Faith Healer Convinces Followers To Never Vaccinate, Now Church The Center Of Measles Outbreak (VIDE

page: 16
23
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigman88
reply to post by Pardon?
 


www.huffingtonpost.com...
So federal court will pay millions because vaccines have no everlasting negative effects on he human body? Especially children?

I don't buy that any doctors that are against vaccines are simply misguided, or trying to get attention. It is always the case that doctors who go against these things always seem to not be able to possess or retain any professional or informational competence;they are simply easily mislead, or of bad skill and reputation.

The same way that large pharma corporations and government institutions fund trials for the safety of drugs, is the same way that independent organizations and teams fund trails for the safety of drugs. What makes one more legit than the other? Especially when some of the members have the same credentials as the industry employed members?

Here's one difference that plenty don't consider, though...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">resultingwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Large pharma corporations have PLENTY to lose, so they will make sure that people see that vaccines are safe. But then the above happens. I can see how confident they are of vaccines not harming anyone.

These pharma corporations contribute millions towards government treasury, so i don't think it too much of a stretch that they'll get the populace thinking that many people over the years coming down with the same crippling symptoms RIGHT after vaccination is separate, coincidental cases that merit's not even slight suspicion. Whatever...
edit on 1-9-2013 by bigman88 because: (no reason given)


First of all, don't confuse law with medicine.
Law, especially in the US, relies more upon how good the lawyers are rather than the actual evidence itself.

Neither of those two lawsuits attributed the autism as being caused directly by the vaccine did they? They have suggested that possibly in one of the cases there was vaccine-induced encephalopathy which then later led to autism.
It's pretty much supposition but if the vaccine did cause the encephalopathy then that usually means that there was an underlying problem (such as Dravet Syndrome). So the compensation was given for the vaccine provoking autism because of an existing condition, not the vaccine itself causing the problem.
This is akin to finding out you are allergic to a substance after taking it.
The other issue is whether children should be tested for these conditions prior to vaccination.
Personally I think they should.

I asked if you could list the doctors and show me their arguments and evidence against vax.
It's not really a question of whether you "buy it" or not. It's whether their evidence stands up to scrutiny.

I think it's fairly well-known that pharma influence trial results (or at least try to) and even if it wasn't you've just shown a study from 10 tears ago confirming it (which is widely circulated in the NHS...).
Certainly since 2003 when that study was published, the UK regulatory body has imposed much stricter rules on drug trials and result transparency and whilst this may not stop bias completely it will certainly help to prevent it.

What people tend to overlook is that there is more than one pharma company out there and it's an extremely competitive world indeed. If there was a major issue with a drug, the other companies would be all over it in a flash.

As for what makes a trial more legit (sic) than another is simply down to whether that whole study stands up to scrutiny through every stage, inclusion criteria, recruitment, methodology, results and conclusion. All of those stages have to stand up.
So irrespective of who's done it, it can either "pass or fail".




posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   
I'm guessing that you don't know about US Executive Order 13139
Order 13139

If you can't be bothered reading it have a look HERE
This goes through some of the pertinent points.

Just in case you can't be bothered reading that either here are the relevant points to experimental drugs on soldiers

"On September 30, 1999 President Clinton signed an executive order [Executive Order 13139] giving any president of the United States the authority to waive informed consent for military personnel regarding experimental vaccines, antidotes, and treatments.

The order reads: "It is the expectation that the United States Government will administer products approved for their intended use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, in the event that the Secretary [of Defense] considers a product to represent the most appropriate countermeasure for diseases endemic to the area of operations or to protect against possible chemical, biological, or radiological weapons, but the product has not yet been approved by the FDA for its intended use, the product may, under certain circumstances and strict controls, be administered to provide potential protection for the health and well-being of deployed military personnel in order to ensure the success of the military operation."


So that's why military vaccine regimens are different to public ones.
As for the why "so many people suddenly physically freak out after their vaccinations", do they? Really?
Where are they?
Where's the evidence to support this (aside from stories on websites)?
Millions upon million of vaccines are given every year so by your logic there should be millions upon millions "all freaking out". And there aren't at all.
Leave the world of Google for a bit and go to your local vax clinic as an observer.
See how many kids "freak out" (sure they'll scream when they have it but that's about it).
Stay there for a few days and see how many come back with problems.
I think you'll be disappointed.

