Big Pharma Spread Disease in Vaccines

This is the problem, vaccines are not safe. Vaccines are a game of Russian Roulette. Some vaccines we can write off immediately, while others we have to think about more carefully.

Some people only believe in the Tetanus jab, but Tetanus is incredibly rare in the first world. It's a third world problem and comes from rusty scissor (newborns having their cord cut). In the first world more people die from the Tetanus vaccine than from Tetanus, the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of not having it. In the first world you'd only be at risk if you suffered from severe burns or similar.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Originally posted by Rubinstein
The website focuses on the info, like you say it's the most important part. If you have an interest in Cervarix I'd strongly recommend Sane Vax website sanevax.org... where they focus on a lot on the dangers of HPV vaccines.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Wow, I just took a look at whale (hurtful for the eyes, but anyway, if you want to give out a message, you don't care for the package, just the info, right?).

Ceravix.

That is an interesting site, really.
Any idea, where I could find "Safe, Affordable, Necessary & Effective Vaccines and Vaccination Practices" on it? Really, the only texts are about victims, practices and such, but where are the effective vaccines?

reply to post by Rubinstein


well obviously i am a shill.

it may surprise you to learn that these boards do not exist solely as a collective back slapping exercise, but for people of divergent opinions to discuss, debate and disagree as well.

i await your response to my question on the penn and teller thread re your opinion of autistic people and the use of the hilarious elders of zion nonsense.

Most anti-vaxxers started out as pro-vaccine, then eventually looked at the other side of the story and formed a balance opinion. Whereas most pro-vaccine people have been indoctrinated with one side of the story. It's rather difficult to get access to the other side of the story, as the antivaxx side doesn't have much money. Whereas the pro-vaccine side has an incredible amount of money and hence power to influence media, lobby for law changes, fund studies to 'prove' what it's profitable to 'prove' etc.

The anti-vaxxers who spread their message are altruistic types, they are not getting money out of it, in fact they're probably losing money by taking time out of their work. They are spreading the message in the hope that some people who they don't know and who they'll never meet will be able to live with good health, rather than have it damaged by a vaccine. People like this are what the world needs more of, the majority these days are out for themselves.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Originally posted by Rubinstein
That thread was about a different issue, but it required the same sources to back it up.

You sound pro-vaccine

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Didn't you just post all of this right before this?

Yes, yes you did.

Do you think that mass-quoting those obscure and (even in their titles..) biased sites does help promoting your cause?

Yes, I sound pro-vaccine. Must be coming from that I am pro-vaccine. Am I dislodged now?
Okay, if not, I will scare you now: my children are vaccinated! Yes! I am, too! Didn't catch the flu!

Okay, okay, you might think that I am here to mock you: I am not.

But the sheer stubbornness of anti-vaccine-(users? -doers? -abbolisher? sorry) is beyond my comprehension.


You say: vaccines are death-machines designed to empty our pockets, lower our life-expectancies and to keep us docile.
You say: look, those websites will tell you all of it.
You don't say: those websites will not bring up any proof. They will only tell tales.

And the worst: Every person speaking against vaccines is unable to build a NETWORK with other anti-vaccine-scientists to have influence in the world!

Why not - because they are at issue about the "bad" in all those bad things in vaccines. They can't come up with one voice because every one of them has found his/her special point in vaccines which annoys specifically them. And no-one else. Therefore, the anti-vaccine-ideology is nothing more than that. An ideology.

There are whole armies of shills on the Internet, it's generally easy to spot them. That doesn't mean that you are one, there are many reasons why you might have chosen to post here. Pharma in particular have an incredible amount of money to fight messages on social media which encourage people not to trust their products. The Internet didn't used to be like this, but the Powers That Be are now adapting to the changing world.

Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by Rubinstein

 

well obviously i am a shill.

it may surprise you to learn that these boards do not exist solely as a collective back slapping exercise, but for people of divergent opinions to discuss, debate and disagree as well.

i await your response to my question on the penn and teller thread re your opinion of autistic people and the use of the hilarious elders of zion nonsense.

edit on 26-3-2013 by skalla because: typoz

reply to post by Rubinstein


I do not know how well you checked the links you are providing but I hope that it is idiotic to generalize things, stuff ir rarely black and white and only demagogues try to put it on those terms...

The second video is clearly out of context, even if it may have any merit (depending on what came out of those imports) it was clearly stated as a joke. We can not even presume that the statement is true (as verified even by the person how is making it, only that he sees it as a possibility). There is clearly no reference to intention.

Vaccines in general save lives, how a corporation (a sociopath entity to start with without no morals beyond the PR department) develops, tests and produces its products (not only vaccines) is the problem.

After that clearly skewed video I stopped looking into the information you provided, I already know who the world runs...

I've checked them extensively and many more which I haven't posted.

