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.

 

Conclusive Evidence That "ALL" Vaccines Are Very Harmful Even Causing Death

page: 12
64
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


So basically your world view is that everyone in medicine out to get us either directly, or because they are going on with it. You automatically dismiss EVERY peer related review (basically all of which show conclusive evidence that vaccines, while having some dangers, overall do a lot of good). There's no point in arguing with you anymore, since you will never take any evidence I provide since you'll automatically just claim it's funded by big pharmacy (who honestly don't make very big profits compared to other industries) or the government (who obviously are in the pocket of big pharmacy). So either i'm an ignorant all believing sheep, or you're paranoid




posted on May, 13 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
POLIO Vaccine. POLIO eradicatied in our lifetime.

Look these up and re-state your point.

PS There are many others. Lives saved over lives lost....regarding the ones that WORK.

Thanks


Indeed.
To the OP I guess vaccines weren't very succcessful at killing us all or making us all ill seeing as we are surviving longer and healthier. Kind of an own goal huh?
These evil killer vaccines = epic fail!

edit on 13-5-2012 by starchild10 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Very well put and spot on, here is more info about using Colloidal Silver instead of vaccines, which the Colloidal Silver will neutralize......


The healing properties of silver are so wide ranging that we see researchers expressing amazement time and time again. Alfred Searle, founder of the pharmaceutical conglomerate, wrote in 1919:

Applying colloidal silver to human subjects has been done in a large number of cases with astonishingly successful results. For internal administration. orally or hypodermically, it has the advantage of being rapidly fatal to parasites without toxic action on its host. It is quite stable. It protects rabbits from ten times the lethal dose tetanus or diphtheria toxin.


And then there is more...


The body's ability to process the tiny atoms of colloidal silver makes silver build-up in the body impossible. The Environmental Protection Agency's Poison Control Center reports a "No Toxicity" listing for colloidal silver. In fact, it appears that harmlessness is one of the attributes of the colloidal state, regardless of content. For example, examining a bottle of colloidal minerals from a local health food store, I noticed arsenic, nickel and lead among the 65 trace minerals on the ingredients list: If the particles are small enough, you can even drink arsenic!

Since the body has a vital need for silver-to maintain the immune system and to produce new, healthy cells-and since our blood is also a colloid, the harmonious way in which colloids enter the body may well make colloidal silver the safest medicine on earth.

Just to prove a point to myself, I made a 16-ounce solution of well over 250 ppm and drank it. I repeated this procedure four days in a row, daily ingesting at least the equivalent of 50 16-ounce glasses of a 5-ppm, solution! I did not eat yogurt or acidophilus or compensate for friendly bacteria loss in any way. The only side effect was that I seemed to feel better!

According to pharmacist Ron Barnes, R.Ph. (Capitol Drugs, Los Angeles), this makes sense because:

Many strains of pathogenic microbes-viruses, fungi, bacteria or any other single-celled pathogen-resistant to other antibiotics are killed on contact by colloidal silver and are unable to mutate. However, it does not harm tissue-cell enzymes or friendly bacteria.


And then there is more...


As an antibiotic, Silver kills over 650 disease causing organisms; resistant strains fail to develop. Silver is absolutely nontoxic. Silver is the best all-around germ fighter we have. Doctors are reporting that, taken internally, it works against syphilis, cholera, and malaria, diabetes and severe burns. -- Bio/Tech News, 1995

Dr. Bjorn Nordstrom, of the Karolinska Institute (Sweden's equivalent of our National Institutes of Health), has used Silver in his cancer cure method for many years. He says the whole thing is quite simple. This brought rapid remission in patients given up by other doctors. -- "Silver, Our Mightiest Germ Fighter" Science Digest, March, 1978.


So how much research has anyone else done on this, so why do we NEED vaccinations, the Elite have been doing this for decades and longer, the Greeks used to line their storage pot with silver so the grain and fruit would not get moldy. The pioneers put their silverware in the water barrel so mosquitos and other bugs would not breed in the water. Putting a silver coin in NON-pasturized milk would keep it at room temperature for weeks without spoiling and so on, how much more proof do you need? WE DO NOT NEED VACCINATIONS, we need more intelligent people!!!



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by starchild10
 


Please, do some research and get with the program, read the above and this...


