Italian court officially recognizes vaccines cause autism.

These are the same people who convicted Amanda Knox on very poor evidence.

They also charged a bunch of geologists with murder for failing to predict an earthquake.


So I wouldn't put much faith in anything from an Italian court.

Originally posted by Bluebelle
Firstly, its an italian court. Not exactly known for its excellent decision making skills now is it.

Second of all, Governments cannot win. If the jab was withdrawn on the basis of the current information, and those diseases became prevalent once again, there would be some major kicking off being done by the public.

Thirdly, the jab is a choice. There obviously isn't enough evidence to say that theres a risk of autism (definately just wrote orgasm instead of autism first

), so if people are worried, get the separate jabs, or don't get them. The Government will not pin you and your baby down and forcibly inject it.

Well you won't get into school unless you get the jab, so there is good reason for outrage if you're one of the ones who doesn't want it.

You really don't want an autistic child.

It's a living nightmare from what I have seen.

It's incredibly horrifying.

And to think that in Australia, parents have their government financial support instantly removed if they don't keep up their children's vaccinations!

It's a particularly evil system here - poison your kids, or we'll see you all starve to death...

reply to post by ScatterBrain


I apologise ScatterBrain, it wasn't you that repeatedly kept getting my name wrong. You just bore the brunt of a tired and frustrated individual, definitely my bad.

Regarding this thread, all sorts of info is available at this link for the BMJ - Link

Just use the search function and get info to your hearts content. Some will be more pro, some more anti - therefore a more balanced view.

Also try this one for the World Health Organisation - WHO

Again, just use the search function. Interestingly enough though, the cover story currently on the main page there is about the success of vaccines for drastically reducing Congenital Rubella Syndrome.

I have no medical background, this is just something that interests me (as it appears to interest others). For issues like this, i look at the evidence available to me and make my own decisions based on my conclusions. I have friends who are doctors, a sister who is an anesthetist and a sister who is a nurse. Whilst i listen to things they tell me, i do not take their word as gospel and still look at issues by myself.

My choice is pro vaccination and until i see sufficient evidence against vaccines, this position will not change.

Read this www.naturalnews.com...
Only in the USA where profits come before our future!

reply to post by nosacrificenofreedom


Had a read through, some interesting stuff there. However, i have to take it with a pinch of salt because of the source - it has a very specific agenda.

That doesn't discount it for me but i would like to see corroborating evidence from a variety of sources (if that makes sense). A bit like history source work, you need as many sources as possible for a more balanced view.

reply to post by Flavian

I have no medical background, this is just something that interests me (as it appears to interest others). For issues like this, i look at the evidence available to me and make my own decisions based on my conclusions. I have friends who are doctors, a sister who is an anesthetist and a sister who is a nurse. Whilst i listen to things they tell me, i do not take their word as gospel and still look at issues by myself.

Thanks for your honesty babe, I could tell. About a year ago (maybe 18 months) I had to write a report on A.D.H.D., because of that, it brought me to study the vaccine issue. I put about 4 months (about 8-10 hrs/day, 4 days a week). This might sound odd to you but I dig this stuff, I come from a family of biologists. I can tell you, you are unlikely to meet a nurse who knows this stuff in depth, it's not a requirement. It even burns me when they toss that "I'm a professional" card around, it's deceptive.

Thanks for the link, I am familiar with their arguments. You will need to go back and read my previous post.