The second video isn't a joke, just because the guy making it laughs, it's completely serious. Clearly Dr Maurice Hilleman didn't put SV40 in the vaccine, but you can bet it didn't get their by accident. Cancer makes a lot of money!

'Vaccines Save Lives' is just a belief, it's not based on fact. Vaccines are causing a lot of death, harm and damage, most of which isn't tracked, so vaccines 'saving lives' can only ever be a belief.

"After that clearly skewed video I stopped looking into the information you provided", that's just an excuse you're using. You are not interested in the information or you don't have a good attention span.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by Rubinstein

 

I do not know how well you checked the links you are providing but I hope that it is idiotic to generalize things, stuff ir rarely black and white and only demagogues try to put it on those terms...

The second video is clearly out of context, even if it may have any merit (depending on what came out of those imports) it was clearly stated as a joke. We can not even presume that the statement is true (as verified even by the person how is making it, only that he sees it as a possibility). There is clearly no reference to intention.

Vaccines in general save lives, how a corporation (a sociopath entity to start with without no morals beyond the PR department) develops, tests and produces its products (not only vaccines) is the problem.

After that clearly skewed video I stopped looking into the information you provided, I already know who the world runs...

edit on 26-3-2013 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Rubinstein


Vaccines are good for some people but bad for others. The chance of a bad side effect increases with every different vaccine required. It is not always the same people who have the bad effects, if you take ten different vaccines you may wind up with bad effects to five out of ten people. It's like gambling, the more you do the more chances you have of loosing everything, especially when you risk a lot every time.

Very true rickymouse, vaccines are a game of Russian Roulette.

My own observations show that it is the first born who is most at risk of vaccine damage. Also studies show that if vaccines are held off until after age 2, the risk decreases, though there are still 5 year olds who have become Autistic directly after receiving MMR. We also know that receiving multiple vaccines in one sitting hugely increases the risk of vaccine damage.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Rubinstein

 

Vaccines are good for some people but bad for others. The chance of a bad side effect increases with every different vaccine required. It is not always the same people who have the bad effects, if you take ten different vaccines you may wind up with bad effects to five out of ten people. It's like gambling, the more you do the more chances you have of loosing everything, especially when you risk a lot every time.

Originally posted by Rubinstein
This is the problem, vaccines are not safe. Vaccines are a game of Russian Roulette. Some vaccines we can write off immediately, while others we have to think about more carefully.

Some people only believe in the Tetanus jab, but Tetanus is incredibly rare in the first world. It's a third world problem and comes from rusty scissor (newborns having their cord cut). In the first world more people die from the Tetanus vaccine than from Tetanus, the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of not having it. In the first world you'd only be at risk if you suffered from severe burns or similar.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Originally posted by Rubinstein
The website focuses on the info, like you say it's the most important part. If you have an interest in Cervarix I'd strongly recommend Sane Vax website sanevax.org... where they focus on a lot on the dangers of HPV vaccines.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Wow, I just took a look at whale (hurtful for the eyes, but anyway, if you want to give out a message, you don't care for the package, just the info, right?).

Ceravix.

That is an interesting site, really.
Any idea, where I could find "Safe, Affordable, Necessary & Effective Vaccines and Vaccination Practices" on it? Really, the only texts are about victims, practices and such, but where are the effective vaccines?

Uh, ever thought that less people die of tetanus in the first world is because we routinely vaccinate against tetanus? It's like saying that umbrellas don't keep you from getting wet in places where everyone has an umbrella.

And no, tetanus is not just on rusty scissors used to cut umbilical cords. It is a very common microbe. In the US, cases of tetanus dropped from 200/100,000 in the 1800's to 0.4/100,000 in the 1940's after the advent of the vaccine. This has further dropped with improvement in cleanlisness, water treatment, and common household cleaners and antiseptics.

Originally posted by Rubinstein
I've checked them extensively and many more which I haven't posted.

The second video isn't a joke, just because the guy making it laughs, it's completely serious. Clearly Dr Maurice Hilleman didn't put SV40 in the vaccine, but you can bet it didn't get their by accident. Cancer makes a lot of money!

'Vaccines Save Lives' is just a belief, it's not based on fact. Vaccines are causing a lot of death, harm and damage, most of which isn't tracked, so vaccines 'saving lives' can only ever be a belief.

"After that clearly skewed video I stopped looking into the information you provided", that's just an excuse you're using. You are not interested in the information or you don't have a good attention span.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by Rubinstein

 

I do not know how well you checked the links you are providing but I hope that it is idiotic to generalize things, stuff ir rarely black and white and only demagogues try to put it on those terms...

The second video is clearly out of context, even if it may have any merit (depending on what came out of those imports) it was clearly stated as a joke. We can not even presume that the statement is true (as verified even by the person how is making it, only that he sees it as a possibility). There is clearly no reference to intention.