The comeback of silver in medicine began in the 1970's. The late Dr. Carl Moyer,chairman of Washington University's Department of Surgery, received a grant to develop better treatments for burn victims. Dr. Margraf, as the chief biochemist, worked with Dr. Moyer and other surgeons to find an antiseptic strong enough, yet safe to use over large areas of the body. Dr. Margraf reviewed 22 antiseptic compounds and found drawbacks in all of them. "Mercury, for example, is an excellent antiseptic but toxic," he comments. "Popular antiseptics....can be used over small areas only." Furthermore, disease organisms can become resistant to antibiotics, triggering a dangerous super-infection. "These compounds are also ineffective against a number of harmful bacteria, including the biggest killer in burn cases - a greenish-blue bacterium called Pseudomonas aeruginosa. It almost always shows up in burns, releasing a poison." Reviewing medical literature, Dr. Margraf found repeated references to silver. It was described as a catalyst that disables the enzymes microorganisms depend on to "breathe." Consequently, they die.

Therefore, Dr. Margraf decided to use the best known compound of silver: silver nitrate, concentrated silver nitrate was corrosive and painful. So he diluted the silver nitrate to a .5 percent solution and found that it killed the Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria and permitted wounds to heal. Resistant strains did not appear. Silver nitrate, however, was far from ideal. It disturbed the balance of body salts, was thick and cumbersome to use and stained everything it touched. Dr. Margraf searched for other preparations of silver. As a result of these efforts, hundreds of important new medical uses for silver were found. Medical journal reports from the early 1900's demonstrated a properly prepared colloid of silver was the only form of silver solution that was not deposited under the skin, no matter how many times the proper amount was administered.

There were still skeptics. Some of the negative reaction that colloidal silver received in the early 1900's, "was due to a premature supply of improperly prepared and unstable colloids... Shortly after the definite recognition of the colloidal nature of the chief body fluids was effected, the enormous possibilities which might result from the application of colloidal disinfectants and medicines were rapidly recognized.".A number of colloidal substances were placed on the market in this country and elsewhere. It was soon found, however, that most of these preparations rapidly deteriorated in value: some of them were so unstable that they contained no active colloid at the time when they were used." N. R. Thompson recognized that, "To primitive life forms, oligodynamic silver is as toxic as the most powerful chemical disinfectants and this, coupled with its relative harmlessness to animate life (i.e. mammals), gives it great potential as a disinfectant."

Based on laboratory tests with colloidal silver, destructive bacteria, virus, and fungus organisms are killed within minutes of contact, Larry C. Ford, M.D, of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, UCLA School of Medicine, Center For The Health Sciences reported in a letter dated November 1, 1988, "I tested them (the silver solutions) using standard antimicrobial tests for disinfectants. The silver solutions were antibacterial for concentrations of 10' organisms per ml. of Streptococcus Pyogenes, Staphylococcus Aurcus, Neisseria Gonorrhea, Gardnerella Vaginalis, Salmonella Typhi, and other enteric pathogens, and fungicidal for Candida Albicans, Candida Globata, and M. Furfur."

Jim Powell reported in a Science Digest article March, 1978, titled, "Our Mightiest Germ Fighter", "Thanks to eye-opening research, silver is emerging as a wonder of modern medicine. An antibiotic kills perhaps a half-dozen different disease organisms, but silver kills some 650. Resistant strains fail to develop, Moreover, silver is virtually non-toxic." Dr. Harry Margraf of St. Louis concluded "Silver is the best all around germ-fighter we have."


There is so much information out there to PROVE that we do not need vaccinations, just some wisdom and know how to take care of ourselves. Pharmacutical companies are NOT NEEDED nor are they wanted by anyone I know.
edit on 13-5-2012 by daddio because: Added highlight



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by pteridine
 


Are you suggesting the high incidence of the disease was somehow unrelated to the lowered mortality rate? If so, people must have found better methods of successfully treating the disease.

I do know that at that time in our history doctors weren't quite so free with the prescription pad and often recommended natural remedies to help their patients regain their health.


What I am saying is that mortality rates are not indicative of the frequency of disease; the error you made in interpretation of the graph you showed.

As to the prescription pad; there weren't that many drugs available to prescribe and 'natural' remedies were it. Pharmacists distilled, concocted, decocted, extracted, encapsulated, and generally ran their business from plant materials. The first synthetic drug, Aspirin, made by Bayer and improved by acetylation of salicylic acid, replaced natural extracts in 1899 and was marketed as a miracle drug...which it is. Its mechanism of action wasn't discovered until 1971.
To imply that all things 'natural' are good and all things 'man made' are bad is unfounded.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by bonnieprince
 


It's really pointless isn't it? Everyone had their mind made up before this thread even started, so it really doesn't matter what anyone say in the end.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by pteridine
 


Are you suggesting the high incidence of the disease was somehow unrelated to the lowered mortality rate? If so, people must have found better methods of successfully treating the disease.

