It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is it Time to Ban Vaccines Once and For All?

page: 17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 05:57 AM
ElisaTest Proof from extraordinary people is not the same as scientific consensus.

The important point to realize is that it's actually easy to manipulate 'scientific' experiments. Researchers follow the funding, when a Capitalist Corporation pays for research e.g. "Prove our vaccine is safe" it's actually an investment, if you prove it's unsafe, they'll throw your study in the bin, cross you off their list of researchers, and go to another researcher who'll produce the desired results. These results can then be used for marketing. This is not real science.

It's the same as what we see happening with 'Climate Change', there's a bottomless bit of money available to fund it, the people who 'Prove' it get the money, those who disprove it will not get the money. Eventually every country will be paying Carbon Taxes to the World Bank, so the investment will pay off. The Bankers wanted any excuse for a global tax.

Big Phama is effectively a religion, most followers BELIEVE it is based on real science, unfortunately it not, it is based on funding as investment, to 'prove' whatever is profitable and to 'disprove' anything that is not.

Lots of honest scientists are trusting the results of the 'Checkbook Research' that they read, they are having their views manipulated by fake results. If a scientist speaks out about what's going on, that can mean the end of their career, as we've seen so often in the past. Whoever holds the money holds the power.

We desperately need tracking in place after vaccinations, but Big Pharma will not do that as it would be the end of vaccines, they know that. They have no interest in tracking what will result in them losing $Billions.

We should keep to the facts, nobody needs to be a vaccine specialist to see what's going on, the truth can be seen here in clear view, only the most brainwashed won't see that. Hopefully a lot of those who were initially disagreed with this thread will now be starting to open their minds up to new possibilities.

posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 06:02 AM
They do have tentacles everywhere. So true, it's hard to enjoy our lives without good health, and like you say, general health seems to be taking a downward turn.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by Rubinstein

It may be getting harder to suppress, but they're hitting us from so many different directions its almost impossible to assimilate it all. The health aspect is the most important thing, though, because without our health nothing else matters much and it seems to me that over the course of my lifetime people have been gradually weakened in almost every way possible.

posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 06:12 AM
nixie_nox: Do you even know the definition of pandemic? And UM...the first flu pandemic was in the 1500s. The vaccine was developed in 1930. I think you need to do more research.

You'll find that fourthmeal was talking about the most recent 'Pandemic', the one where the WHO changed the definition of the word Pandemic just before it was released.

nixie_nox: I don't think all vaccines are created equal. Everything is absolutes on ATS. Its either all good or all bad. I do not like the MMR vaccine, I do not believe in forced vaccinations. I think the flu vaccine is fine. And do think people should get it considering how rampant the flu is.

Yes, some vaccines are a lot worse than others. The safest vaccine is the one that's never used. Apart from that, there are VIP vaccines, without the preservatives. I agree with you that MMR is one of the worst, the single shots with at least 2 weeks apart are infinitely safer.

Flu is not something that anyone in good health should be worrying about. If you're eating well, getting exercise and daylight, you won't have a problem. The flu vaccine rarely even works, for example, with the Swine Flu vaccine we were told it would work on 1 in 4 from official statistics, but as a rule if they're marketing says it's 25% likely to work, the reality will be a lot less.

Vaccine study reveals influenza vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults

"A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine."

edit on 26-4-2012 by Rubinstein because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by ElisaTest


I’m sorry to have to say this, but arguing medical theology with a diehard believer in scientific “theory” is akin to arguing religious theology with a priest. Both the scientist and the priest require absolute devotion to their particular doctrine or he is deemed a heretic because he does not possess knowledge or training that can compare with the secret teachings of the desciples. One claims to be saving your life and the other, your soul, but neither can provide verifiable proof of the efficacy of their doctrine or methods.

In the case of vaccine safety and efficacy, you demand proof that they are, or can be, harmful but when proof is laid out before you, you go into denial mode ~ no amount of proof is satisfactory and even qualified specialists who claim these drugs are not safe are ridiculed as ignorant buffoons. However, when the doubters demand proof OF vaccine or drug efficacy you say “it is safe because we, the learned ones, have all these degrees and we have written and studied peer reviewed journals that say it will save your life and we know more than you do, so there.”

There is a problem with that: people are not test tubes, they are individuals who react differently to chemicals injected into their bodies and even to the foods they ingest. There is no one size fits all. That’s why there are dozens of different drugs at different strengths for say, high cholesterol, and when the doctor reviews the lab results he might prescribe any one of them with the words, “try this”, usually with absolutely no warning of potentially deadly side effects or contraindications. If that’s scientific, I’ll eat my shirt.

