11 Shocking Things You Now Realize To Be True

page: 8
113
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


The idea that vaccines are the savior that have gotten rid of many diseases has been challenged by many doctors who claim these diseases were already on their way out. Forcing immunization I think is a stupid and dangerous thing. With the H1N1 thing, it was noticed that younger people 25 and below, had a predeliction to this flu, while people over the age of 50 seemed not to be getting it - why? Because the people over 50 had HAD the flu and had lifetime protection against it. The younger people have been getting vaccinated since birth and their immune systems had no idea how to fight off something it had never seen before because the protection from vaccines is TEMPORARY. So, it was just a matter of time before something came that no one had seen before, and to an system living on vaccines, this can be dangerous.

I hate when people say "it's irresponsible not to get vaccinated." Do these same people know that with many vaccines, the vaccinated person SHEDS the virus for 72 hours after they get the needle? THEY can stay away from ME!

And the idea that there is no correlation to autism is HILARIOUS! The correlation is so obvious, it literally frightens me that doctors and the FDA and the gov't issue statements like "no connection has been established..." when a simple graph will show one. The fact that Thimerisol goes directly to the brain and settles there should alert people to at least think about it.




posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by anywho
reply to post by projectvxn
 


How is that any different from conventional media? Just sayin...



Just because it isn't CNN doesn't mean it's telling the truth.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Thats not even the basis of all the messed up things. Did you know, that the apple juices, motts, juicy juice, etc. contain a slight variation of Arsenic, and by studies shown, have been dumbing the minds of the children that are to be? Oh, don't worry, they will be able to sit in a classroom for 12 years of their life learning nothing because all of the supposed money going to school systems, is going nowhere. Whatever happened to the science funds? oh, its going into the pockets of greedy politicians and business men. yeah. We don't care about our future, we just want to stuff our pockets and die, not caring that the world is burning to pieces.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alchemicflames
Thats not even the basis of all the messed up things. Did you know, that the apple juices, motts, juicy juice, etc. contain a slight variation of Arsenic, and by studies shown, have been dumbing the minds of the children that are to be? Oh, don't worry, they will be able to sit in a classroom for 12 years of their life learning nothing because all of the supposed money going to school systems, is going nowhere. Whatever happened to the science funds? oh, its going into the pockets of greedy politicians and business men. yeah. We don't care about our future, we just want to stuff our pockets and die, not caring that the world is burning to pieces.



Thats' misleading and that Dr OZ guy who used is it to pop up his show has been called out for it as he knew that there's two types and one isn't the big bady that goes with the name. I'm sure you knew this as well.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebtheb
reply to post by steveknows
 


The idea that vaccines are the savior that have gotten rid of many diseases has been challenged by many doctors who claim these diseases were already on their way out. Forcing immunization I think is a stupid and dangerous thing. With the H1N1 thing, it was noticed that younger people 25 and below, had a predeliction to this flu, while people over the age of 50 seemed not to be getting it - why? Because the people over 50 had HAD the flu and had lifetime protection against it. The younger people have been getting vaccinated since birth and their immune systems had no idea how to fight off something it had never seen before because the protection from vaccines is TEMPORARY. So, it was just a matter of time before something came that no one had seen before, and to an system living on vaccines, this can be dangerous.

I hate when people say "it's irresponsible not to get vaccinated." Do these same people know that with many vaccines, the vaccinated person SHEDS the virus for 72 hours after they get the needle? THEY can stay away from ME!

And the idea that there is no correlation to autism is HILARIOUS! The correlation is so obvious, it literally frightens me that doctors and the FDA and the gov't issue statements like "no connection has been established..." when a simple graph will show one. The fact that Thimerisol goes directly to the brain and settles there should alert people to at least think about it.


Everyone knows that immunisation save lives. However I'm very willing to read research from the medical world which shows different. And I mean the real medical world. Just show the way and I'll read it.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amanda5
reply to post by steveknows
 


Again you are assuming - I don't have Children.

Much Peace...


Well then enough said.
edit on 13-11-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebtheb

Originally posted by blackrain17
I know this thread isn't about vaccines but it seems as though everyone is mostly interested in this topic so let me chime in...

