Secret New Documents Reveal Shocking Truth About Vaccine Cover UP.

i/ve written down thimerosal as a agent do avoid,so next time i go to the doctor i will ask if it has thimerosal so i know to avoid it..kid got all of his shots despite me being aware of the problems and various sources saying its not healthy...every time i dont wana give him any but i think about what if he is to get that desiese somehow,he isnt gona die if he takes it...stuff like that...now i will make sure ,but still i dont think it will say what it contains,only what its for..

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by kalamatas

 

Boosters aren't different than the original vaccine. It's not modified for mutations. That makes no sense. Boosters are to boost immunity not cover mutations. Wow.

Actually they are. Because there's no logical reason to otherwise need a boosting to your immune system. Your body does not forget a virus. But a virus mutates and then it needs to find a new way.

What you're talking about is exposing yourself to pathogens via the proper immune stimulating route. This confers true immunity because, as I already noted previously, you are exposed to the pathogen via mucous membranes and your gastrointestinal tract. This is the proper way to signal the body to mount a PROPER immune response and actually learn to fight the pathogen. It is a completely different mechanism than injecting a dead substance intramuscularly or if the nurse sucks at shot into your bloodstream.

Actually it's not different. See you're trying to say it is, but the reality is that the body can mount a more effective assault in the blood than in the mucous. Furthermore, mucous is not for fighting a disease. It is for preventing it. In hopes that it gets caught in that rather than the lungs and dies.

The function of what is happening remains the same. The substance being dead is basically irrelevant. It's the specific protein assemblies that the body has to scan. And it can do that to something dead or alive. Furthermore, the "mounting the offensive" is what is actually your cold. That's what a cold is. The war, not the infection.

Why do you need a tetanus booster? Not because of mutation but because effectiveness wears off. Ingest tetanus toxoid and you become immune.

The effectiveness wears off because the entity mutates. Ingest it, and you will get sick again if it is a mutation. Because the body has to find a new way to combat the changed structure.

It is absolutely NOT the same function. Your completely bypassing the first and critical lines of defense.

Because the first means of defense are not immunity. It's killing it before it enters you.

Huh? Your first lines of defense being your mucous membranes, g.i. tract, epithelial cells.....This confers natural lifelong immunity

You know what? I can't even argue with you because the information you are throwing out is completely and utterly bogus. I have to assume you're making this stuff up, or at the very least have confused your information

We're talking about booster shots not annual flu vaccines (of which are updated to "cover" new viruses). Booster shots (not flu shots) are the same shot as the previous.

Have you studied the immune system? Do you know what epithelial cells are? Please study the immune system and it's processes then come back and tell me that injection and ingestion are the same. Until you do that we are both wasting our time.

Vaccines wear off, and the idea for them not lasting has ZERO to do with mutations its has to do with the idea of immunologic memory, which is a debatable premise of it's own. This is common knowledge. Look it up.

reply to post by kalamatas


There is no such thing as life long immunity.

You know what? I can't even argue with you because the information you are throwing out is completely and utterly bogus. I have to assume you're making this stuff up, or at the very least have confused your information

Such is the answer for one who is wrong.

We're talking about booster shots not annual flu vaccines (of which are updated to "cover" new viruses). Booster shots (not flu shots) are the same shot as the previous.

Annual shots are essentially booster shots.

Have you studied the immune system? Do you know what epithelial cells are? Please study the immune system and it's processes then come back and tell me that injection and ingestion are the same. Until you do that we are both wasting our time.

You've yet to show me how it is not. The body is a machine. Where it scans the enemy is really irreverent. It's input.

Vaccines wear off, and the idea for them not lasting has ZERO to do with mutations its has to do with the idea of immunologic memory, which is a debatable premise of it's own. This is common knowledge. Look it up.

If it were common knowledge I wouldn't need to research it lol. It's common knowledge for the ignorant. Vaccines wear off because diseases mutate.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by kalamatas


If it were common knowledge I wouldn't need to research it lol. It's common knowledge for the ignorant. Vaccines wear off because diseases mutate.

edit on 9-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

No dear it's common knowledge for people who don't pull their information out of thin air.

Oh my word! Lifelong immunity for specific viruses, yes there is.

You get chicken pox naturally, you don't get it again. You get a varicella vaccine you need a booster, of the same vaccine because it wears off.

We're not talking about flu vaccines. And, no, annual flu vaccines are not boosters.