In the case of vaccines, it truly is presented as a case of one size fits all, most often with no blood chemistry workup or even a basic history and physical for guidance. For example, people line up on the sidewalk in front of the grocery store for flu shots and when its their turn they simply roll up their sleeves and grimace a little ~ to be protected from maybe one strain of the flu. Well, that’s a chemical compound and neither the vaccinated person nor the person giving it have any way of knowing how that compound will interact with other prescription meds that person is taking or affect medical conditions he/she may have. Its 100% faith based.

Yes, I agree that the natural state of humanity has altered over time and that our bodies have undergone major changes from decades (and longer) of medical experimentation, methods of food production and many other factors. Is this to say that once you get on the wrong road you must continue to travel down it even when the pavement turns to ruts in the dirt and you run up against a rock wall? There are no alternative directions to travel? Well yes, in this case there are many, however the medical establishment and its empowerment agents in the insurance industry and government do everything imaginable to marginalize and silence them.

The profit motive and the ridiculous costs of approving a drug/vaccine, alone, should be a red flag to anyone, within or without the medical industry, that something is wrong. Fortunately, as new studies come to light, more individuals, even within the medical establishment, are reacting to that red flag.

But die hard believers go on protecting and promoting those who profit from drug manufacturing who are not even minimally scrutinized by regulators, which is yet another red flag. Warnings have been put out by whistleblowers from within the industry and many of them have suffered great consequences for it. People have been injured and many have died. Lawsuits have been settled and many are ongoing. How many red flags must be put in front of you before you slow down and look to see where you’re going?

posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 12:55 PM
Following scientific theory blindly like a religion is in oxymoron in itself. The two topics cannot be more different, yet people love to equate the two. The belief that vaccines adversely affect the health of people or are given with ulterior motives is a belief that cannot be proven until the scientific community and the general public comes to a consensus through study. Do you know what reminds me of religion; the argument against vaccines, with all their selected references/ quotes, the supposed superior understanding and blind acceptance through information told to people, NOT LEARNED OR THROUGH FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS, the belief that no vaccines will save us all as opposed to a bunch of highbrowed scientists constantly studying BOTH SIDES TO THE ARGUMENT.

I have read an absurd amount of posts saying that scientists work under a veil only to appease the higher powers and thus publish proof not detrimental to their capitalist ventures, yet at anytime, one can google scholar articles about possible health effects of vaccines, recreational and medicinal drugs, fluorinated/ nitrated tap water, etc, and on the very first page, one finds all the names of the researchers involved, no pseudonyms, no ghost writers, just real names. Its laughable to think that scientists are afraid of publishing with their real names when in reality, every scientist strives to contribute individually and be recognized for their discoveries. Its a scientist's job generally to write a thesis every so often and thus prove their monetary worth to their company, so pretending not to write one is financially costly. I know someone will argue that Big Pharma pays off everyone involved to keep their mouth shut or lie, but does anyone realize how many people are actually involved in such studies? Do you know how many similar studies are made? Do you know how much Big Pharma has to potentially pay to keep something a secret? Their medicine costs pennies to make, and are sold with large mark up values but do you know the reason? Many people will point to greed, and yes there is profit to be had,which is usually seen through patents, ones which expire and thus must drive the price up initially. People do not understand that medicine takes years of study, requires special materials, qualified employees to research and develop, is then scrutinized for public inception, etc. Each intermediate step costs millions of dollars and in the end could mean life or death, thus incurring LARGE INVESTMENTS. How are people who spend their entire lives studying, researching, and working supposed to get their money back and be rewarded for their endeavours (profit)? With LARGE MARKUPS.

Anybody involved in the scientific community should understand that anything published, whether it be for vaccines or against, is intensely scrutinized by the GLOBAL community, whether it be capitalist neighbours, or socialist rivals thus keeping in check outliers. Therefore there is no monopoly being controlled by Big Pharma, instead lies a fragile oligarchy where if an advantage to expose competitor dishonesty to the public is present, then it is assumed to be taken, if everyone believes we live in a capitalist society.

