The vaccine empire has collapsed

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MJHerbman

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


You actually posted a quote using the word Boom! ??

Find a legitimate site and you have a legit claim. But bogus retro hippy sites isn't one of them.

Some of this is funny:




The authors found: Vaccines administered parenterally, that is, outside the digestive tract—which generally means by injection—reduced influenza-like symptoms by only 4%


It is a vaccine, you take it before you get sick, you don't take it to reduce symptoms.
edit on 9-10-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)


So you basically bash the site because of the word gaia and you discredit them based on a misunderstanding on your part.

They mean there were 4% less cases of influenza, or influenza like symptoms, obviously.


Yes, I am. Because no article seriously discussing science and health related topics use the words gaia or boom.


And if you read the quote, it says: "which generally means by injection—reduced influenza-like symptoms by only 4%"

Theraflu reduces symptoms, not the vaccine.




posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Yes, I am. Because no article seriously discussing science and health related topics use the words gaia or boom.




Seriously, that's your reasoning?



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MJHerbman
 


It depends on the flu , not all target the same age group. Which is why H1N1 scared officials, it targets young adults, the working force.

And to help you with your ignorance problem, it doesn't matter what age group dies from the flu, which includes a lot of children, you get the vaccination to prevent it from spreading to those who are are more threatened by it.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 


Apparently you have never read a scientfic article and have yet to come up with any real evidence then a retro hippy site.
edit on 9-10-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





And if you read the quote, it says: "which generally means by injection—reduced influenza-like symptoms by only 4%" Theraflu reduces symptoms, not the vaccine.


I know what they wrote, you misinterpreted it.

They obviously mean it reduced the number of persons in their testgroup, that experienced influenza like symptoms, with 4%.

Seems the more logical interpretation.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





And to help you with your ignorance problem, it doesn't matter what age group dies from the flu, which includes a lot of children, you get the vaccination to prevent it from spreading to those who are are more threatened by it.


It does matter in a way, that an average healthy person doesn't need a flue shot.

And what?

A vaccination does not prevent the spread of viruses. That's is the complete BS. And if those that are threatened get vaccinated, why would it matter if an unvaccinated person gave it to them? They are protected right?




Yes, I am. Because no article seriously discussing science and health related topics use the words gaia or boom.


The author on that site is refering to a study. If you want to discredit something, discredit the study at least.

Talk about ignorant.
edit on 9-10-2012 by MJHerbman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Here in sweden the vaccine proponents have lost alot of credability after the swine incident.
Everybody I now was pro vacine some years ago , now everybody i now is very sceptical towards goverment and "helath" industry...



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by moniesisfun
 


Apparently you have never read a scientfic article and have yet to come up with any real evidence then a retro hippy site.


More idiotic assumptions!!




posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Naturalnews.com is a well-known cesspool of crackpottery
That said, I dont think flu vaccines are needed for healthy adults. For risk groups and weaker individuals it is worth it.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
The NaturalNews article references a metastudy from 2010. The study says that flu vaccines don't work well against non-influenza viruses which cause flu-like symptoms. Big surprise.

Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

I wonder why they ignore more recent studies which specifically address how vaccines work against what they are supposed to work against...influenza.

A more recent study (Cochrane, August 2012) about childhood vaccination says this:

Influenza vaccines are efficacious in preventing cases of influenza in children older than two years of age, but little evidence is available for children younger than two years of age.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Another metastudy from July 2012 found:

Most influenza vaccines have been shown to confer some protection against naturally acquired infection and no evidence for major harms has emerged. In adults and children, the efficacy/effectiveness of current seasonal vaccines was generally high for laboratory-confirmed cases (especially for LAV in children aged 2–17 y), and modest for clinically-confirmed cases and for the elderly.
www.landesbioscience.com...

So again, NaturalNews does it's thing and distorts the findings of a study. Flu vaccines do help people (especially those at high risk of complications from influenza) and NaturalNews helps no one.
edit on 10/11/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 

uh excuse you but the "ingredients" are not difficult to come by if you try.
here's a start ... www.informedchoice.info...
or this one ... www.novaccine.com...
or ... vaxtruth.org...
need more ??
how 'bout this one ... www.healthscents4u.com...

then, compare any of those to what the fda has to say ... www.fda.gov...
(scroll to bottom of page to view chart)

you'll find the fda isn't quite telling the whole story or is outright lying.
(compare those flu vax that say "never contained thimerosal" to the ingredients actually in them
)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by crankyoldman
 

uh excuse you but the "ingredients" are not difficult to come by if you try.
here's a start ... www.informedchoice.info...
or this one ... www.novaccine.com...
or ... vaxtruth.org...
need more ??
how 'bout this one ... www.healthscents4u.com...

then, compare any of those to what the fda has to say ... www.fda.gov...
(scroll to bottom of page to view chart)

you'll find the fda isn't quite telling the whole story or is outright lying.
(compare those flu vax that say "never contained thimerosal" to the ingredients actually in them
)


Excuse you, you're sure those ingredients are in the stick you get? You're sure? You know for a fact that the little vial in your MD's office has those ingredients and nothing else, or even those ingredients specifically? You're sure? How are you sure? Do you get to inspect the bottle? Could you, say, take it for your own testing - you can if you want with your food?

You are quoting the FDA, seriously? The FDA, you understand the FDA is there to regulate commerce, not human safety - right, you get that? They have okayed a myriad of products that were, are unhealthy at best. Example: They REJECTED aspartame because experimental ulcer medicine is not a food product, but due to some heavy thug like influence from a soon to be war criminal, they okayed it - it's poison. This is your "proof?" Take the sticks, enjoy them as you are free to, but make sure the next time you at least examine the bottle to determine what's in it. Remember, the Merk people know there are cancer virus' in it, they just won't tell you for some reason.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 

nope cause my "sticks" were so long ago that most of the marketable sticks of today didn't exist then, so the answer is still NO.

however, if you are insinuating that what is listed aren't all of the ingredients invovled, you wouldn't get any argument from me.
there are enough "bad ingredients" listed to keep me and mine far away.

actually, as the caretaker of a home-bound person, yes i could have them "outside tested" if i so chose.
but, even the home-bound person refuses to take them so what does that tell ya ??

no, i didn't quote the fda, i included it for comparison.
is comparison a task beyond your ability ?

since you aren't willing to review the material presented, save your personal attack for someone who deserves it.
regarding the failures of the FDA, you are preaching to the choir.
(sometimes it helps to know your audience before you spout nonsense)

i wouldn't take aspartame if it was the only sweetner available, regardless what the FDA says.

again, try to learn about your audience before spouting your nonsense.

Take the sticks, enjoy them as you are free to,
i don't voluntarily take or recommend sticks.
are you skipping that part of my postings just to make yourself feel better ?

you linked it but i'll repeat it just in case ...

you'll find the fda isn't quite telling the whole story or is outright lying.
edit on 11-10-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt






top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join