I do know that at that time in our history doctors weren't quite so free with the prescription pad and often recommended natural remedies to help their patients regain their health.


What I am saying is that mortality rates are not indicative of the frequency of disease; the error you made in interpretation of the graph you showed.

As to the prescription pad; there weren't that many drugs available to prescribe and 'natural' remedies were it. Pharmacists distilled, concocted, decocted, extracted, encapsulated, and generally ran their business from plant materials. The first synthetic drug, Aspirin, made by Bayer and improved by acetylation of salicylic acid, replaced natural extracts in 1899 and was marketed as a miracle drug...which it is. Its mechanism of action wasn't discovered until 1971.
To imply that all things 'natural' are good and all things 'man made' are bad is unfounded.


What you originally said "about my error" was: the graph does not show what happened to the incidence of disease. There could have been more cases as the population density increased but less death due to better practices treating the disease.
You have not provided evidence that the incidence of disease decreased.


There could have been .... many things. I posted it so people could make their own interpretation. Maybe you know of a graph that shows what you're wanting to say, I don't. But if you want a definitive study of any disease incidence/mortality, you'd need to break it down decade by decade, country by country, location by location, socioeconomic status, rural or urban, age, vaccinated or not and a ton of other qualifiers. In the early 1900s kids got sick, they were treated at home (primarily) and they survived or they didn't. Records and statistics weren't an issue.

Before aspirin there was willow bark, which is still the main constituant of aspirin. The only problem with willow bark is you can't patent it.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Nothing the old media says; has ever been true. Scientists without spines are a danger to society.

We need to start keeping notes and links to pictures and video of those that want to push their poison on us. Who are those behind GMO let's see pics of the Lobbyists and their political friends. Keep track of these people and their lies FOREVER. I am. Today is a good day to start watching 'em

Real Name: Doug Pederson AKA SpectateSwamp

edit on 13-5-2012 by SpectateSwamp because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by bonnieprince
 


It's really pointless isn't it? Everyone had their mind made up before this thread even started, so it really doesn't matter what anyone say in the end.


I can only assume, and I hate doing that ever, that you are of the opinion that those who oppose vaccinations and have the documented proof to back up their opinion...are WRONG?

Is this correct? And if so, would that not be the worst case of ignorance ever?

Just because some people are educated and have common sense and use deductive reasoning to come to an educated conclusion using history and facts, does not make that opinion wrong or incorrect. There is more to the story than vaccinations. Sanitation has been the key to a lot of the eliminations of disease. NOT vaccinations. Also, the amount of chemicals, like flouride, have also supressed the immune system and the brains ability to communicate with cells of the body. Neurotransmission is interupted by quite a few different chemicals. The Elite have known this for a very long time. The extermination of the Iroquois indians with small pox ladden blankets is one example.

Despite his fame, Jeffrey Amherst's name became tarnished by stories of smallpox-infected blankets used as germ warfare against American Indians. These stories are reported, for example, in Carl Waldman's Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac's forces during the summer of 1763:

... Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort -- an early example of biological warfare -- which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer. [p. 108]


There are so many more. Hexavalent Chromium., ever heard of that?

ALL dirt used to contain microbes of silver, but the pesticide industry has figured out how to neutralize that and so we do not get the silver we need to boost our immune systems. Oxygen is the greatest virus and bacteria killer next to silver. It is the most corrosive of elements in the univrse but is not harmful to animate tissue (mammals) But deforestation and development have reduced the amount of oxygen available on a daily basis.

So lets see, we are all ignorant and wrong because we know and understand that vaccinations are a joke and only a money grubbing business (pharmacutical) designed to keep people sick so the drug companies can sell a product which requires other products of theirs to keep the first drug stable? Yea, may include side effects of ........... death!!!!!

Vaccinations do not work, never have worked, and never will work. Cleanliness, good eating habits, with good NON-GMO food, fresh air that is high in oxygen content and clean, flouride free water. Yea that sounds like we need any vaccinations? Look at the history of man, did ANY of these illnesses occur 1000 years ago or later? More than likely not. Again, the Elite have known about silver for a very long time. It works. No vaccination required.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by daddio


I can only assume, and I hate doing that ever, that you are of the opinion that those who oppose vaccinations and have the documented proof to back up their opinion...are WRONG?