It is an oxymoron to believe that a capitalist society is ruled through monopoly, and it is a fallacy to believe that no one wants to compete in a trillion dollar industry.

posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 04:35 PM
reply to post by ElisaTest

First of all a question: was the fluorine comment a typo or were you testing me to see if I’m paying attention? I’m sure you know fluoride is the negative ion of fluorine and that water containing fluoride is health threatening. Please keep in mind that this comes from someone with a family member who was treated by a POISON Control Center for a very severe reaction to fluoride following a dental treatment. As for nitrite in the tap water, that also has been known to cause serious illness and even death, so one wonders what the benefits of either chemical might offer to offset its dangerous potential as an addition to our drinking water. Anyone who still believes that industry and government agencies take the public’s welfare seriously with regard to the clean water act is seriously deluded.

But back to the subject at hand: the comparison is not an oxymoron, just the phrase “scientific orthodoxy” puts a religious slant on it. And the closed and insulated temples of higher learning and experimentation add to that impression. Then there is the natural hesitance of scientists to introduce new findings or discoveries that conflict with the established orthodoxy because pushing those studies forward will negatively impact their reputation within the scientific community. And it will also potentially endanger the personal expense and years of study they put into their own careers. I suspect that you know that.

As to the costs involved in obtaining the degrees necessary to be inducted into the temple, that is part of the problem and it goes well beyond medical schools and major pharmaceutical laboratories. Funding drives curricula and too much of it is provided by Pharmaceutical companies. it is no different than a major news outlet curtailing the news it reports so as to avoid alienating major advertisers. I have personal experience with that, as well.

If we lived in a truly capitalist country, small drug companies would be popping up all over the place, attempting to provide better products at lower prices. Crony capitalism is what prevents that from happening.

posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 08:16 PM

You appear to have joined ATS specifically to debate in this thread, even the username is tailored for it i.e. an ELISA Test can be used to detect substances that have antigenic properties.

We don't have any history on you, but at the same time you set me up as a 'respected foe' early on, which could suggest you know how to use this forum well.

I know what I think, but I have no way of proving it.

Anyway, back onto topic. I judge Big Pharma by their actions, not by their words. For me this is the best way to judge people/companies and understand where their priorities lie. The people who are easiest to manipulate and lie to are those who focus on words, even when the actions they witness betray the words. From your posts, if they are your honest beliefs, you seem to have a very nice view of the world and Big Pharma...but what about the actions of Big Pharma that have been discussed in this thread? Bayer knowingly selling HIV contaminated products? When Merck found Cancer-Causing SV40 in the Vaccines, one of the guys told Dr Hilleman to keep it quiet so as not to put the public off vaccines. What about when the Council of Europe declared that the Swine Flu outbreak was 'one of the greatest medical scandals of the century'. Dr Wodarg said: 'We have had a mild flu - and a false pandemic.'

These are not conspiracies! Do these not test the faith you have in the industry? Why is it that when the not-for-profit internationally renowned and INDEPENDENT Cochrane Collaboration test flu vaccines, their studies show that

"there is little scientific proof that inactivated influenza vaccine is safe and effective for children and adults"

they also said the vaccines should be suspended in all infants and children until more studies have been conducted, and that

"the majority of published influenza vaccine studies were methodologically flawed with selection biases, confounders and heavy reliance on non-randomized studies."

So when someone independent comes in to see what's actually going on, instead of the companies testing their own products, it changes from "Our product is great, it tested really well!" i.e. Marketing talk, and becomes "This is pointless and we don't even know if it's safe".

This is the difference once we have independent testing, we need independent testing on all Big Pharma products before they can be recommended and released.

Do you have no doubts at all in Big Pharma. Specifically what do you think about Bayer knowingly selling the HIV-contaminated products, would you ever trust Bayer again after this?

edit on 26-4-2012 by Rubinstein because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 08:31 PM
reply to post by frazzle

First of all, the inception of fluorinated tap water differs from country to country, state to state, even in municipalities because the public is caught in a battle between mass hysteria and science. Every little potential danger with fluorinated tap water is magnified by the the paranoid because they do not understand the full mechanism of ion and micro/macro molecule interactions. Did you know it has been scientifically proven that 100% of people that have ever existed, that drank water or have come into contact with, have all died? We should ban water right? The fact of the matter is, most of the brightest minds today still do not understand the full effects of fluoride in tap water, but what is understood STATISTICALLY AND SIGNIFICANTLY PROVEN is that the reduction of dental carries correlates to the consumption of fluorinated tap water in scientifically calibrated moderate concentrations (which vary from national consensus to WHO calculations, but everyone has their own opinion right?). For the greater good, fluorinated tap water is chosen to stem the tide of cavities, something so easily preventable yet afflicts and endangers the lives of so many who cannot afford a dental hygiene regiment. Not only can fluorinated water protect against cavities, but it also assists the public in meeting their recommended intake of the element FLUORINE, similar to IODINE added to salt.