If you look at things in perspective, the anti-vax "movement" isn't really that big at all. It just seems that way due to their internet presence.
Similarly, if you were to judge a movements size by its internet presence then the world would be full of conspiracy theorists...

You say that I'm insinuating that people can't do the research etc.
Well that's true as there's so much rubbish about vaccines on the internet that it's difficult for people to understand what's "legit" and what isn't.
And when you have so-called doctors trying to baffle people with pseudo-babble it's no surprise that doubts are cast into their minds is it?

But cast yourself back to the Huff Post link you posted...."Vaccine Court Awards Millions to Two Children With Autism".
That's just two children, Imagine if they can convince the courts that there were 10 or even 100. Just think about the payout for the lawyers and that's WITHOUT proving a link.

As for the autism rates going up...check out the widening of the autism spectrum, genetic and environmental factors (including compounds in foods).
Whilst it's still unknown what the true cause is (I doubt there will be just one) the above seem to have made the most impact on the increasing rates. Vaccines haven't. At all.

As for infant mortality rates in the US, I'm not sure where you're getting your "facts" from but it's declining, year upon year.
www.cdc.gov...
If you mean the overall high infant mortality rate compared with other industrialised nations well I suggest you look no further than the way your health "service" is set up in the US and the amount of poverty there.
Up until very recently poor people had little or no access to decent medical care and this would tie in with the fact that a very large percentage of infant deaths are "first day" deaths which are generally easily prevented, given the access to the correct equipment.
www.savethechildren.org...



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Did anyone see the following link on ATS?.... "CDC Admits 98 Million Americans Received Polio Vaccine Contaminated With Cancer Virus"..... Just wondering since it was buried under the Health and Wellness Forum. It should have got more of a response from ATS with the big increase in cancer rates. Funny how this wasn't commented on much. Funnier, that it got routed/moved to the forum - Health and Wellness.

As for as the person that works in the ICU and never sees any vaccine related injuries except for a few minor fevers: this just means she/he isn't looking or catching them. I too worked at a hospital, but quit due to the new mandatory flu vaccine policy. What I do know from working the ICU, ER, and Nursery units, is that the hospitals only ask if they are up-to-date on their vaccination shots. They do not ask for the dates of the vaccinations when the patients are admitted. Therefore, there really is no way to track for any reactions. When babies/kids come in with whooping cough, RSV, etc. we don't know if they just recently had a vaccine and if that is why they are now sick. It's much like how we don't question why usually the only hospital workers that were getting the flu, were the ones getting the flu vaccines. Or why every elderly patient tells you that they never got pneumonia until they started getting the pneumonia vaccines.
Back in 2009 when the new swine flu vaccine came out there were many miscarriages and premature births in both the hospital I worked at and the surrounding hospitals, right at the time flu vaccinations were being given. There was this link on ATS about it..."H1N1 vaccine causes miscarriages in pregnant women"..... In fact, it was so noticeable, and we were having so many women with premature babies that I was going to start my own study! And yes, when they came to pick up our 5th critical premature birth that month (and this is just a small hospital), I asked the transport team at the children's hospital located 90 miles away, and they said that they were having a noticeable, big increase in miscarriage and premature births that month also. My husband worked at a different hospital about 30 miles from mine and they also had a noticeable increase in critical premature births that month.

Also, lets not forget that since the very first vaccines, there was evidence that they were not only ineffective but caused diseases and deaths. You can check out some reports/studies from the 1800's on the smallpox vaccines at this link URL - whale.to... Here is the results of one of the studies done back then...

CONCLUSION FROM THE EVIDENCE.

The result of this brief enquiry may be thus summarized

(I.)-Vaccination does not diminish Smallpox mortality, as shown by the 45 years of the Registrar-General's statistics, and by the deaths from Small-pox of our "re-vaccinated" soldiers and sailors being as numerous as those of the male population of the same ages of several of our large towns, although the former are picked, healthy men, while the latter include many thousands living under the most unsanitary conditions.

(2.)-While thus utterly powerless for good, vaccination * is a certain cause of disease and death in many cases, and is the probable cause of about 10,000 deaths annually by five inoculable diseases of the most terrible and disgusting character, which have increased to this extent, steadily, year by year, since vaccination has been enforced by penal laws!