The issue is not that vaccines "can" be good. The issue is profit have become the priority...the driving force, not health. They use toxic fillers because they are cheap, and there is a great degree of turning a blind eye to quality control (even questionable malicious objectives). They have been busted selling/using batches of vaccines they knew were contaminated and "not safe" so they don't lose the profits. Much harm and even death has been a result.
Also, we are destroying the natural immune system because we do not allow it to prime itself....let me rephrase... we are interupting the natural development of the most important protector in our body.....When we do this, we are more suseptible to sickness and disease than we would be if we would have not interfered with our immune system in the first place. Do you understand? If you understand that, you will understand that we are making our bodies (and our children's bodies dependent on the pharmecutical companies)...by allowing them to ruin our built in protective system.... How many vaccines are we giving children before the age of 5 now? 25-35 vaccines? I am shocked parents aren't outraged!
There is plenty of evidence to support this position, check on the declining health, the dramatic increase in immunological deficiencies and chronic conditions (find out what constitutes a legit experiment and use the already available data, it's out there). We have enough data and time to see a pattern, but even try to publish a journal that contradicts these giants, you will be slandered, lose your job, and forget any future grant money for research. No one can match the pr $ to dispel the disinformation put out by these companies. These people are successful in court because they have proven their case. If all the court cases regarding vaccines weren't sealed from the public, we would begin to see the truth of the matter.
I am sorry but just because a nurse knows how to give an injection, doesn't make her knowledgeable about the chemicals she is injecting.

Originally posted by ScatterBrain
reply to post by Flavian

 

I am sorry but just because a nurse knows how to give an injection, doesn't make her knowledgeable about the chemicals she is injecting.

Totally agree. That is why i look at things myself and make my own decisions.

I also do not disagree about big Pharma. However, the nefarious practices they use in the name of profit does not (to me at least) take away from the positives of vaccines, according to the science. What it does mean is that big Pharma should be cleaned up and anyone found to be guilty or complicit should get some very long jail sentences. That way, people may have their faith restored in vaccination.

ETA:

I would also add i always try to be honest on here. At the end of the day, what is the point of lying? You always get found out and then look totally foolish. People can agree or disagree with me as they will - my position will always be my own honest one.

edit on 18-7-2012 by Flavian because: explanation

reply to post by ScatterBrain


Mass vaccinations heated up about 25 years ago.

ADHD, Autism, Chronic Conditions, Mental illness, also ramped up 25 years ago.

These things barely get studied much less long term studies. No one is going to connect a 25 y.o. fibro patient with the 18 month MMR vaccine.

These vaccines are tested on toddlers of a certain size and age.

So if you have a premie, undersized child, they do not fit the average, but that is never considered when vaxing kids.

My child has been very sick and my pediatrician would have no qualms about still vaxing him. (I delayed)
I would have to put them off.

reply to post by Flavian

the nefarious practices they use in the name of profit does not (to me at least) take away from the positives of vaccines, according to the science.

I appreciate your honesty and your willingness to discuss this matter. I do wonder however how you come to your conclusions. This time you say science supports your conclusion. Please include the science that confirms your statement. Also, not to sound rude but, I am not sure of your age and I am not looking to offend. Have you ever done your own research on a matter yourself? I mean, you seem to have a strong opinion on the matter, I would assume you would at least seek to understand what you read so as to make an informed judgement on the credibility of the source. I mean as we all know anyone could say anything, and the only real way to know if the writer is truthful is he has no conflict of interest and you have some knowledge yourself to cross check wouldn't you think?

You do know that back in the day many mothers didn't want their boys to masturbate, so they told them that if they masturbated they would go blind? You might laugh but, there are probably thousands of boys who believed it and still to this day some old men blame their poor eye-sight on their inability to refrain from the act.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by fourthmeal

 

That is all well and good but there is far far higher risk involved with any surgery.

Your logic is flawed, for one simple reason. Surgery isn't preventative. I wouldn't volunteer for brain surgery on the off chance I may or may not contract a disease at some point in the future. Would you go have your apendix removed "just in case"? Of course not. Last I checked there was very little proof for the efficacy of any vaccine, just anecdotal mumbo jumbo with a sprinkling of coincidence passed off as "research".

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Okay, let's be objective...
SOME vaccine MAY cause autism....
It's not like vaccination will indubitably cause a medical problem.
cough medicine MAY kill you... We should put things into correct perspectives IMO..

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by ScatterBrain

 

I apologise ScatterBrain, it wasn't you that repeatedly kept getting my name wrong. You just bore the brunt of a tired and frustrated individual, definitely my bad.

Regarding this thread, all sorts of info is available at this link for the BMJ - Link

Just use the search function and get info to your hearts content. Some will be more pro, some more anti - therefore a more balanced view.