There are three types of anti-vaccine advocates:

1. There are people that do not understand the concept of vaccines and think that injecting diluted amounts of the actual virus is evil.

2. There are people that do not understand what causes autism and blames vaccines.

3. There are people that understand the concept of vaccines but they do not know what's actually being injected and do not like Thimerosal (preservative containing mercury) used in some of vaccines.

Please don't be that guy or that girl that chooses 1 or 2. Thank you


1. People don't necessarily think that injecting diluted amounts of a virus is EVIL, but a lot of them DO think it's pretty stupid. This "technology" has been around for barely 100 years. It has become the accepted, mainstream way of dealing with the flu. Do you know what gives you lifetime protection from the flu? GETTING it! Do you know what barely gives you one year, if that? The vaccine. Mother nature can deal with it much better than scientists and doctors. I do NOT trust vaccines because no one has proven that there aren't side effects. Any side effects that do occur are written off.

Every vaccine causes a few deaths - this is a fact. So tell me why people shouldn't be concerned? Just because a vaccine didn't kill you doesn't mean there aren't other things it may do to you in the long or short term.

Peanut allergy explosion in North America: Why not in South America too? What was different about North America? Firstly, North America pushed vaccines harder, but most importantly, in the early 90's, PEANUT OIL was in many of the childhood vaccines. D'uuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is all there in public knowledge, but people just don't want to believe it, or want to make the correlation.

So forgive me for questioning and not fully trusting vaccines. I mean, hey, if airborne Ebola was ravaging North America, and there was a vaccine - understandable. EVERY year for the flu? Stupid...


Do you know that a virus can mutate? Do you know that how well you fight any virus is up to your immune system? Do you know that flu shots are generally aimed at an age group? Do you know that because you can fight it off a 20 it doesn't mean you can do it at 50?
edit on 13-11-2011 by steveknows because: Typo



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


"Everyone knows immunization saves lives." Sure, maybe it does. As I said earlier, if some horrible deadly disease were rampant and there was a vaccine for it, that's fine. The flu is hardly a deadly disease, so to be cajoled every single year to get the vaccine for it, and in some cases it's mandatory, is going too far. I personally believe that the risks of getting a flu shot every year pitted against the risks of actually getting the flu should be considered. As much as governments, FDA and doctors insist that "there is no danger to the vaccine", there just has not been enough time or research to prove this true.

Take Gardasil, the HPV vaccine for women. Nearly 3500 young women have died from that vaccine. The makers issued a statement to the effect of (paraphrasing) "a certain amount of deaths are expected with any treatment or protocol and this falls into the acceptable minority.:" For a vaccine that DOESN'T EVEN FULLY PROTECT WOMEN FROM HPV! It protects them from literally a handful of strains that MAY lead to cervical cancer, but in most cases, clear up on their own. Then, there are STILL strains that can lead to cervical cancer that the vaccine does not protect against. And having regular pap smears should prevent women from dying from cervical cancer since if caught early, it's treatable. So WHAT is the point of this vaccine?

As I said, sure, vaccines can save lives, but my main point is that we've gone "vaccine crazy", trying to use them at all times for everything, when often, there is no need, and clear risks are minimized in the literature and outright denial of any risks is regularly practiced. I just read this article in the newspaper called "10 falacies about vaccines" One of the "fallacies" was that you can't get the flu from the shot. This is NOT true! Thousands of people have gotten the flu from the shot. Sure, it doesn't happen to THAT many people, but it happens! And to pretend it doesn't is irresponsible to the max. It's also a HUGE red flag that hey - maybe they don't have this whole technology working exactly perfectly yet.

The only way to figure out if you believe me or not is not for me to show you links or proof, but to seek it out yourself, research it, check it against other research, check the sources, etc., etc. Otherwise, no link I post is going to really sway anyone. For myself, I've seen enough.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackrain17
reply to post by steveknows
 


Let's not get crazy and tell people we need to get vaccinated for everything. Vaccine isn't a cure but a prevention. Even if you get vaccinated, you can still catch diseases you are trying to prevent. Like I said previously, vaccines should never be mandatory. You can't actually tell me what exactly is in every vaccines. This gives too much power to the government.