Definition:

Boosters:
n.
An additional dose of an immunizing agent, such as a vaccine or toxoid, given at a time after the initial dose to sustain the immune response elicited by the previous dose of the same agent. Also called booster dose.

You said: "Where is scans the enemy and what form the enemy is in is completely relevant"

Acquired immunity develops through exposure to specific foreign microorganisms, toxins, and/or foreign tissues, which is "remembered" by the body's immune system. When that antigen enters the body again, the immune system "remembers" exactly how to respond to it, such as with chickenpox.
Once a person is exposed to chickenpox, or the chickenpox vaccine, the immune system will produce specific antibodies against chickenpox. When that same person is exposed to chickenpox again, the immune system will trigger the release of the particular chickenpox antibodies to fight the disease. The degree and duration of immunity depend on the type and amount of antigen and how it enters the body.

And I will add this and then leave this discussion, because your last post is apparent deflection and your arguments devoid of credible substance.

Quote from book Vaccine Illusion, written by Immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych PHD (who after years of working as research immunologist realized that "vaccination is one of the most deceptive inventions the science could ever convince the world to accept."):

The immune system of infants is immature and not capable of effectively dealing with natural viruses or even with artificially attenuated vaccine viruses. Naturally immune mothers - i.e., those who had viral diseases during their own childhood - protect their babies from those diseases by passive transfer of their immunity via the placenta during pregnancy and via breast milk after birth. Immunologists believe that passive immunity transfer depends on virus-neutralizing antibodies in the serum and in breast milk of immune mothers. Interestingly, females of the mammalian species are capable of much higher levels of antibody production than males. This might have been an evolutionary adaptation for the need to protect their young via passive antibody transfer throughout childbearing age.

A child's exposure to the virus while being breastfed by a naturally immune mother would lead to an asymptomatic infection that results in life-long immunity to that virus. If exposed to the virus for the first time only after weaning, a child would experience the disease and acquire life-long immunity too.

Many viral diseases are sometimes referred to as childhood diseases, because prior to the routine childhood vaccination, these diseases occurred mainly in children. Infants were protected from these diseases by maternal immunity, whereas adults were protected by their own life-long immunity, which they had acquired in the childhood. The use of vaccines changed this pattern.

Unlike natural exposure to viruses that happens via mucosal surfaces, most of the live attenuated or inactivated viral vaccines are delivered by injection. This route of exposure induces serum antibodies but not the mucosal antibodies. Since only the mucosal exposure contributes to the production of antibodies in the mammary gland, vaccinated mothers lack the ability to transfer vaccine-induced antibodies to their infants by breastfeeding. Furthermore, vaccinated mothers have lower levels of virus-specific antibodies in the serum compared to naturally immune mothers. Therefore vaccinated mothers transfer fewer, if any, protective antibodies to the fetus via the placenta than naturally immune mothers. For these reasons and increased risk for measles had been observed in infants born to vaccinated compared to naturally immune mothers in the early 1990s, when measles was still endemic in the US (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)

It was a pleasure.

I'm not going to get into the whole vaccine good or bad debate as I believe that people who think they're bad will never be swayed from their beliefs whatever is put forward and to some extent vice versa.

However, the article which this thread is all about has been available for at least a year now so it's unlikely that it's going to be "pulled".

There is plenty of debate on it if you care to take a look around.

reply to post by beckybecky


Well what do you know ATS and another paranoia thread, life is a risk, I was vaccinated my brother my sister, my children most of my friends and family and their children with NO problems at all.

Some people will jump into a car today some will die, some will be injured the vast majority will be ok so should we stop people from driving?

Have any of the people on here that automatically agree with anything especially when it attacks official recommendations seen a child with really bad measles or whooping cough have they seen the problems they can cause even death? I know we are not always told the truth but BOTH sides are guilty of that!!!!

It's up to the parents to decide vaccinate or not , then it's fingers crossed!!

I can't read the PDF at the moment as I'm at work but I will when I get home, I haven't done a lot of research on this subject but it is becoming one on top of my list.
I have just one question, does this count for vaccines your supposed to get kids when there born and stuff like that or is it just the new vaccines they bring out like the ones for swine and bird flu?

One things for sure I won't be getting ANY vaccines in the future.

i havnt had a flu vac since i was in primary school and im now 19 and havnt had the flu since year 7 i had the shot in year 4 or 5 cant remember it has made me very sus for a long time because i have had to live with people with the flu at many times in my life before and after and havnt contracted it since year 7

very interesting topic, I live in the UK and have only ever had a single vaccine when I was much young at school.

