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

reply to post by CloonBerg

Stop specifically searching for the damage vaccines can do. If you search for it you'll find it. If that's all you see you'll believe it. Look for peer reviewed studies on the long term effects of vaccinations.

So stop looking for the evidence of damage vaccines do?... Sigh! I thought you wanted us to look at both sides? Stop assuming we have not looked at both sides. We all came from where you are believing vaccines where good. Do you think we just read some website and decided we were all wrong? I have looked at the data I bet you haven't.

Try this book It analyzes the data "their own" data since the inception of vaccines. The actual data paints an entirely different picture then the what we were all taught and it is not in favor of vaccines:

www.amazon.com...=pd_sim_b_6

reply to post by thebtheb


Man, you did a LOT of typing to not say much worth reading. Your approach is for ME to research whether or not your claim is accurate? Sorry, man. Your claim isn't worth the time it takes to read it unless YOU prove evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by CloonBerg

 

Stop specifically searching for the damage vaccines can do. If you search for it you'll find it. If that's all you see you'll believe it. Look for peer reviewed studies on the long term effects of vaccinations.

So stop looking for the evidence of damage vaccines do?... Sigh! I thought you wanted us to look at both sides? Stop assuming we have not looked at both sides. We all came from where you are believing vaccines where good. Do you think we just read some website and decided we were all wrong? I have looked at the data I bet you haven't.

edit on 15-5-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

I never said stop looking for the evidence. If you read what i said, I said to stop specifically searching for the damage they can do. If you read further you see that I was referencing towards ways to do unbiased research on the topic.

Turning a blind eye to evidence and stop specifically searching are two different things.

Also, I will continue to assume that people like you have not looked at both sides. If you think vaccines are some kind of population control or that they harm people more than they help, then you are misinformed.

I don't care if a person chooses to get a vaccine or not. It bothers me when people are misinformed. You think I'm bad, you should hear what my professors would say about this crap.

Originally posted by CloonBerg
If you think vaccines are some kind of population control or that they harm people more than they help, then you are misinformed.

Actually, there's a lot of evidence that this is the case, they are controlling fertility rates amongst other things. I can provide all of the information if you're interested?

Originally posted by UKmonster
reply to post by hawkiye

 

So why am I not dead?
I didnt read the article but I can image there is no actual evidence provided in the link, call me ignorent but I reckon I will have saved myself the effort.

Ok... Your "ignorent"(Ignorant). Your post was an epic fail... First you said you didn't even read the article but still felt compeled to comment? You must have a crystal ball or something to know the article has no evidence to prove the link. Are you a wizard? ATS needs to implement something where we can subtract stars from people.

reply to post by hawkiye

"My work will be submitted for peer review in the upcoming several months. For now, peer review is available in the Tolerance Lost DVD series as I have translated the medical sciences into an information and presentation style that can be understood by the public at large, as well as the vaccine injury court special masters. Examples of the evidence of harm, I have cataloged in a ‘see for yourself’ format."

What a jerk-ass. If he really cared about his "findings" he would have published them long ago. I'd be my scientific reputation that all of this "proof" is really just a sham anecdotal stories with not a single shred of real evidence (numbers, hard data) to back it up.

"Hey guys, I promise I'll submit my work to a journal, just give me money first!"

Yea, right. No thanks.

As he states his 'conclusive' evidence is not yet available for peer review...

But you can buy the DVD, another profiteer of fear. Ill drop him in the chemtrail category if you dont mind

thia is mouldins claim :

That the pathogenesis of autism is a result of multiple "mini-strokes" in babies
That vaccines result in the deposition of particles into the brain microvasculature sufficient to provoke an inflammatory infiltrate in the brain. These particles, according to Dr. Moulden.

Let's get back to the predictions of his hypothesis. If Dr. Moulden's hypothesis is true, the following evidence should be observed:

1.There should be absolutely no evidence of autism before vaccination.
2.There should be evidence of alterations in blood flow consistent with microvascular strokes
In autistic children who die, sectioning of the brain should reveal evidence of vascular inflammation and small
strokes
3.There should be evidence that vaccines form particles large enough to clog the microvasculature.
4.There should be evidence that these particles derive from vaccine constituents
5.There should be evidence that a pattern of ministrokes actually results in autism.
In actuality, the last prediction is incredibly problematic.