Also try this one for the World Health Organisation - WHO

Again, just use the search function. Interestingly enough though, the cover story currently on the main page there is about the success of vaccines for drastically reducing Congenital Rubella Syndrome.

I have no medical background, this is just something that interests me (as it appears to interest others). For issues like this, i look at the evidence available to me and make my own decisions based on my conclusions. I have friends who are doctors, a sister who is an anesthetist and a sister who is a nurse. Whilst i listen to things they tell me, i do not take their word as gospel and still look at issues by myself.

My choice is pro vaccination and until i see sufficient evidence against vaccines, this position will not change.

The World Health Organization? You ARE kidding, right? Tell me you're kidding and I'll make sure you get into heaven.

What the World Health Organization has done

reply to post by Flavian


100% agree about asking the op to please vaccinate their child but if have vaccinated your child then there is no additional risk to your child if another child at the school is unvaccinated. The risk is only to the children of parents that have not vaccinated their kids. So the only reason to protest at your school would be to protect other peoples kids.

reply to post by SprocketUK


You know, you are so right. I was curious the other day. My friend and I were talking about vaccinations. I'm anti-vac and she is pro-vac. I wanted to know. So I looked it up and did the math.

You have a 0.082% - 0.82% chance of your child dying from the measles and a 1.1367% chance of your child getting Autism.

Here it is directly from the CDC

Worldwide, there are estimated to be 20 million cases and 164,000 deaths each year. More than half of the deaths occur in India.

Worldwide you have a 0.82% chance of dying from the measles

Although the page is very confusing on the same page are a wide range of facts.

About one out of 1,000 gets encephalitis, and one or two out of 1,000 die.

Lets say it is 2. Then isn't that 2%

While measles is almost gone from the United States, it still kills nearly 200,000 people each year around the world.

That is 8.2% higher than what they wrote before in the same web page.

So I go over to the World Health Organization. Let's see what they have.

more than 20 million people are affected by measles each year.

An estimated 139 300 people died from measles in 2010 – mostly children under the age of five.

So, I would say, in my opinion that 0.82% is probably the right percentage.
It does go on to say that:

As high as 10% of measles cases result in death among populations with high levels of malnutrition and a lack of adequate health care. People who recover from measles are immune for the rest of their lives.

The real issue then would be malnutrition and adequate health care. Your percentage risk of dying from measles is now 0.082%
Again from the CDC

About 1 in 88 children has been identified with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) according to estimates from CDC's Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network

That's a 1.1367% chance of getting Autism.

Edit. Autism is only one of the many health issues related to vaccines. Allergies mild to life threatening. Guillain–Barré syndrome, compromised immune systems (I say that because immunity via vaccination doesn't last there are some other personal guesses, but this is a fact), seizures, encephalitis, death. Those are just some of what we know. Why take the risk for vaccination when there are still so many unanswered questions.

reply to post by froglette


Actually Sherry Tenpenny did a presentation where she presented a whole bunch of facts that essentially proved all kinds of hilarious things against vacs - and all the information was taken from the CDC site. The info is not all on one page of course, but in various bits all over the site. And she showed how if you took what the CDC themselves says and laid out the facts side by side, all sorts of things become obvious. One of them was what you said about showing how people die of certain diseases directly because of poor sanitation, etc.

EXACTLY!

Even the WHO admits in their own findings that poor sanitation and malnutrition are the leading causes of disease in the 3rd world countries they administer vaccines.

Interestingly, these people administer vaccines even to sick, malnurished children and as a result the death and damage rate is very high. Some in the industry have even said it is genocide. That harkens back to Bill Gates and his words, directly or indirectly.

reply to post by froglette


This reminds me of the stats the DHS have on cancer caused by their body scanners vs. threat of terrorism. The chances of being on a hijacked plane by terrorists, right around 1:1,000,000,000. The chance of getting cancer from just one visit through the body scanner is right around 1:100,000,000. LOL.

Literally, trading one for the other without assurance or protection despite the added risk. Sounds much like vaccines, no?

This is classic. Scroll to 1:17:05 in the video below for a laugh.