Is this correct? And if so, would that not be the worst case of ignorance ever?
.


Nope, what i said is pretty clear. You had your mind made up before this was even started. It doesn't matter what the other side says and you know it. You wouldn't listen to a word of it.
edit on 13-5-2012 by antonia because: opps



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
There could have been .... many things. I posted it so people could make their own interpretation. Maybe you know of a graph that shows what you're wanting to say, I don't. But if you want a definitive study of any disease incidence/mortality, you'd need to break it down decade by decade, country by country, location by location, socioeconomic status, rural or urban, age, vaccinated or not and a ton of other qualifiers. In the early 1900s kids got sick, they were treated at home (primarily) and they survived or they didn't. Records and statistics weren't an issue.

Before aspirin there was willow bark, which is still the main constituant of aspirin. The only problem with willow bark is you can't patent it.


This means that your statement about a "natural' decrease in the incidence of disease has no basis. You don't know if the disease was decreasing or not, just that fewer people per capita were dying from it..

Willow bark is not the main consitiuent of aspirin. Aspirin is entirely synthetic and is acetyl salicylic acid. Willow bark [genus Salix] contains salicylic acid but the free acid causes internal bleeding. Acetylating it reduces the side effect and improves the drug.
edit on 5/13/2012 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by daddio


I can only assume, and I hate doing that ever, that you are of the opinion that those who oppose vaccinations and have the documented proof to back up their opinion...are WRONG?

Is this correct? And if so, would that not be the worst case of ignorance ever?
.


Nope, what i said is pretty clear. You had your mind made up before this was even started. It doesn't matter what the other side says and you know it. You wouldn't listen to a word of it.
edit on 13-5-2012 by antonia because: opps


Sorry you are mistaken, I did not have my mind made up, just know the facts. Have done my homework and UNDERSTAND what the deal IS. See, by you posting a coment like that, it IS ignorant of you. Maybe if you did a bit more reading and research, like into Johns Hopkins Medical Center or other universities which have done research themselves for over 70 years, you may be suprised at what you could possibly learn.

Mind made up. No, just the facts please. Keep an open mind and look at both sides, how else are you going to know which one is correct?



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
silver doesn't collect in the body?? Then why is this guy blue??


www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by research100
silver doesn't collect in the body?? Then why is this guy blue??


www.dailymail.co.uk...


Because he drank 50,000 times the normal daily dose!!!!!!!!! The Elite turn blue too, just not THAT blue, where do you think the term "Blue Blood" came from!!! More propaganda BS, typical of ignorance.

When will you people give it up and realize you have been duped, please for the love of all that is natural and right.....wake the hell up!!!!

FYI, there are many people who thought that if a little is good than alot must be better. It doesn't work that way!!! DUUUHHHHHHHH....there are people who have drank gallons of Colloidal silver every day. The condition is called Argyria, I know it well. There was a pharmascist who wanted to see if there was a toxic level and he did the same thing. it is not deadly AT ALL, he just turned blue, it is the body trying to get rid of the excess silver. Just like Corn Syrup makes you fat!!! High Fructose corn syrup can NOT be digested by the human body. The body tries to rid itself of the crap by excreting it through the empidermis, the skin. The High Fructose Corn Syrup is a synthetic concoction and the body can not "sweat it out". So it turns to FAT!!!!! Why are people so FAT!!!

High Fructose Corn Syrup!!!

Sorry, another fail by you. Do some damn research, Johns Hopkins University spent 70 years doing research on Colloidal Silver and it is used by NASA, and most foreign major airlines to clean the water in the planes. Please stop with the crap posts and contribute something of actual factual substance. REALLY!!
edit on 13-5-2012 by daddio because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


so why in gods name was he taking 50,000 times the amount that was needed?? was it posted somewhere on the internet and he just accepted it as truth???? that's my point.

why is it that people scream about big pharma is only in it for the money, but individuals like the guy who this thread was started about, he doesn't believe in germ theory,(you know germs cause disease, bacteria cause infections which we all know is true)

that is a huge red flag and puts serious doubt on any thing else he says. He makes outlandish claims and then wants you to buy his dvds, phamplets, and send him your pic so he can diagnose everything under the sun.

big pharma is only in it for the money, when why is it okay for these individuals to do the same thing, and make money off of gullible people out there, why is it okay for them to do this, you do not hold them to the same standards??

dr's are not gods, they make mistakes, some are quacks too. have some common sense.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by research100
reply to post by daddio
 


so why in gods name was he taking 50,000 times the amount that was needed?? was it posted somewhere on the internet and he just accepted it as truth???? that's my point.

why is it that people scream about big pharma is only in it for the money, but individuals like the guy who this thread was started about, he doesn't believe in germ theory,(you know germs cause disease, bacteria cause infections which we all know is true)



Germs do not cause disease. We're all 'bombarded' with germs on a daily basis. If germs caused disease, everyone would be on their deathbed.