*the operation itself kills many. the registrar-General gives, under the heading of Cow-pox and other effects [erysipelas, &c.] of vaccination for the years 1881-1886, the following deaths of infants under one year. In the country, 255 deaths. In London, 61. Total for 6 years, 316.--ED.

(3.)-The hospital statistics, showing a greater mortality of the unvaccinated than of the vaccinated, have been proved to be untrustworthy; while the conclusions drawn from them are shown to be necessarily false.

WE, THEREFORE, SOLEMNLY URGE UPON YOU THE IMMEDIATE REPEAL OF THE INIQUITOUS REPEAL LAWS BY WHICH YOU HAVE FORCED UPON US A DANGEROUS AND USELESS OPERATION-AN OPERATION WHICH HAS ADMITTEDLY CAUSED MANY DEATHS, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE CAUSE OF GREATER MORTALITY THAN SMALL-POX ITSELF, BUT WHICH CANNOT BE PROVED TO HAVE EVER SAVED A SINGLE HUMAN LIFE.

By the way, the schools require measles vaccinations when they enter kindergarten. I would bet money that if a study was done, most of the kids (if not all) were vaccinated that broke out with these measles. It's almost always the vaccinated that get these outbreaks when you research it. In fact, the Kenneth Copeland website states they have an onsite medical clinic staffed by an MD and a CMA, a first-rate health insurance program, and has sponsored onsite vaccination clinics. Funny, once you look into things a little more what you can find....
edit on 4-9-2013 by katndew because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by katndew
 


You didn't include a link - so here is one

I note that

1/ this was in the period 1955-1961 (as noted on wiki; and
2/ the quantity of SV40 present was so small that it simply could not be detected with the means available at the time - it wasn't detected until 2 years after that particular vaccine was no longer in production in the USA!
3/ Polio was still effectively counteracted by the virus



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by katndew
 


What's amazing from an anti-vax stance is the hysteria over the SV40 contamination of the polio vaccine.
It seems that the anti-vaxxers haven't really looked into the facts surrounding SV40 at all rather they have just deduced that if it causes cancer in monkeys then by default it causes cancer in humans.
Sorry but that's really not the case.
Pretty much ALL of the evidence so far suggests that SV40 doesn't cause cancer in humans.
www.cancer.org...
www.mesotheliomaweb.org...

"As for as the person that works in the ICU and never sees any vaccine related injuries except for a few minor fevers: this just means she/he isn't looking or catching them".
That's me who you're referring to (I'm male by the way).
Your statement suggests that in essence I was the only person working in these wards really when in truth, as you should know if you've worked on one yourself, an ICU covers the full gamut of specialities and is therefore populated by all their relative specialists. So whilst it's true that I personally may have missed one or two, the chance of them all being missed is negligible.
Also you suggest we haven't looked for them or caught them.....(I actually take offence at that. Not just for myself but for all of my other colleagues as well).
When a patient comes in from A & E (ER) to ICU a patient history is taken in to triage. Whether the child has had any recent vaccinations and what they were is one of the first questions asked (along with allergies etc etc). This can all be referenced on the patients' paper records and/or EMR (electronic patient record) so whether the parent/carer etc has that information at hand at the time is moot.
So the chance of us "catching" one is extremely high indeed based upon the child's medical records and history.
This is also relevant for the elderly. Those who have had flu vaccinations will be known via their records.
It's necessary and extremely easy to be able to reference this. And you should know that.....
As for the miscarriages, assuming there was an increase (we only have your word for that) how many of those women were given the flu vax?
You don't know do you?
Do you actually know if ANY of them were given it?
Do you see what I'm getting at?
Have a quick look at this.
scienceblogs.com...
(Oh, why would people who worked at a children's hospital know about miscarriages and premature births? Surely you mean a women's or maternity hospital.....?)

I'm wondering what type of hospital you worked at and I'm also wondering what you actually worked as.
Someone who would quit their job because of a mandatory flu vax doesn't strike me as someone who understands WHY it should be mandatory for healthcare workers (specifically those who have patient contact) and that's a BIG worry.

As for your smallpox piece, you do realise that this was well over a hundred years ago don't you?
You do realise exactly how many people smallpox used to kill don't you?
And that since then, smallpox has been eradicated. Partly by an improvement in sanitation but in the most part by vaccination. I'm more than happy to show you how this happened if you wish?
(Plus you cited Whale.to which is probably the biggest repository of medically-related bullshine on the whole internet).