I went absolutely crazy and refused it, teachers trying to pin me down and everything. They gave up and told my mother I would have too be taken to the doctors and I was a nightmare at the hospital aswell but I think I got persuaded around to it for a ice cream or something. I think I must have had a hunch from a young age they were unnecessary!

I look forward too speaking to my doctor about this in the near future

I am a welder from proffesion and i was wondering since a half year ago i cut my self in the finger with a grinder which automaticly meant i had to get it stitched and ended up with a tetanus booster.I was wondering does this mean i am now exposed to the virus?

reply to post by ~widowmaker~


Then home school them. I'm certainly not subjecting my children to the public educational system. They will be home schooled, volunteer, and enter various local clubs to make up for social interaction.

aww - ya don't wanna burst the brits bubbles.
squalene adjuvants w/ peanut extract and monkey virus - be the very first to shoot up.

Dr. Mercola and Dr. Laibow come to mind.
also
knowledgeofhealth.com...

reply to post by beckybecky


Thanks for finding and sharing this report, as a parent who chose to not vaccinate it will help me immensely in the battle for the hearts and minds of my family, school and doctors! Saved, and reprinted to share!!!

I think the best choice is to take away all vaccine from the vaccine haters. Its been a while since i seen polio and chicken pox.

Would be a treat.

edit: i support the essential vaccine(DTPP) that are given at birth not these "extra" vaccine that's on market.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by ~widowmaker~

 

Then home school them. I'm certainly not subjecting my children to the public educational system. They will be home schooled, volunteer, and enter various local clubs to make up for social interaction.

and then what?...when they go out on their own, they will be interacting with the general public for the rest of their lives. will they have the social skills needed to get along with other adults, or will they feel isolated? and how will they deal with this as adults, when they are no longer in your sphere of influence? will they adjust in a healthy manner?. will they question what you did?

reply to post by jimmyx


I see NO reason to think your questions are even remotely related to what I wrote. WTH does home schooling, volunteering, and going to clubs have to do with ANYTHING you just wrote.



Freaking nuts.

reply to post by luciddream


I don't hate vaccines per se, but I do hate the ingredients and methods they use to deploy them. When I was a kid (40 years ago) they spread out vaccines across what was it, 5 or 6 years? It allowed your body to handle one or two at a time, and also for your body to get bigger and stronger before being 'shocked' into immunity. The junk in the vaccines wasn't there either.

Today there's a laundry list of negative ingredients that the mainstream scoffs at, but if your kid is highly allergic to them (as are 2 of mine) slamming their newborn bodies with it ALL AT ONCE can and does cause REALLY bad results. My middle child had the opening salvo, and we dealt with autism symptoms for about 3 years. He still has trouble formulating thoughts into words somewhat. After we saw the symptoms begin, we halted the vaccinations. Both my wife and I strongly feel that had we continued (MMR2, etc) our son would have been permanently, severely damaged.

If it comes to it, I will travel to and pay for a clinic that formulates a fresh, non-preserved vaccination.

reply to post by blamethegreys


Yes i understand your view.

Not everyone is born with full health. You should refuse those. But now you have more illness your child have to be cautious of.

edit: Not all vaccine are made with toxic preservatives.

I particularly "like" the tactic where vaccine side effects are "disproved" using the scientific method.

They take the vaccine and an identical serum, minus the virus load, as a control.

Any side effects noticed in both the test and control group are then eliminated.

Why not use a control made from saline water? People assume that they would use an inert control and it is this faulty assumption that is a key to "proving" vaccine safety.

Originally posted by guitarplayer
Small poxs I beleive had my scar on my left upper arm. not to bad of a scar seen some that looked really bad.

Originally posted by abeverage

Originally posted by guitarplayer
You sound like me I too went through all the grammer school shots and cubes I suppose we are lucky to of not gotten any of the polio shots that were contaminated with cancer.

Originally posted by Aleister
I haven't had a vaccine since I was in grammar school, when they marched us into the gym and either stuck us with something or gave us a sugar cube. Thanks for the great find, and I expect people here to be picking the document apart and coming up with new angles on it for quite awhile. Where's the news media when you need them?

Which one left a scar?

edit on 8-1-2013 by guitarplayer because: (no reason given)

Well I didn't so I am curious with your statement that some had been contaminated with cancer. How better to check a test subject then a visible scar as an identifying mark? I have always been curious of this scar and how prominent is was and if there could be an alternate reasoning behind it.