Disease is started by toxic overload in the colon, which then 'funnels/leaks' into the other organs.

It's virtually impossible to get a disease if your colon is completely healthy. Why? Because the body can heal/protect itself when in this state.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
they were on their death beds,, way way back, drs went from woman to woman delivering their babies, their hands covered in blood, many moms and babies died, 1 doc realized this was happening because they were touching all these women, and they needed to,wash their hands in between.

it was an uphill batlle, but the the doc proved it when he cleaned his hands in between and the death rates dramatically dropped for the women and babies he delivered. The other drs came around to his thinking and kept their hands clean.

germs don't cause disease?? what are germs: viruses bacteria and fungi and protozoa. colds come from viruses, bacteria cause infections, fungal infections, hello.......... germs don't cause disease, and this is why shysters are making millions
edit on 13-5-2012 by research100 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by research100

germs don't cause disease?? what are germs: viruses bacteria and fungi and protozoa. colds come from viruses, bacteria cause infections, fungal infections, hello.......... germs don't cause disease, and this is why shysters are making millions
edit on 13-5-2012 by research100 because: (no reason given)


Why will one person continue to get colds/FLU's and another person will not, in the same situation and environment? Is it luck?

No. One person is healthier than the other, with a body that is much stronger to protect itself.

The confusion with this subject is why the Pharma's make BILLIONS.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by shasta9600
 


Thank you!!! And if we were given the Silver iodine in the eyes when we are born, I will bet a vast majority of the childhood disease would go away immediately!! My point exactly. I don't care what the guy in the OP is saying, if you have to pay for anything it's a scam. I give away information for free to whomever will listen. But to believe in the crap some people post here without any factual information or research, so they know what they are talking about is ridiculous!!

good posts BTW.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by frazzle
There could have been .... many things. I posted it so people could make their own interpretation. Maybe you know of a graph that shows what you're wanting to say, I don't. But if you want a definitive study of any disease incidence/mortality, you'd need to break it down decade by decade, country by country, location by location, socioeconomic status, rural or urban, age, vaccinated or not and a ton of other qualifiers. In the early 1900s kids got sick, they were treated at home (primarily) and they survived or they didn't. Records and statistics weren't an issue.

Before aspirin there was willow bark, which is still the main constituant of aspirin. The only problem with willow bark is you can't patent it.


This means that your statement about a "natural' decrease in the incidence of disease has no basis. You don't know if the disease was decreasing or not, just that fewer people per capita were dying from it..

Willow bark is not the main consitiuent of aspirin. Aspirin is entirely synthetic and is acetyl salicylic acid. Willow bark [genus Salix] contains salicylic acid but the free acid causes internal bleeding. Acetylating it reduces the side effect and improves the drug.
edit on 5/13/2012 by pteridine because: (no reason given)


inventors.about.com...

"By 1829, scientists discovered that it was the compound called salicin in willow plants which gave you the pain relief.

According to "From A Miracle Drug" written by Sophie Jourdier for the Royal Society of Chemistry: "It was not long before the active ingredient in willow bark was isolated; in 1828, Johann Buchner, professor of pharmacy at the University of Munich, isolated a tiny amount of bitter tasting yellow, needle-like crystals, which he called salicin. Two Italians, Brugnatelli and Fontana, had in fact already obtained salicin in 1826, but in a highly impure form. By 1829, [French chemist] Henri Leroux had improved the extraction procedure to obtain about 30g from 1.5kg of bark. In 1838, Raffaele Piria [an Italian chemist] then working at the Sorbonne in Paris, split salicin into a sugar and an aromatic component (salicylaldehyde) and converted the latter, by hydrolysis and oxidation, to an acid of crystallised colourless needles, which he named salicylic acid."

....

White Willow works every bit as well as aspirin for pain and has no side effects. But it can't be patented because it grows wild and is easily harvested and processed. That's key if you happen to be a drug manufacturer looking to make a buck.

BTW, I didn't make the statement. If you had gone to the website you would have seen those words at the top of the page. Badger them about it, okay?



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join