There is no evidence linking this sort of "mini-stroke" to autism. Of course, every single one of these is problematic or dubious. In autopsy specimens, there's no evidence of inflammatory reactions causing blockage of small vessels with clot leading to stroke, nor is there any evidence on MRI of such processes in the brains of autistic children. MRI should be able to pick such processes up. There's especially no evidence that the additives in vaccines result in particles that block the microvasculature or provoke monocytes to swarm around small blood vessels and cause them to be blocked with clots due to an inflammatory reaction. (Virtually all blockages of small vessels due to inflammation are due to clots provoked by the inflammatory reaction.) And, of course, as has been discussed many times before, signs of autism can be observed as early as six months.

scienceblogs.com... =channellink

guess how much he charges for that pic or video that he analyses for you, $2500.00 THAT"S right twenty five hundred dollars.

QUACK

this doc is laughing all the way to the bank with the money from the gullible. Him and the others selling the over 150 supposed treatments for autism......now if these worked wouldn't the rates be dropping.....stop and think....


How do these people sleep at night is beyond me.

Big Pharma are of course a Not For Profit team of volunteers, creating vaccines purely for the good of humanity

no long term studies, really??? heres one right off the bat started 3 years age, it's a 5 YEAR vaccine study

clinicaltrials.gov...

10 year chickenpox study

pediatrics.aappublications.org...

Originally posted by research100
no long term studies, really??? heres one right off the bat started 3 years age, it's a 5 YEAR vaccine study

clinicaltrials.gov...

"Sponsor: Sanofi-Aventis"...right, that's not much use then, it's essentially going to be used for marketing or binned, depending on the results We need someone completely independent, like the Cochrane Collaboration

Originally posted by research100
10 year chickenpox study

pediatrics.aappublications.org...

edit on 16-5-2012 by research100 because: added a sentence

It's very silly to be vaccinating against Chicken Pox in the first place. Even the NHS (UK) admit this, the only possible exception is with immunocompromised patients (e.g. leukemic). Anyhow, they're just comparing two different types of Chicken Pox vaccine to see which is better, they should also have had an unvaccinated control group to compare against...but, as I said, it's still a pointless vaccine.

"The chickenpox vaccine is not part of the UK childhood vaccination programme, because experts think that introducing a chickenpox vaccination for children could increase the risk of shingles in older people. It is used to protect people who are most at risk of a serious chickenpox infection. Chickenpox is usually a mild illness, particularly in children. The condition is so common in childhood that 90% of adults who grow up in the UK are immune to the chickenpox virus because they have had it before."

Why aren't children in the UK vaccinated against chickenpox?
www.nhs.uk...

One thing I always like to remind people of with Chicken Pox, as it's valuable information and can save lives, is that those who die of Chicken Pox are mostly those who take Ibuprofen or Aspirin, when combined with Chicken Pox this can cause Reyes syndrome .

Originally posted by Rubinstein

Originally posted by research100
no long term studies, really??? heres one right off the bat started 3 years age, it's a 5 YEAR vaccine study

clinicaltrials.gov...

"Sponsor: Sanofi-Aventis"...right, that's not much use then, it's essentially going to be used for marketing or binned, depending on the results

We need someone completely independent, like the Cochrane Collaboration

Originally posted by research100
10 year chickenpox study

pediatrics.aappublications.org...

edit on 16-5-2012 by research100 because: added a sentence

It's very silly to be vaccinating against Chicken Pox in the first place. Even the NHS (UK) admit this, the only possible exception is with immunocompromised patients (e.g. leukemic). Anyhow, they're just comparing two different types of Chicken Pox vaccine to see which is better, they should also have had an unvaccinated control group to compare against...but, as I said, it's still a pointless vaccine.

"The chickenpox vaccine is not part of the UK childhood vaccination programme, because experts think that introducing a chickenpox vaccination for children could increase the risk of shingles in older people. It is used to protect people who are most at risk of a serious chickenpox infection. Chickenpox is usually a mild illness, particularly in children. The condition is so common in childhood that 90% of adults who grow up in the UK are immune to the chickenpox virus because they have had it before."

Why aren't children in the UK vaccinated against chickenpox?
www.nhs.uk...

One thing I always like to remind people of with Chicken Pox, as it's valuable information and can save lives, is that those who die of Chicken Pox are mostly those who take Ibuprofen or Aspirin, when combined with Chicken Pox this can cause Reyes syndrome .

edit on 16-5-2012 by Rubinstein because: (no reason given)

Not to mention that chickenpox immunity isn't permanent, and adults need to be re-exposed to it to retain immunity. So if no one gets it anymore, the few who do could make an adult very sick, since it's much more serious in adults. The reason it would cause shingles in adults is because they are no longer immune to it.