I hope the little comment about NITRATE was a typo as well. No government or scientific corporation knowingly adds NITRATE to water sources because there are no known benefits as you have implied. The government regulates nitrate levels through filtration, as the main sources of nitrates in groundwater comes from farm runoff or basically from something called the nitrogen cycle, but basic information isn't important for conspiracy theorists right, just useless educated person dribble that cannot be used for anything right?

posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:30 PM
reply to post by ElisaTest

So here we have just one more oral "vaccine" that consumers cannot opt out of because somebody says its good for our teeth and everybody must drink water, your snide mockery aside.
Excerpts from the Scientific Literature - Recent Surveys of Water Fluoridation/Tooth Decay: "This study assessed the relationship between dental caries and fluorosis at varying fluoride levels in drinking water. Methods: Subjects were followed from birth with questionnaires every 3-4 months to gather information on fluoride intake. 420 study subjects received dental examinations at age 5 on primary teeth and at age 9 on early-erupting permanent teeth... Conclusions: Fluorosis prevalence increased significantly with higher water fluoride levels; however, caries prevalence did not decline significantly."

SOURCE: Hong L, Levy S, Warren J, Broffit B. (2006). Dental caries and fluorosis in relation to water fluoride levels. ADEA/AADR/CADR Conference, Orlando Florida, March 8-11, 2006.

Matter of fact, the entire site is loaded with scientific evidence showing there is no dental health benefit from fluoridated water.

In another study, samples were collected by the New York State Department of Children’s Health from 1994 through 1998.

Researchers concluded that the fluorosilicic acid-treated water was equal to or worse a contributor of blood-lead levels as old house paint.

Dr. Roger Masters of Dartmouth College, PhD, Head, Foundation for Neuroscience & Society said these preliminary findings correlate the fluorosilicic acid water treatment and behavior problems that are due to known effects of lead on brain chemistry.

Additionally, a study in Germany showed the fluorosilicic acid water (SiFs) may inhibit the enzyme cholinesterase which plays a key role in regulating neurotransmitters.

“If SiFs are cholinesterase inhibitors, this means that SiFs have effects like the chemical agents linked to Gulf War Syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome and other puzzling conditions that plague millions of Americans,” Masters said. “We need a better understanding of how SiFs behave chemically and physiologically.”

Last March, Dr. Masters testified before New Hampshire legislators in favor of the Fluoride Product Quality Control Act. The bill would put the SiFs to a series of tests, and perhaps further research on neurotoxicity and behavior.

“If further research confirms our findings,” Masters said, “this may well be the worst environmental poison since leaded gasoline.”

The EPA admits it has no data on the health and behavioral effects of SiFs.
See more at:

What a paraniod loonie this PhD must be.

You were the one who initiated the commentary about “fluorinated/ nitrated tap water, etc,” and although I had never heard of nitrites being added to water prior to your statement, I gave you credit for knowing something that I did not. Good job.

My apologies to Rubenstein for hijacking the thread.

edit on 26-4-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 03:12 AM
reply to post by frazzle

In the scientific community, the only sources credible are those found WITHIN scholarly journals. They are peer reviewed and highly scrutinized and subject to investigation. If published, it is because the findings are truthful in the sense that it may be repeated with consistent results but are subject to change pending future discoveries. Any student pursuing scientific degrees are ridiculed if their sources of proof are from BIASED, NON ACCEPTED, UN-REPUTABLE organizations/ WEBSITES.

(example - highly biased yet dumb enough to post a study that shows fluoride plays dominant role in the decline of carries - )

(example - an ecological conservationist haven that has great information on compost toilets and have even published a book about this, no sh*t - )

Scientific information garnered from uncredited websites is liable to contain information not suitable for study and reference because it can be made biased or misleading as opposed to scholarly journals which is open to criticism.

Here's a little secret that university students learn when assignments involve journals:
Its Google, but searches key words in scholarly journals/ articles. Its NOT the best, but its the easiest, fastest and most accessible to the GENERAL PUBLIC. To my knowledge and personal experience, students attending university have free, open access to all scholarly databases published globally. Although the general public do get to read the ABSTRACT/ SUMMARY, most of the time, the entire journal requires a fee to view/ obtain.

By typing in GOOGLE SCHOLAR; FLUORIDE WATER DENTAL CARIES, the first couple of pages yield articles with a majority, if not CONSENSUS that properly monitored fluoride levels in community water DOES SIGNIFICANTLY CORRELATE TO LOWER DENTAL CARIES or at the VERY least PLAY AN IMPORTANT PART in dental hygiene.