I don't think anyone for immunisation has said it's a cure. But you're right it is a prevention and I assume you've heard the saying?

Also I can't speak for other countries but in Australia it's only made mandatory when a % of people have died as a result of a virus. And once it's mandatory it's free. There is a list of immunisations that must be done before a child starts preschool or school and they're all free.of course more come later as some depend on age group.

It's true some people have had bad reactions to immunisations and that's one of the reasons family history is as asked prior to a shot but 99.99% won't have a reaction. So then it becomes a choice of perhaps just perhaps but not likely of .1% having a bad reaction or have no immunisation and have a virus that could go through and take out tens of thousands of people if not more.

Which would you prefer?

See people in western worlds really do have it easy and I've seen the trend thoughout this thread of people thinkng that natural defence is best, I'm not saying that that's what you've said, But people on here don't realise that in 3rd world countries people who grew up with these viruses unchecked are still dropping like flies. In fact the death rate is very high. The death rate for the western world is low because of immunisation.

The people on this thread need to stop and think about this.
edit on 13-11-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebtheb
reply to post by steveknows
 


"Everyone knows immunization saves lives." Sure, maybe it does. As I said earlier, if some horrible deadly disease were rampant and there was a vaccine for it, that's fine. The flu is hardly a deadly disease, so to be cajoled every single year to get the vaccine for it, and in some cases it's mandatory, is going too far. I personally believe that the risks of getting a flu shot every year pitted against the risks of actually getting the flu should be considered. As much as governments, FDA and doctors insist that "there is no danger to the vaccine", there just has not been enough time or research to prove this true.

Take Gardasil, the HPV vaccine for women. Nearly 3500 young women have died from that vaccine. The makers issued a statement to the effect of (paraphrasing) "a certain amount of deaths are expected with any treatment or protocol and this falls into the acceptable minority.:" For a vaccine that DOESN'T EVEN FULLY PROTECT WOMEN FROM HPV! It protects them from literally a handful of strains that MAY lead to cervical cancer, but in most cases, clear up on their own. Then, there are STILL strains that can lead to cervical cancer that the vaccine does not protect against. And having regular pap smears should prevent women from dying from cervical cancer since if caught early, it's treatable. So WHAT is the point of this vaccine?

As I said, sure, vaccines can save lives, but my main point is that we've gone "vaccine crazy", trying to use them at all times for everything, when often, there is no need, and clear risks are minimized in the literature and outright denial of any risks is regularly practiced. I just read this article in the newspaper called "10 falacies about vaccines" One of the "fallacies" was that you can't get the flu from the shot. This is NOT true! Thousands of people have gotten the flu from the shot. Sure, it doesn't happen to THAT many people, but it happens! And to pretend it doesn't is irresponsible to the max. It's also a HUGE red flag that hey - maybe they don't have this whole technology working exactly perfectly yet.

The only way to figure out if you believe me or not is not for me to show you links or proof, but to seek it out yourself, research it, check it against other research, check the sources, etc., etc. Otherwise, no link I post is going to really sway anyone. For myself, I've seen enough.



Influenza, like all virus, mutates and populations are growing. What's your answer to the situation?

Also with the HPV vaccine perhaps it's the type they're using because I don't believe there's been any deaths in Australia linked to the vaccine. How many women die from cervical cancer world wide though?

edit on 13-11-2011 by steveknows because: Add



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


The death rate is high for third world countries not necessarily because they have no vaccines, but because they have no treatment or sanitation. The reverse is true here. We have food, medical care, sanitation. There is that to consider before assuming the entire problem in the third world is absence of vaccination.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by thebtheb
reply to post by steveknows
 


"Everyone knows immunization saves lives." Sure, maybe it does. As I said earlier, if some horrible deadly disease were rampant and there was a vaccine for it, that's fine. The flu is hardly a deadly disease, so to be cajoled every single year to get the vaccine for it, and in some cases it's mandatory, is going too far. I personally believe that the risks of getting a flu shot every year pitted against the risks of actually getting the flu should be considered. As much as governments, FDA and doctors insist that "there is no danger to the vaccine", there just has not been enough time or research to prove this true.