This is a classic case of scientists thinking they know better when nature had taken care of the whole thing.

Airborne Ebola ravaging the world? Okay, vaccine maybe. Chickenpox? Pointless.

Originally posted by research100
no long term studies, really??? heres one right off the bat started 3 years age, it's a 5 YEAR vaccine study

clinicaltrials.gov...

10 year chickenpox study

pediatrics.aappublications.org...

edit on 16-5-2012 by research100 because: added a sentence

Yeah, started three years ago, not finished yet.

Originally posted by Furbs
reply to post by thebtheb

 

Man, you did a LOT of typing to not say much worth reading. Your approach is for ME to research whether or not your claim is accurate? Sorry, man. Your claim isn't worth the time it takes to read it unless YOU prove evidence to the contrary.

All I was saying was that ultimately I believe what I believe because of my own research. Is MY research going to convince you? I don't think so. If you want to take anything I say seriously or consider it in any way, research it yourself. Personally I think those against vaccines have better research to prove it on than those who say vaccines are safe do.

And when it comes down to it, I don't even care if anti-vaccine research is conclusive or not. I don't trust vaccines and no one has given me a good reason to. What happened with the cure-all antibiotics? 60 years ago it was heralded as the greatest thing. So they went to town without thinking about it, and now we have superbugs, immune systems with no good gut bacteria etc. They didn't think about the consequences then, and they're not thinking about the consequences of vaccines now. So why should I trust them when every year, it's a new vaccine that they don't test for long?

Well of course, there WAS the 1.5 million awarded to a family for vaccines causing their child's autism. You can read the CBS news story below. Sure, okay, they say that she had a mitochondrial disorder and the vaccine aggravated it. Oh so wait a minute then - so the federal government is saying vaccines DO cause autism. Oh no, wait....no they're not. They're saying that this was a specific case, and did not CAUSE autism, but RESULTED in it.

Oh okay, I was unclear about that. So in other words, vaccines do not cause autism.....unless there is some pre-existing condition.

If I don't have that pre-existing condition, does that make me feel that the vaccine is safe? Why should it? Clearly it has some affect on the brain and neurology. So in people without this pre-existing condition, could it not cause other problems that we are as yet unaware of? Such as the huge rise of ADD and similar neurologically based problems?

My answer: maybe!

So my conclusion: To question the safety of vaccines. To NOT give children less than one month old a HEB B vaccine. How do you get Hep B? Blood or semen from infected person going into your bloodstream. So WHY are babies getting it? Oh I forgot - all babies have the possibility of becoming prostitute intravenous drug addicts.

Nine-year-old Hannah Poling is shown. (AP Photo/Atlanta Journal-Constitution, John Spink) The first court award in a vaccine-autism claim is a big one. CBS News has learned the family of Hannah Poling will receive more than $1.5 million dollars for her life care; lost earnings; and pain and suffering for the first year alone. In addition to the first year, the family will receive more than $500,000 per year to pay for Hannah’s care. Those familiar with the case believe the compensation could easily amount to $20 million over the child’s lifetime. Hannah was described as normal, happy and precocious in her first 18 months. Then, in July 2000, she was vaccinated against nine diseases in one doctor’s visit: measles, mumps, rubella, polio, varicella, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, and Haemophilus influenzae. Afterward, her health declined rapidly. She developed high fevers, stopped eating, didn’t respond when spoken to, began showing signs of autism, and began having screaming fits. In 2002, Hannah’s parents filed an autism claim in federal vaccine court. Five years later, the government settled the case before trial and had it sealed. It’s taken more than two years for both sides to agree on how much Hannah will be compensated for her injuries. Read Sharyl Attkisson’s 2008 report on Hannah Poling In acknowledging Hannah’s injuries, the government said vaccines aggravated an unknown mitochondrial disorder Hannah had which didn’t “cause” her autism, but “resulted” in it. It’s unknown how many other children have similar undiagnosed mitochondrial disorder. All other autism “test cases” have been defeated at trial. Approximately 4,800 are awaiting disposition in federal vaccine court. plantiff Time Magazine summed up the relevance of the Poling case in 2008: …(T)here’s no denying that the court’s decision to award damages to the Poling family puts a chink — a question mark — in what had been an unqualified defense of vaccine safety with regard to autism. If Hannah Poling had an underlying condition that made her vulnerable to being harmed by vaccines, it stands to reason that other children might also have such vulnerabilities.” Then-director of the Centers for Disease Control Julie Gerberding (who is now President of Merck Vaccines) stated: “The government has made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism. This does not represent anything other than a very specific situation and a very sad situation as far as the family of the affected child.” Read the newly-released decision on Hannah Poling’s compensation. Posted by Sharyl Attkisson September 9, 2010 2:14 PM Source: CBS NEWS