I tried looking for the first source referenced "Dental caries and fluorosis in relation to water fluoride levels" in google scholar and found the worst scholar journal I have ever read in my entire life, possibly because the information was taken from a CONFERENCE and possibly attended by ONE SIDED ANTI-FLUORINE PEOPLE.
And if this was sourced from a real journal, where is it? You would think a proper scholarly journal would be published properly.

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE WHEN PEOPLE POST INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT OR HOW IT WORKS OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT SUPPORTS THEIR ARGUMENT SOMEHOW. Do you know the complete mechanism of SiF disassociating in water and its effect on human health, because according to the proof provided, no one else does. I was trying to look for journal information about SiF's but the information is poorly understood, studied, and difficult to follow, which is why I cannot argue against it because if I do not fully understand it, then what gives me the right to use the information in persuading others? Why do people blindly post information with no understanding of the subject other than what is read? If scientists that are for vaccinations and fluorinated tap water are lying to you, then the exact argument can be made for the people against them.

BTW, when referencing journals, be careful with the words, MAY or NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION, especially if the RESULTS or DISCUSSION is given, and be mindful that a proper student of science always scrutinizes EVERY little piece of information so take it as a compliment that I invest so much time in finding holes in other peoples' arguments.

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 03:18 AM
reply to post by Rubinstein

I am sorry for not replying to the earlier post with the BAYER/ Vaccine scandal sooner, for I was a little preoccupied with another post and other activities, but I will try to respond as soon as I can and keep the discussion going.

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 06:40 AM
frazzle: My apologies to Rubenstein for hijacking the thread.

On the contrary frazzle, you've been saving me a lot of time, you are putting the points across very well. Also I'm very interested in the links you've posted. I'm strongly against fluoridation, I even use fluoride-free toothpaste

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 07:14 AM

Originally posted by ElisaTest
reply to post by Rubinstein

I am sorry for not replying to the earlier post with the BAYER/ Vaccine scandal sooner, for I was a little preoccupied with another post and other activities, but I will try to respond as soon as I can and keep the discussion going.

ElisaTest, there's no rush, take your time, forums can be very time-consuming

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 07:34 AM
Interesting site

A hundred years ago less than 1 in 1000 people died of cancer. According to the World Health Organization ‘Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide and accounted for 7.6 million deaths (around 13% of all deaths) in 2008. Deaths from cancer worldwide are projected to continue to rise to over 11 million in 2030.’

“If I am able to help only one cancer sufferer to escape the excruciating and inescapable pain of death caused through treatment by ‘orthodox methods,’ I have done something worthwhile.”
Maurice Natenberg, author of ‘The Cancer Blackout‘

‎“Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with at least two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person.” Dr. W.B. Clark of Indiana/1936

“It would seem impossible for a rational mind to conceive that a filthy virus derived from a Small Pox corpse, the ulcerated utter of a cow or the running sores of a sick horse’s heels and cultivated in scabbed festers on a calf’s abdomen could fail to have disastrous effects when inoculated into the human body.” Dr. Beddow Baily, 1936

‘No hospital admissions for gastric cancer or peptic ulcer were recorded prior to 1800 (based on inpatient records of the last two centuries from four hospitals in Scotland and three US hospitals). Hospital admissions for gastric cancer increased in an exponential fashion throughout the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century…occurrence of gastric cancer, gastric ulcer and duodenal ulcer markedly increased during the 19th century.’ – refer to ‘Abstract’ tab

“The war against cancer will continue to fail. Avoidable cancers will continue to become commoner and commoner and the establishment will continue to ensure that only the toxic (but highly profitable) alleged treatments of cancer which are authorized by the pharmaceutical industry will be authorized by governments. The cancer industry will not find the all powerful magic bullet cure for which it has been searching now for decades. It will fail because it is wedded to an interventionist paradigm which depends upon treating the body as a battlefield and the disease as an enemy.” Dr. Vernon Coleman

Within 72 hours of oxygen deprivation any cell will become cancerous. Cancer cells thrive in an oxygen-deprived environment. This will occur when bio-conductive aluminum (consisting of live virus, antibiotic, heavy metal, detergent coagulated sludge) clogs the vast network of arterial veins & capillaries, inducing Ischemia.