Take Gardasil, the HPV vaccine for women. Nearly 3500 young women have died from that vaccine. The makers issued a statement to the effect of (paraphrasing) "a certain amount of deaths are expected with any treatment or protocol and this falls into the acceptable minority.:" For a vaccine that DOESN'T EVEN FULLY PROTECT WOMEN FROM HPV! It protects them from literally a handful of strains that MAY lead to cervical cancer, but in most cases, clear up on their own. Then, there are STILL strains that can lead to cervical cancer that the vaccine does not protect against. And having regular pap smears should prevent women from dying from cervical cancer since if caught early, it's treatable. So WHAT is the point of this vaccine?

As I said, sure, vaccines can save lives, but my main point is that we've gone "vaccine crazy", trying to use them at all times for everything, when often, there is no need, and clear risks are minimized in the literature and outright denial of any risks is regularly practiced. I just read this article in the newspaper called "10 falacies about vaccines" One of the "fallacies" was that you can't get the flu from the shot. This is NOT true! Thousands of people have gotten the flu from the shot. Sure, it doesn't happen to THAT many people, but it happens! And to pretend it doesn't is irresponsible to the max. It's also a HUGE red flag that hey - maybe they don't have this whole technology working exactly perfectly yet.

The only way to figure out if you believe me or not is not for me to show you links or proof, but to seek it out yourself, research it, check it against other research, check the sources, etc., etc. Otherwise, no link I post is going to really sway anyone. For myself, I've seen enough.



Influenza, like all virus, mutates and populations are growing. What's your answer to the situation?

Also with the HPV vaccine perhaps it's the type they're using because I don't believe there's been any deaths in Australia linked to the vaccine. How many women die from cervical cancer world wide though?

edit on 13-11-2011 by steveknows because: Add


What's my answer to the mutation of the flu virus? My answer is that using previous viruses to counteract a new one is essentially useless!
And again, just because there are tons of people who don't have a bad reaction does not mean they are not being affected in some way now, or later in their lives. For us "anti-vaccine" people, that is the major concern. Neurological reactions are the MOST common reactions to any vaccine, all the way back to when they were first being used in the early 1900's. The fact that no one bothers to check to see if the plethora of neurological diseases that have appeared since the late 40's just may be because of vaccines is ridiculous.

The first ever reported case of Autism was in Japan in 1948, shortly after they started putting aluminum in the vaccines. Decades later, aluminum poisoning has been linked to Alzheimer's, another neurological disease. In the 20's, 30's and 40's, people did notice some vaccine reactions in children to be restlessness and screaming. Decades later, the explosion of ADD is not questioned - it's just treated with drugs. Where did it come from? The Swine Flu vaccine in the late 70's paralyzed 500 people with yet another neurological disorder. That flu killed ONE person.

I personally believe that if you honestly research the entire timeline of vaccines, you'd be simply illogical not to conclude that the neurological implications alone of vaccines need to be questioned and researched. Especially when people are being vaccinated against diseases that will simply run their course and not kill them.
edit on 13-11-2011 by thebtheb because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Check out this timeline/history of vaccines. While clearly put together by someone biased against vaccines, many of the "facts" are checkable and interesting.
www.aspires-relationships.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">www.aspires-relationships.com...[editby ]edit on 13-11-2011 by thebtheb because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by thebtheb

Originally posted by blackrain17
So forgive me for questioning and not fully trusting vaccines. I mean, hey, if airborne Ebola was ravaging North America, and there was a vaccine - understandable. EVERY year for the flu? Stupid...


Do you know that a virus can mutate? Do you know that how well you fight any virus is up to your immune system? Do you know that flu shots are generally aimed at an age group? Do you know that because you can fight it off a 20 it doesn't mean you can do it at 50?
edit on 13-11-2011 by steveknows because: Typo


No Value in Any Influenza Vaccine: Cochrane Collaboration Study

It's always safer to look for a study that hasn't been funded by the industry itself, otherwise the information simply cannot be trusted. This is where the International not-for-profit organisation the Cochrane Collaboration are priceless!

The Cochrane Collaboration Study of Influenze Vaccines for the 18-65 age range proved that they are pretty much a waste of time, they found cases of severe harm caused by vaccines in spite of inadequate reporting of adverse effects.