Your last paragraph is pure hearsay.
Whilst there is a tiny amount of children in whom the vaccination doesn't "take" to say that ALL children who receive it will get measles in a break out is completely unfounded and bordering on the ludicrous.
Any chance you care to back this up with corroborated evidence?
As for the Copeland statement, that's a bit different to what it said before the outbreak...

I'll leave you with this. I suggest you read it in its entirety.

www.jennymccarthybodycount.com...

edit on 5/9/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/9/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


Really? Just because it causes cancer in monkeys doesn't mean it can cause it in humans? It's kind of hard to argue with ignorance, so I will skip this one. As far as where I worked, I was a respiratory therapist, so I worked throughout the entire hospital. And no, they do not ask the dates of the immunizations. At most they may ask what year they received it. Yes, they can be accessed via their medical charts AT THE DOCTORS OFFICE, but the hospital employee does not have that access. They have patient history only in the hospital charts which does not include the dd/mm/yy of the vaccinations.

And you should know this.... there are many elderly patients admitted with the flu and when you ask them if they had their flu vaccine and they tell you yes..... NOTHING ELSE HAPPENS with that information. It gets logged that they had a flu vaccine and that is it. Do you or your co-workers question or followup on that? Why they got the flu then. No, I know you don't. Why would you? You simply ask the question and put it in the chart. No big deal, right?

I do understand the reason why the hospital states that healthcare workers should get the flu vaccination is to help prevent the spread of flu to immune-compromised patients. However, this is false information as the flu vaccine does not prevent either getting the flu, nor spreading it. Studies show for vaccines to be effective, they would have to get the exact strain of the flu virus in the vaccine, which is highly unlikely. The chances of them getting the correct strain before it mutates is as lucky as someone winning the big lottery. As I said, every year the hospital workers taking the vaccines WERE GETTING THE FLU! And the few of us that did not take the vaccine did not. I don't need a study for something I can see with my own eyes.

The children's hospital transport team knew about the premature births because, as you know, the respiratory therapists manage the ventilators that the newborns had to be placed on. I find it strange you would question how a children's hospital transport team would not know they had an increase in critical premature births. And finally, the smallpox vaccine studies over 100 years ago showing they caused more damage and were never even effective is very significant. Because that is the whole basis/theory on giving vaccines. Supposedly because they eradicated smallpox. But that ends up being a lie. The website I gave had the actual articles and books written which are not bs. You obviously did not look at or read them, but that seems to be how this pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine game is played.

I guess when it comes down to it, everyone will believe what they will believe. But I do know this.... I will NEVER have an adverse reaction nor get any cancers or diseases from any vaccines. However, you are unable to say this. Tell you what, I've looked at studies on both sides since I really did not want to lose my job. But the truth that I realized in these studies, was that vaccines are not effective and cause more damage than they supposedly can ever prevent.

Good luck with the future though and I do mean that sincerely. I'm quite sure the flu vaccine is just the start of vaccinating healthcare workers. Soon you may all be taking over 30 vaccines within 4 years like the kids do. I hate it when people get cancers and diseases. Especially when it can be prevented by something as simple as not injecting them directly into your body. In the future, they will look back and see how crazy the whole vaccine scam was. But as always, it usually takes a few centuries for it to be realized. Some people will just insist the earth is flat no matter what the evidence shows. But i've seen it with my own eyes/telescope, so I know the truth. Peace!
edit on 5-9-2013 by katndew because: enter addnl info
edit on 5-9-2013 by katndew because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Thanks for the link. I copied and pasted just a couple pieces from that link....

"The matter-of-fact disclosure came during discussions of polio vaccines contaminated with SV40 virus which caused cancer in nearly every species infected by injection. Many authorities now admit much, possibly most, of the world's cancers came from the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines, and hepatitis B vaccines, produced in monkeys and chimps."

"Both the oral, live virus and injectable inactive virus were affected. It was found later that the technique used to inactivate the polio virus in the injectable vaccine, by means of formaldehyde, did not reliably kill SV40. "

"Just two years ago, the U.S. government finally added formaldehyde to a list of known carcinogens and and admitted that the chemical styrene might cause cancer. Yet, the substance is still found in almost every vaccine"

As I said to my ICU friend......there's no need to argue or debate. We are all seeing through our own telescopes. If I ever get a new telescope I will let you all know, but so far (in my opinion) my telescope seems to be seeing the farthest.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by katndew
 


the link was deliberately to a sensationalist conspiracy article about the SV40 - you seem to have accepted their scaremongering without any further thought, so I would suggest that your telescope doesn't see nearly as far as you think, and perhaps you need to turn it around the right way or take the end caps off!!