Vaccines in general save lives, how a corporation (a sociopath entity to start with without no morals beyond the PR department) develops, tests and produces its products (not only vaccines) is the problem.

After that clearly skewed video I stopped looking into the information you provided, I already know who the world runs...

edit on 26-3-2013 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2013 by Rubinstein because: (no reason given)

Please explaain the pathophysiology of SV40 through which it causes cancer.

Originally posted by NavyDoc


Please explaaain the pathophysiology of SV40 through which it causes canceer.

We don't even need to look into the pathophysiology, the simple explanation makes this a lot clearer. We know SV40 causes Cancer in rodents, but that's not enough on it's own. The giveaway is that SV40 is found in the tumours of the victims of Non Hodgkin Lyphoma, SV40 was not in humans before the Salk Polio vaccine which was found to be contamintated with SV40, it was found by the then head of vaccines at Merck Dr Maurice Hilleman. Non Hodgkin Lyphomas have sky-rocketed ever since the Salk Polio vaccine.

Originally posted by Rubinstein

Originally posted by NavyDoc


Please explaaain the pathophysiology of SV40 through which it causes canceer.

We don't even need to look into the pathophysiology, the simple explanation makes this a lot clearer. We know SV40 causes Cancer in rodents, but that's not enough on it's own. The giveaway is that SV40 is found in the tumours of the victims of Non Hodgkin Lyphoma, SV40 was not in humans before the Salk Polio vaccine which was found to be contamintated with SV40, it was found by the then head of vaccines at Merck Dr Maurice Hilleman. Non Hodgkin Lyphomas have sky-rocketed ever since the Salk Polio vaccine.

Yes you do need to know the pathophysiology. You need to understand how things work in order to explain them, prevent them, and treat them. Correlation does not equal causeation.

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
Well, Our Creator says that He is Our Healer.
Satans are adversary that come between Him and man.
How do so many now look to man as their healer?
Introduce disease, offer treatments and said "cures" for the very things that their introduced diseases caused.

Crafty.

I quite agree.

Jeremiah 17:5 This is what the LORD says: "Cursed are those who put their trust in mere humans, who rely on human strength and turn their hearts away from the LORD.

Since you're interested

How SV40 Causes Cancer
www.sv40foundation.org...

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Rubinstein

Originally posted by NavyDoc


Please explaaain the pathophysiology of SV40 through which it causes canceer.

We don't even need to look into the pathophysiology, the simple explanation makes this a lot clearer. We know SV40 causes Cancer in rodents, but that's not enough on it's own. The giveaway is that SV40 is found in the tumours of the victims of Non Hodgkin Lyphoma, SV40 was not in humans before the Salk Polio vaccine which was found to be contamintated with SV40, it was found by the then head of vaccines at Merck Dr Maurice Hilleman. Non Hodgkin Lyphomas have sky-rocketed ever since the Salk Polio vaccine.

Yes you do need to know the pathophysiology. You need to understand how things work in order to explain them, prevent them, and treat them. Correlation does not equal causeation.

Originally posted by Rubinstein
Since you're interested

How SV40 Causes Cancer
www.sv40foundation.org...

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Rubinstein

Originally posted by NavyDoc


Please explaaain the pathophysiology of SV40 through which it causes canceer.

We don't even need to look into the pathophysiology, the simple explanation makes this a lot clearer. We know SV40 causes Cancer in rodents, but that's not enough on it's own. The giveaway is that SV40 is found in the tumours of the victims of Non Hodgkin Lyphoma, SV40 was not in humans before the Salk Polio vaccine which was found to be contamintated with SV40, it was found by the then head of vaccines at Merck Dr Maurice Hilleman. Non Hodgkin Lyphomas have sky-rocketed ever since the Salk Polio vaccine.

Yes you do need to know the pathophysiology. You need to understand how things work in order to explain them, prevent them, and treat them. Correlation does not equal causeation.

Nice that you finally googled a link...now can you explain any of that?

Of course part of your website that you missed:

The results of epidemiological studies initiated in the 1960s through the 1970s, in which thousands of poliovirus vaccine recipients were studied, indicated that this population did not have an increased risk of developing cancer. More recent reports that SV40 viral DNA is present in human tumors have led to a debate on the contribution of this virus to human cancer. Some of the arguments for and against presence of SV40 in human cancers are presented below.