Again, I fail to see how anyone can not have a red flag raised when the director of the CDC is now President of Merck. Really?

Originally posted by thebtheb
All I was saying was that ultimately I believe what I believe because of my own research. Is MY research going to convince you? I don't think so. If you want to take anything I say seriously or consider it in any way, research it yourself. Personally I think those against vaccines have better research to prove it on than those who say vaccines are safe do.

If your research is peer reviewable and repeatable, then yes, your research would be worthy of discussion. If it isn't, it really isn't worth the time it took you to type it out.

And when it comes down to it, I don't even care if anti-vaccine research is conclusive or not.

Oh, good. You don't 'care' whether you are right or not, just going with what feels right, eh? Is the Earth flat because the horizon looks straight?

I don't trust vaccines and no one has given me a good reason to.

www.who.int...

What happened with the cure-all antibiotics? 60 years ago it was heralded as the greatest thing.

60 years ago they WERE the greatest thing. We prevented a LOT of disease and suffering. Same with vaccines. Are they perfect? Nope. Are they better than not having modern medicine? My opinion is yes, but then again, I am someone that has seen people benefit from much of what modern medicine has to offer.

So they went to town without thinking about it, and now we have superbugs, immune systems with no good gut bacteria etc. They didn't think about the consequences then, and they're not thinking about the consequences of vaccines now. So why should I trust them when every year, it's a new vaccine that they don't test for long?

Reread the link I gave you, that should give you more insight as to how vaccinations work, and why you should rethink what you believe to be the truth.

reply to post by thebtheb


Those bastards are so full of it. Where is the proof she has the condition and that is was the cause of the autism aggravated by the vaccine? Such BS it doesn't even pass the smell test much less the logic test.

Originally posted by Furbs

www.who.int...

The WHO are funded by the same family who funded the NAZI's, it's just a continuation from where they left off. That's why they ran the Swine Flu Fertility Reduction Program. These people actually have a sense of humor, they called it Swine Flu as in Hog Wash Flu; it's the story that gets fed to the pigs. This always happens, they feed us a fairy tale then bring out some injection which generally has a more sinister intention behind it.

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by thebtheb
All I was saying was that ultimately I believe what I believe because of my own research. Is MY research going to convince you? I don't think so. If you want to take anything I say seriously or consider it in any way, research it yourself. Personally I think those against vaccines have better research to prove it on than those who say vaccines are safe do.

If your research is peer reviewable and repeatable, then yes, your research would be worthy of discussion. If it isn't, it really isn't worth the time it took you to type it out.

And when it comes down to it, I don't even care if anti-vaccine research is conclusive or not.

Oh, good. You don't 'care' whether you are right or not, just going with what feels right, eh? Is the Earth flat because the horizon looks straight?

I don't trust vaccines and no one has given me a good reason to.

www.who.int...

What happened with the cure-all antibiotics? 60 years ago it was heralded as the greatest thing.

60 years ago they WERE the greatest thing. We prevented a LOT of disease and suffering. Same with vaccines. Are they perfect? Nope. Are they better than not having modern medicine? My opinion is yes, but then again, I am someone that has seen people benefit from much of what modern medicine has to offer.

So they went to town without thinking about it, and now we have superbugs, immune systems with no good gut bacteria etc. They didn't think about the consequences then, and they're not thinking about the consequences of vaccines now. So why should I trust them when every year, it's a new vaccine that they don't test for long?

Reread the link I gave you, that should give you more insight as to how vaccinations work, and why you should rethink what you believe to be the truth.

Are you serious? The WHO is someone whose link you prove as evidence? With all due respect, that is hilarious. And as proof goes, it yields nothing. What statistics are they using? Who compiles them? Who REVIEWED them? Why should I trust this? Where is the literature? These are a bunch of numbers and statistics? How do I know they're real? I don't.