claim that the 1918 flu was caused by the vaccine. You have repeatedly said that "medical historians" have concluded that it was. However you refuse to tell us who these historians are, or in which works they make this claim or what evidence they provide.

So I can only presume you have just made this up.

[edit on 16/10/05 by FatherLukeDuke]

ok....i have looked and looked, where did you get the information that the 1918 flu was most definitely caused by a vaccine?? besides that....where is the proof that unexplained infant deaths....are caused by vaccines???? needed vaccines are a way to keep your child healthy,oh but you say vaccines are killing more babies than they are saving. Where is this proof? I've already posted one link giving the mortality rates since 1900(which have decreased). You still haven't provided any documentation that polio,MMR,and Hib vaccines cause a lot of death. and you continue to post the same thing over and over again,like you're expecting no one to ask for more recent and different documentation. frustrating at the least.

Originally posted by malloryknox187
Then how do you explain the fact that SIDS has decreased with the Back to Sleep campaign.........and with more babies receiving vaccines no less?

Hi Mallory,

I do not believe that vaccines in any way causes SIDS, but did want to take issue that SIDS cases have statistically decreased. Earlier this year in the U.S., a study was conducted that analyzed SIDS statistics that found although SIDS rates were reported to have dropped, infant deaths overall had remained constant! The study authors found that the other reasons assigned for infant deaths (i.e. suffocation, or unknown) increased by almost the exact same amount that SIDS deaths decreased, indicating that blame was shifted away from SIDS.

U.S. Study: Recent decline in SIDS deaths illusory

Results from the study indicate a "reticence" in the industry of coroners and pathologists to pronounce a SIDS death (I'm unsure if this "reticence" is a self-applied or otherwise applied pressure to NOT pronounce an infant death to be the result of SIDS,) combined with new requirements that mandate an investigation be conducted in any SIDS death, to be the reason for the illusory SIDS decline. Investigations have uncovered additional info in cases that lead a coroner to pronounce a reason other than SIDS. In addition, the requirements say if an investigation isn't conducted, then the cause of death must be listed as "unknown."

Several other studies recently published take issue with sleep position having anything to do with SIDS, and even the woman in charge of the largest SIDS support network SIDS Alliance/First Candle remarked in response to the above article that no clear guidelines exist as to when to apply the SIDS designation.

Although the AAP continues to purport back-sleeping does reduce SIDS deaths, so much so that new updated guidelines are even more restrictive than before, I think it likely that vaccines and back-sleeping have nothing to do with the number of SIDS deaths.

i can agree with that. i think maybe SIDS has been used so long to cover such a broad range of unexplainable deaths, and now we are discovering more and able to explain these deaths better,that maybe the term SIDS shouldn't be used anymore.

I read a few websites regarding the 1918 outbreak and I would like to see what everone thinks about these websites and articles:

brojon.org
historicaltextarchive.com
wikipedia.org...
stanford.edu

I found them very interesting. The body does produce natural antibodies to fight off infection, thus causes a fever. If you reduce the fever(your body will stop trying to heal itself) you may feel better, but you will find that you relapse after a few days once you stop taking the fever reducer(I always wonderd, since I was a child, why Aspirin was taken of the market and Anicin was not, I love research). The prescriptions you take say "continue until all have been taken". Most people will take the perscriptions but once they feel better , they stop..thus relapsing and the results could be even worse then the first onset. I am no doctor, just a mom. I find the 1918 era very fascinating and amazed at how something such as a virus or whatever could cause so many people to die.