Evidence that SV40 is present in human tumors

SV40 DNA has been detected in several human tumors, including osteosarcoma, mesothelioma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Similar tumors are induced by the virus in hamsters.
Poliovirus vaccine produced in 1954 contained a variant of SV40 that can be distinguished from common laboratory strains. This viral variant has been found in three non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients
Evidence that SV40 is not present in human tumors

SV40 DNA is not present in all samples of a cancer, and in some studies of mesotheliomas, it has not been detected in any.
SV40 viral DNA has been detected in tumors of those who could not have received contaminated poliovirus vaccine.
In a comparison of mesotheliomas and normal tissues, SV40 DNA has been detected as frequently in both.
Analysis of the SV40 sequences in mesotheliomas showed that the viral DNA was derived from a laboratory strain which contains a gap that is not present in the wild type viral genome.
Even if SV40 DNA were definitively shown to be present in human tumors, this would not answer the question of whether the virus caused the cancer. The debate on the role of SV40 in human malignancy illustrates the difficulty in establishing cause and effect, and provides ample impetus for using genomic technologies to ensure that vaccines and other biological products are free of adventitious agents.

So, thus far we have neither proof that SV40 causes cancer in humans nor that it was "intentionally put in."

Why do you want me to explain it when the info is already on the site? All the information is there for you to read if you're interested, but I don't have time to spend all day on this I'm trying to work at the same time as posting.

We know that SV40 was found in the Polio vaccines, we also know it was found in the NHL tumours. We don't know how exactly it got there, but given the reputation of Merck one would suspect it was put there deliberately by someone who wasn't caught. Dr Maurice Hilleman detected the contamination, it was a bit of luck that he did. If he was in on it he would have kept quiet. Merck make a lot of money from Cancer treatments, they have a conflict of interest. It seems likely the contamination was deliberate, but at best it was a 'convenient' contamination.

How SV40 Causes Cancer
"The specific biological mechanisms by which SV40 transforms (turns cancerous) cells have been well studied since its discovery in the early 1960’s. In fact, there are volumes of scientific publications on this subject. Below is a brief outline of some of the mechanisms. Supporting documentation can be found through Medline by simply entering the term SV40 with the appropriate mechanism."

www.sv40foundation.org...

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Nice that you finally googled a link...now can you explain any of that?

Of course part of your website that you missed:

So, thus far we have neither proof that SV40 causes cancer in humans nor that it was "intentionally put in."

Originally posted by Rubinstein
Why do you want me to explain it when the info is already on the site? All the information is there for you to read if you're interested, but I don't have time to spend all day on this I'm trying to work at the same time as posting.

We know that SV40 was found in the Polio vaccines, we also know it was found in the NHL tumours. We don't know how exactly it got there, but given the reputation of Merck one would suspect it was put there deliberately by someone who wasn't caught. Dr Maurice Hilleman detected the contamination, it was a bit of luck that he did. If he was in on it he would have kept quiet. Merck make a lot of money from Cancer treatments, they have a conflict of interest. It seems likely the contamination was deliberate, but at best it was a 'convenient' contamination.

How SV40 Causes Cancer
"The specific biological mechanisms by which SV40 transforms (turns cancerous) cells have been well studied since its discovery in the early 1960’s. In fact, there are volumes of scientific publications on this subject. Below is a brief outline of some of the mechanisms. Supporting documentation can be found through Medline by simply entering the term SV40 with the appropriate mechanism."

www.sv40foundation.org...

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Nice that you finally googled a link...now can you explain any of that?

Of course part of your website that you missed:

So, thus far we have neither proof that SV40 causes cancer in humans nor that it was "intentionally put in."

edit on 26-3-2013 by Rubinstein because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2013 by Rubinstein because: (no reason given)

No, I want you to explain things to see if you understand the stuff you regurgitate--which you obviously do not. Again, you do not understand the difference between correlation and causation. And yes, a source that was not understood at the time (how many electron microscopes were available in 1950?) is more likely accidental than intentional. I'm afraid that "it must be a huge conspiracy because my
Emotions tell me do" does not cut it as science.

I'm trying to figure out - is your stance that the world would be a better place without vaccines? No, you couldn't possibly be that ignorant... right?

reply to post by Rubinstein


Why would they spread disease in stuff you are forced to take? Most of the infants that died this year were not vaccinated. I think the vaccinations are safe for the most part for most people. Big pharma puts out drugs with very little testing and they advertise to vulnerable people who should not be self prescribing. Prescription drugs surpassed automobiles as the number one cause of death thanks to that advertising campaign, illegal in every other country. Also, GWB took a good deal of the surplus Clinton left and giving it to his buddies in big pharma, via the senior drug prescription program. Guaranteed income for drug manufacturers. Guaranteed buyers for their product, thanks to the US government.

Originally posted by Rubinstein
There are whole armies of shills on the Internet, it's generally easy to spot them.

One good way to spot a shill is when they use a well known hoax document, such as the "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion." and use it to push a agenda, knowing it is just a hoax.

how many people would have polio if not for vaccines? Some people may react to vaccines, but % they are much better to be used. People even react to nuts these days.