They also found that the Flu Jab for the Elderly is a waste of time and money Influenza Vaccines: Poor Evidence for Effectiveness in Elderly

The immune systems of over 65's just don't respond in the same way to vaccination.

However, the flu jab greatly increases the risk of Alzheimer's disease according to one of the world's leading immunogeneticists and 13th most quoted biologist of our times Alzheimer's and vaccination

So, there we have the science telling us that the Flu Jab is even worse than pointless as it can lead to Alzheimer's disease.

This is ATS, so now it's time to look for the conspiracy; is the Flu Jab in reality an injection that is designed to send us towards Alzheimer's, thereby ensuring that the wealth we have saved up over our lifetimes is pushed back into the system i.e. Care Homes etc. This reduces inheritance and helps to push more middle-age sons and daughters out to work, instead of allowing them to benefit from the wealth/savings of their parents. It also makes the Pharms more money from Alzheimer's drugs.

Though there are exceptions for certain individual's depending on their circumstances, the overall trend would be reduced inheritance and the greater need for son's and daughter's to continue to submit to employment (paying taxes etc). Given that the Banksters and the same people who own the UN also own and control the Pharms, it would fit in quite nicely to keep their assets (people) working for as long as possible. Could this be the true purpose of this seemingly pointless jab that is given to the elderly; to strip them of their lifetime earnings before they die, so as the next generation have to start from scratch?
edit on 13-11-2011 by jameshawkings because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Also with the HPV vaccine perhaps it's the type they're using because I don't believe there's been any deaths in Australia linked to the vaccine. How many women die from cervical cancer world wide though?



If they really were interested in preventing Cervical Cancer, they're targeting the wrong age group. It is women over 40 who are most at risk of Cervical Cancer, but it is the teens who are being jabbed. Cervical cancer is commonest among the over 50s yet the jab only protects for up to 5 years Some studies showed protection for up to five years

Also, it turns out that vaccination isn't the best method of protection and that it doesn't protect against all types of HPV that are associated with Cervical Cancer

www.womenshealthspecialists.org...


The majority of cervical cancer cases and deaths can be prevented through detection of pre-cancerous changes in the cervix using the Pap test. Because cervical cancer is so rare and since current vaccines do not protect against all HPV types that are associated with cervical cancer, monitoring for pre-cancerous changes with the Pap test can provide protection against cervical cancer.


So, not only are they going for the wrong age group, but also the vaccine is not the best method of protection as it doesn't always work. What are they up to in reality? Why would they be interested in going for teen girls, but not the over 50's, what is the key difference? Fertility! This is it, we all know that the Elite/Bankers have regularly been quoted and filmed admitting that they want the population dramatically cut down. The easiest why to do this is to target the fertile women, as UNICEF have done in various third world countries under the guise of 'vaccination'
UNICEF Nigerian Polio Vaccine Contaminated with Sterilizing Agents Scientist Finds

Former population control official affirms Philippine vaccine scandal

Massive Brazilian Vaccination Raises Suspicions of Covert Sterilization Program

That is the reality of the worldwide HPV vaccination program, it's a large-scale fertility reduction program. The HPV vaccine makes it incredibly difficult for women to go full-term with a pregnancy. I know doctors who are already confused about what's going on, I've heard a number say "Why are there so many women having miscarriages and multiple miscarriages?" The doctor's know something is not right, but most aren't yet aware of the culprit.

There is another vaccine that's also being used to reduce our future numbers, the Swine Flu vaccine, it contains Polysorbate 80 which damages developing ovaries. This is why they target young children (under 5's) and pregnant women (they are actually targeting the developing ovaries of the unborn females). This is a different tactic to what is being used on the teens with HPV. Polysorbate 80 In Swine Flu Vaccines = Infertility In Humans They make more money by giving it to boys and girls, the scam is also less obvious than if they were just going for the girls.
Also please note, orally consuming Polysorbate 80 will not damage developing ovaries, it is only when it bypasses out protective mechanisms that it can damage ovaries that are not yet fully developed. Injecting us with it does just that, and the Polysorbate 80 slowly makes it's way into the blood. The companies protect themselves by writing the following on the insert (check it out for yourself) "has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility."

edit on 13-11-2011 by jameshawkings because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
I stopped reading after the vaccine, dont they know what a vaccine is, they give you a weakened version of the virus in order to build up a resistance to it so when the full blown version comes along, your body can defend it.