‘Oxygen–glucose deprivation resulted in expression of apoptotic and necrotic cell death phenotypes, especially in neurons.’ ‘Following 72 hours incubation in the presence of 0.3% O2, cells were labeled with Annexin V/PI and the level of cell death was measured by flow cytometry. In 6 independent experiments, hypoxia increased levels of Annexin V-positive OC316 cells from 5.3 ± 1.0% to 19.2 ± 2.8%; …cell death under these conditions had predominant features of late apoptosis.’

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 07:52 AM
It turns out that even the Vitamin K injection for newborns should be stopped, there is a risk of infection, Vitamin K can be given orally over the first week

The Dark Side of the Routine Newborn Vitamin K Shot

It should be basic common sense that breaking the skin of a newborn baby is not in its best interest
edit on 27-4-2012 by Rubinstein because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:06 AM
reply to post by ElisaTest

What you’re saying is that peer review and scholarly means that a scientist must remain on the straight and narrow if he wishes to maintain his bona fides with his peers. This has nothing to do with helping humanity or saving lives, or even making healthy products, just maintaining one’s reputation within that insulated group of people who use the exact same test criteria to “investigate” one another’s conclusions. Any outsider, even though he may be a specialist in his particular field, like neuroscience, just by the singular fact that he uses criteria and methodology other than whatever the peer group has deemed acceptable, his findings are rejected on the face of it, not because he’s wrong. That’s dogma, not science and your insistence on remaining in that trap is evident to anyone who’s paying attention.

And as you say, each new crop of students is held to the “old” science even if it has been proven to be flawed and fraudulent over and over again, meaning students are required to remain in that cycle of ignorance even as they dress up in scholarly robes and play god. Apparently you and your peers cannot see that these outsiders represent “new blood” for a dying inbred culture. And die it will. If it weren’t for the fact that these mad scientists are ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of people every year and outright killing many, I might even feel sorry for them. But somehow I just can’t seem to get all teary eyed over their well deserved demise. It can't come soon enough.

One last thought before I leave you to your dogma:

Published in the January edition of the journal Nuclear Medicine Communications, the research highlights the fact that mass fluoride exposure may be to blame for the cardiovascular disease epidemic that takes more lives each year than cancer. In 2008, cardiovascular killed 17 million people.

Read more:

And as posted right here on ATS some time ago, Sodium Fluoride is a synthetic waste product of the nuclear, aluminum, and phosphate fertilizer industries. This fluoride has an amazing capacity to combine and increase the potency of other toxic materials. The sodium fluoride obtained from industrial waste and added to water supplies is also already contaminated with lead, aluminum, and cadmium.

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 02:11 PM
It looks like lots of science textbooks are about to be destroyed, all the theories that backed up vaccination are going out of the window. Vaccines are worse than pointless

Bedrock of vaccination theory crumbles as science reveals antibodies not necessary to fight viruses

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 03:59 PM
reply to post by Rubinstein

From your link: "pro-vaccine ideology is increasingly finding itself in the dustheap of outmoded pseudoscience."

Outstanding. Unfortunately it comes to late to restore the health of the generations that've already been chemically damaged by vaccines and we can't expect medical providers to begin to dispose of their supplies of vaccine until further pressure is applied by patient demand. And even then there remains the Monsanto/genetic modification pseudoscience that continues to cut a wide swath of destruction where ever it is allowed to flourish.

Oh, and of course there's the government which seems hell bent on promoting these murderous practices.

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 04:26 PM
reply to post by Rubinstein

I couldn't stop them from doing this to my son, they did it without my consent. I did manage to stop ALL vaccines though.

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 04:30 PM
We should have memorials put up for these people, there should be charities to help them out, unfortunately most living vaccine damaged people think (if they are still able to) that their disease is either genetic or 'a mystery'

You're right, Big Pharma won't accept this, they'll just try to disprove it, as there's too much money at stake. They would first need a replacement for vaccines that makes at least as much money through sales, then they'd need to ensure they were doing enough damage to people so as to bring in similar long term future sales of their other products.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by Rubinstein

From your link: "pro-vaccine ideology is increasingly finding itself in the dustheap of outmoded pseudoscience."

Outstanding. Unfortunately it comes to late to restore the health of the generations that've already been chemically damaged by vaccines and we can't expect medical providers to begin to dispose of their supplies of vaccine until further pressure is applied by patient demand. And even then there remains the Monsanto/genetic modification pseudoscience that continues to cut a wide swath of destruction where ever it is allowed to flourish.

Oh, and of course there's the government which seems hell bent on promoting these murderous practices.

edit on 27-4-2012 by Rubinstein because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in