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

That is a matter of opinion. I consider it a natural health news source and not a scare mongering website. But to each there own. Oh, I get it.. the scare mongerers are the nih.gov which is the Official website of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH is one of the world's foremost medical research centers. Or was it the CDC source they used - they do always like to rant about a pandemic that never seems to occur. Oh, you must be talking about the other sources used that are very similar to ATS. Guess i'll be keeping my telescope still : )

The sources they used for their article were....
Sources:
nih.gov
rense.com
CDC
preventdisease.com
infowars.com
wikipedia.org

edit on 5-9-2013 by katndew because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by katndew
 


Given the lack of actual evidence for most of their claims I'm completely happy with my classification of them as spreaders of scaremongering drivel

for example the claim that SV40 causes cancer isn't actually justifiable in eth first place -



Many authorities now admit much, possibly most, of the world's cancers came from the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines, and hepatitis B vaccines, produced in monkeys and chimps.

What authorities are those?

Studies Find No Evidence That SV40 is Related to Human Cancer



Studies investigating the possible connection between SV40 and human cancer have been inconclusive. For example, some laboratories have reported the detection of minute quantities of SV40 DNA in human tumors while others have not been able to replicate these results.


....and more....

so yeah - when I compare real science with unsupported assertions from a site that advocates vaccine denial and sells its own range of products to support its assertions it is pretty easy to see that the "prevent disease" site is scaremongering.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Wikipedia says it best - check their very scientific research articles they site (that's the numbers between the brackets in case you didn't know). They should impress you enough:

"The hypothesis that SV40 might cause cancer in humans has been a particularly controversial area of research.[9] Several different methods have been used to detect SV40 in a variety of human cancers, although how reliable these detection methods are, and whether SV40 has any role in causing these tumors, remains unclear.[10] As a result of these uncertainties, academic opinion remains divided, with some arguing that this hypothesis is not supported by the data,[11] and others arguing that some cancers may involve SV40.[12][13] However, the United States National Cancer Institute announced in 2004 that although SV40 does cause cancer in some animal models, "substantial epidemiological evidence has accumulated to indicate that SV40 likely does not cause cancer in humans".[14] This announcement is based on two recent studies.[15][16] This 2004 announcement is in contrast to a 2002 study performed by The National Academy of Sciences Immunization Safety Review committee that stated, "The committee concludes that the biological evidence is moderate that SV40 exposure could lead to cancer in humans under natural conditions"


So many studies and telescopes.... So we all admit the SV40 was found to cause cancer in many species of animals, and that there were millions of vaccines contaminated with this. Now, I will give you a common sense example. I guess you could say, they way I "see" things: If 100 monkeys eat from a group of bananas and all are doing well, BUT.... a different group of 100 monkeys eat from a different group of bananas and those monkeys all start vomiting and developing cancer tumors...AND this particular group of bananas that the unhealthy monkeys ate was found to contain cancer..... being a human and given the choice that you have to pick a banana to eat from one of the two groups..... which banana would you choose? My guess is YOU will INSIST on eating the banana from the ones that started vomiting and developing tumors. You will probably even say it's just a coincidence and since you are human those bananas probably won't even affect you the same way. I think we all know that I will refuse to eat those bananas. It's just common sense after all.

Now i'm done disputing this because I actually do have other things to do, lol. As you can see even the top experts are still debating, so everyone just needs to let everyone choose which bananas they want to eat and not force others to eat the cancer containing bananas.

Peace to you also ; )



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by katndew
 

I'm guessing you've skipped the first as you can't argue with it.
There have been no cases of cancer caused by SV40. That's the fact.
(Not withstanding that the actual cancer it can cause is quite rare anyway and generally seen only in very aged people i.e. those too old to have had the polio vaccine).
So yes, it's an hysterical response to the word cancer.