It doesnt means its true just because someone posts it on a website.


That's funny how you completely only believe one side of a story


I guess in your world corruption and evil doesn't exist in the FDA or any medical institution.

I bet if NASA announced that the world is actually flat you would be the first one to applaud and say YES THAT'S RIGHT YES.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by anywho
reply to post by projectvxn
 


How is that any different from conventional media? Just sayin...



Just because it isn't CNN doesn't mean it's telling the truth.


No point in trying to argue with these babies. They've been spoon fed news and info from mainstream media all their life. That's the only way they can learn. Three cheers for FOX news!



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jameshawkings

Originally posted by steveknows

Also with the HPV vaccine perhaps it's the type they're using because I don't believe there's been any deaths in Australia linked to the vaccine. How many women die from cervical cancer world wide though?



If they really were interested in preventing Cervical Cancer, they're targeting the wrong age group. It is women over 40 who are most at risk of Cervical Cancer, but it is the teens who are being jabbed. Cervical cancer is commonest among the over 50s yet the jab only protects for up to 5 years Some studies showed protection for up to five years

Also, it turns out that vaccination isn't the best method of protection and that it doesn't protect against all types of HPV that are associated with Cervical Cancer

www.womenshealthspecialists.org...


The majority of cervical cancer cases and deaths can be prevented through detection of pre-cancerous changes in the cervix using the Pap test. Because cervical cancer is so rare and since current vaccines do not protect against all HPV types that are associated with cervical cancer, monitoring for pre-cancerous changes with the Pap test can provide protection against cervical cancer.


So, not only are they going for the wrong age group, but also the vaccine is not the best method of protection as it doesn't always work. What are they up to in reality? Why would they be interested in going for teen girls, but not the over 50's, what is the key difference? Fertility! This is it, we all know that the Elite/Bankers have regularly been quoted and filmed admitting that they want the population dramatically cut down. The easiest why to do this is to target the fertile women, as UNICEF have done in various third world countries under the guise of 'vaccination'
UNICEF Nigerian Polio Vaccine Contaminated with Sterilizing Agents Scientist Finds

Former population control official affirms Philippine vaccine scandal

Massive Brazilian Vaccination Raises Suspicions of Covert Sterilization Program

That is the reality of the worldwide HPV vaccination program, it's a large-scale fertility reduction program. The HPV vaccine makes it incredibly difficult for women to go full-term with a pregnancy. I know doctors who are already confused about what's going on, I've heard a number say "Why are there so many women having miscarriages and multiple miscarriages?" The doctor's know something is not right, but most aren't yet aware of the culprit.

There is another vaccine that's also being used to reduce our future numbers, the Swine Flu vaccine, it contains Polysorbate 80 which damages developing ovaries. This is why they target young children (under 5's) and pregnant women (they are actually targeting the developing ovaries of the unborn females). This is a different tactic to what is being used on the teens with HPV. Polysorbate 80 In Swine Flu Vaccines = Infertility In Humans They make more money by giving it to boys and girls, the scam is also less obvious than if they were just going for the girls.
Also please note, orally consuming Polysorbate 80 will not damage developing ovaries, it is only when it bypasses out protective mechanisms that it can damage ovaries that are not yet fully developed. Injecting us with it does just that, and the Polysorbate 80 slowly makes it's way into the blood. The companies protect themselves by writing the following on the insert (check it out for yourself) "has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility."

edit on 13-11-2011 by jameshawkings because: (no reason given)




Conspiracies conspiracies everywhere. How many sexualy active females there under 40?

You make no sense.

