It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

More Vaccines = More Cancers, SOLUTION = Even More Vaccines?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Take a look at this complete logic fail in this recent BBC Article www.bbc.co.uk...

"One in six cancers - two million a year globally - are caused by largely treatable or preventable infections, new estimates suggest."

"Most cases are in the developing world." i.e. where the most vaccines are used per person

So most of these Cancers that are caused by infections are in the countries that have the most vaccines. We have seen before that the Cancer-Causing SV40 virus has been found in vaccines. We also see from the inserts of most vaccines that they are not tested for Carcinogenic potential, but of course we know that if they weren't Carcinogenic they would be tested; the untested small print is just to cover themselves.

The solution that's proposed is yet more vaccines, which no doubt will also be "untested" for Carcinogenic potential.

"Since effective and relatively low-cost vaccines for HPV and HBV are available, increasing coverage should be a priority for health systems in high-burden countries."

The video below is for background information on Cancer and Vaccines from one of the top Vaccine men who has been described as "the most successful vaccinologist in history" en.wikipedia.org...





posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rubinstein

"Most cases are in the developing world." i.e. where the most vaccines are used per person




Do you have something to support that position?


Infectious diseases are thought to account for nearly 25% of all deaths worldwide, and extract a disproportionate toll in developing countries



....


Recent developments have countered the pessimism at the end of the last millennium about whether attractive new vaccines could realistically be introduced into developing countries. Despite these developments, resources for introducing new vaccines and sustaining their use in developing countries are still comparatively scarce, and will probably not ever be sufficient to support the use of all new generation vaccines of potential public health utility. Wise use of these funds demands several types of evidence to inform policy decisions.


*****
edit on 8-5-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
That one has been on here before,

But the only solution is to not get vaccinated period.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rubinstein
"Most cases are in the developing world." i.e. where the most vaccines are used per person


It's also where the most Coke is consumed, where the most X-rays are taken, where the most mobile phones are used, where the most artificial sweeteners, flavours and colours are used, where the most... I could go on forever.

It's also where the most socks are worn, SOCKS MUST CAUSE CANCER!

Edit: Oops, misread developing world, but my point still stands.
edit on 11/27/10 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
My memory goes back over 30 years. I remember the war on cancer and all the donations and funding put into finding a cure. 30 years later, cancer rates have sky rocketed.

Kind of reminds me of our war on terror and the troops "fighting for our freedoms"... as the years go by, we lose more and more freedoms. So I guess throwing all that money, and bullets/rockets/bombs at these problems has only increased the problems.

As for the vaccines, there's either a conspiracy to make us all wary of them, or, they really are Nazi eugenics and the majority of us can be easily led off a cliff.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Do you have something to support that position?


"The league table shows that high-income countries generally have significantly higher cancer rates than lower income ones. For example, the only non-European countries in the top 20 are Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Canada, Israel, French Polynesia and Uruguay."

www.wcrf-uk.org...


1 Denmark 326.1
2 Ireland 317.0
3 Australia 314.1
4 New Zealand 309.2
5 Belgium 306.8
6 France (Metropolitan) 300.4
7 USA 300.2
8 Norway 299.1
9 Canada 296.6
10 Czech Republic 295.0
11 Israel 288.3
12 The Netherlands 286.8
13 Luxembourg 284.0
14 Hungary 282.9
15 Iceland 282.2
16 Germany 282.1
17 Uruguay 280.3
18 Italy 274.3
19 French Polynesia 269.6
20 Switzerland 269.3
21 Slovenia 267.9
22 UK 266.9
23 Croatia 263.1
24 Republic of Korea 262.4
25 Slovakia 260.6
26 Sweden 252.1
27 Finland 249.8
28 Lithuania 244.4
29 Chinese Taipei 244.1
30 Mongolia 242.2
31 Spain 241.4
32 France (Martinique) 234.9
33 Austria 232.7
34 Estonia 230.4
34 Latvia 230.4
36 FYR Macedonia 225.1
37 Bulgaria 224.7
38 Portugal 223.2
39 Poland 222.9
40 Serbia 218.9
41 New Caledonia 218.5
42 Belarus 213.1
43 Malta 211.4
44 Barbados 207.9
45 Armenia 207.5
46 Argentina 206.2
47 Romania 205.1
48 Montenegro 204.3
49 Albania 202.8
50 South African Republic 202.0

www.wcrf-uk.org...



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mytheroy

But the only solution is to not get vaccinated period.



That's one of the best pieces of advice that will ever be posted on ATS



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
What I don't understand is, how can they make a vaccine for cancer? It's neither a virus, nor a bacterial infection...it's a mutation of your own cells. How can they develop something that's going to go 'hey normal cells...don't get all funky now!"

Are they going to inject you with cancerous cells that will...what- slightly mutate your natural ones so that when you come into contact with something that causes cell mutation...it won't get worse (i mean go into full mutation mode)?

I really just don't understand this. Normal vaccines are bad enough, but this...I'll keep on taking my chances (and deal with the consequences).
edit on 8-5-2012 by MzMorbid because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
As for the vaccines, there's either a conspiracy to make us all wary of them, or, they really are Nazi eugenics and the majority of us can be easily led off a cliff.


It's the same family that funded the NAZI's who are now in control of Big Pharma, the WHO and the CDC

ROCKEFELLERS



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
This is it MzMorbid

Big Pharma can't sell us Diabetes Type 1, Lung Cancer, MS, Stomach Cancer, Asthma etc, as nobody wants them. So instead they have injections which cause those illnesses/diseases in a certain percentage of the recipients, they tell us the injections are to stop Measles, Mumps, Chicken Pox etc, but it's just a fairy tale as Big Phama make their big money from serious illnesses. If someone wants to inject you with Mercury, Aluminum or Formaldehyde, they clearly do not have your best interests at heart; they want you sick as that's when they profit


Originally posted by MzMorbid
What I don't understand is, how can they make a vaccine for cancer? It's neither a virus, nor a bacterial infection...it's a mutation of your own cells. How can they develop something that's going to go 'hey normal cells...don't get all funky now!"

Are they going to inject you with cancerous cells that will...what- slightly mutate your natural ones so that when you come into contact with something that causes cell mutation...it won't get worse (i mean go into full mutation mode)?

I really just don't understand this. Normal vaccines are bad enough, but this...I'll keep on taking my chances (and deal with the consequences).
edit on 8-5-2012 by MzMorbid because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Rubinstein


"The league table shows that high-income countries generally have significantly higher cancer rates than lower income ones. For example, the only non-European countries in the top 20 are Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Canada, Israel, French Polynesia and Uruguay."

 


That completely contradicts what you were saying in your OP.

You do realize that "developing world" is not synonymous with "developed world", correct?
edit on 8-5-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join