A female is more likely to contract it at young age and then suffer from it in later years. You reallly needed that explained to you?
edit on 14-11-2011 by steveknows because: typo



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by thebtheb

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by thebtheb
reply to post by steveknows
 


"Everyone knows immunization saves lives." Sure, maybe it does. As I said earlier, if some horrible deadly disease were rampant and there was a vaccine for it, that's fine. The flu is hardly a deadly disease, so to be cajoled every single year to get the vaccine for it, and in some cases it's mandatory, is going too far. I personally believe that the risks of getting a flu shot every year pitted against the risks of actually getting the flu should be considered. As much as governments, FDA and doctors insist that "there is no danger to the vaccine", there just has not been enough time or research to prove this true.

Take Gardasil, the HPV vaccine for women. Nearly 3500 young women have died from that vaccine. The makers issued a statement to the effect of (paraphrasing) "a certain amount of deaths are expected with any treatment or protocol and this falls into the acceptable minority.:" For a vaccine that DOESN'T EVEN FULLY PROTECT WOMEN FROM HPV! It protects them from literally a handful of strains that MAY lead to cervical cancer, but in most cases, clear up on their own. Then, there are STILL strains that can lead to cervical cancer that the vaccine does not protect against. And having regular pap smears should prevent women from dying from cervical cancer since if caught early, it's treatable. So WHAT is the point of this vaccine?

As I said, sure, vaccines can save lives, but my main point is that we've gone "vaccine crazy", trying to use them at all times for everything, when often, there is no need, and clear risks are minimized in the literature and outright denial of any risks is regularly practiced. I just read this article in the newspaper called "10 falacies about vaccines" One of the "fallacies" was that you can't get the flu from the shot. This is NOT true! Thousands of people have gotten the flu from the shot. Sure, it doesn't happen to THAT many people, but it happens! And to pretend it doesn't is irresponsible to the max. It's also a HUGE red flag that hey - maybe they don't have this whole technology working exactly perfectly yet.

The only way to figure out if you believe me or not is not for me to show you links or proof, but to seek it out yourself, research it, check it against other research, check the sources, etc., etc. Otherwise, no link I post is going to really sway anyone. For myself, I've seen enough.



Influenza, like all virus, mutates and populations are growing. What's your answer to the situation?

Also with the HPV vaccine perhaps it's the type they're using because I don't believe there's been any deaths in Australia linked to the vaccine. How many women die from cervical cancer world wide though?

edit on 13-11-2011 by steveknows because: Add


What's my answer to the mutation of the flu virus? My answer is that using previous viruses to counteract a new one is essentially useless!
And again, just because there are tons of people who don't have a bad reaction does not mean they are not being affected in some way now, or later in their lives. For us "anti-vaccine" people, that is the major concern. Neurological reactions are the MOST common reactions to any vaccine, all the way back to when they were first being used in the early 1900's. The fact that no one bothers to check to see if the plethora of neurological diseases that have appeared since the late 40's just may be because of vaccines is ridiculous.

The first ever reported case of Autism was in Japan in 1948, shortly after they started putting aluminum in the vaccines. Decades later, aluminum poisoning has been linked to Alzheimer's, another neurological disease. In the 20's, 30's and 40's, people did notice some vaccine reactions in children to be restlessness and screaming. Decades later, the explosion of ADD is not questioned - it's just treated with drugs. Where did it come from? The Swine Flu vaccine in the late 70's paralyzed 500 people with yet another neurological disorder. That flu killed ONE person.

I personally believe that if you honestly research the entire timeline of vaccines, you'd be simply illogical not to conclude that the neurological implications alone of vaccines need to be questioned and researched. Especially when people are being vaccinated against diseases that will simply run their course and not kill them.
edit on 13-11-2011 by thebtheb because: (no reason given)


Sigh. No. What is your answer to controlling infections from all viruses in a growing world population?



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by thebtheb
reply to post by steveknows
 


The death rate is high for third world countries not necessarily because they have no vaccines, but because they have no treatment or sanitation. The reverse is true here. We have food, medical care, sanitation. There is that to consider before assuming the entire problem in the third world is absence of vaccination.


No because it blows the arguement out of the water that we can get by without immuniations. These people grow up exposed to these viruses yet they still drop like flies. Going on some of the arguements against immunisations in this thread should these 3rd world people not be getting sick? Shouldn't these viruses not be killing them because shouldn't they have a defence?

Yet when the WHO does immunise these people the death rate drops.

The math talks for itself.





new topics
top topics
active topics
 
113
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join