I'm guessing you worked in a small town hospital then, still relying upon paper records.
Here's me thinking that the States was at the forefront of medicine, obviously not the case. In the UK, whatever happens at the GP will be entered into a central database which any hospital in the network can access so we know exact dates and what vax and other therapies every patient has had.
I questioned why a children's hospital would know as where I live we have a separate womens' hospital which includes a NICU. Therefore there would be no need to inform the childrens' hospital. That was not a question to examine you, I just felt it was a bit odd.

The stuff about the elderly patients getting flu again is just hearsay. There's no evidence whatsoever to back this up at all. Given your obvious stance on vax it would be highly unlikely for you to say the opposite wouldn't it?
And the benefits of healthcare workers has been confirmed numerous times in numerous studies.
Here's one for you
jid.oxfordjournals.org...

It's not a question of belief. It's a question of understanding facts and evidence. You are more than entitled to believe whatever you wish but that really doesn't mean you're correct in fact what you've said so far is the very opposite of correct.
Your line about losing your job rubber-stamps that you are unable and unwilling to digest the facts because of your belief. The facts and evidence do NOT point towards vax causing cancer and more harm than good at all.
Please provide evidence to back this up and I might see things your way. Until then however....

I suggest that when you read the likes of whale and infowars you check the "evidence" they put out. You'll soon find that their evidence is as full of holes as your belief.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 

"I'm guessing you've skipped the first as you can't argue with it. There have been no cases of cancer caused by SV40. That's the fact." ..... If you look at my post right above your last one, you will see that your statement is NOT a fact, and that I did argue with it. The experts are still debating it. The experts have been debating vaccines ever since they have been used. Both sides have good arguments, but I feel the anti-vaccine studies and articles are superior. Neither you nor I are experts in this field, so how can you claim it is a fact when even the experts can't. That is why I decided to try to use common sense since studies are not even needed for this. This is something people will be able to observe with their own eyes and start taking notice of.

Here are the ONLY FACTS that both sides do agree on.... that SV40 did cause cancers in numerous species of animals, and that millions of vaccines contained this cancer virus and were given to humans. .It will never be proven to have caused cancer in humans, because vaccines are a trillion dollar industry. The farthest this will ever go is debates back and forth with both sides showing studies favoring their own sides. Could you imagine the lawsuits if ever this was admitted to cause cancer in humans? Much less all the money they would lose in vaccine revenues and people no longer getting many diseases if they were to stop taking vaccines? We all know this will never be allowed. At least not until human consciousness improves and becomes more widespread.

But both sides of the studies do show THEY CAN NOT BE PROVED NOR DISPROVED that any human cancers were caused by the SV40 vaccine. This is why I gave everyone the monkeys eating bananas example, which is a very accurate example of this same vaccine scenario. Once again, it is obvious that YOU would choose to eat the bananas containing cancer and causing cancer in the monkeys, In your reasoning you don't know that it will cause cancer in you/humans, so no big deal. Everyone should just eat the cancer containing bananas until it can be proved that it causes cancer in humans. While I take the common sense approach and choose not to eat the bananas that I know contain cancer and was proven to cause the cancer tumors in the monkeys. With my reasoning, there is no reason to put something into my body that I know contained cancer and caused cancer in animals that share a 99.4% genetic similarity with myself/humans. But I admit, that even if the bananas caused cancer tumors in mice with little genetic similarity to us humans - I STILL WOULD REFUSE TO EAT THE CANCER CONTAINING BANANAS.

My hope is that people will begin to open their eyes and quit saying that this is acceptable, and allowing it to continue. Cancer and toxic chemicals in vaccines is neither reasonable nor acceptable, but happens continuously because of the pro-vaccination people that keep saying it's no big deal. Now argue all you want, and take as many cancer containing vaccines as you want or are forced to. But do not say that others should have to do the same. It is obvious that they should be able to refuse toxic vaccines that can not be proved to be effective. Do you want proof of this statement. You don't need a study. Just open your eyes and see all the people that are getting the flu that are also getting the flu vaccine this flu season. Question why you are admitting all these patients diagnosed with pneumonia that got the pneumonia vaccine.

Now, I know you will have to get the last word, and i'm going to let you because this has to end sometime, lol. Plus, I figure that I owe it to you since you have to take these vaccines to keep your job and many aren't as lucky as I was - being able to have the choice to just say no! Bye for now until the next big disclosure - then I'll be back, because people have the right to know when they are getting poisonous bananas. Of course, you probably don't agree with that. ; )



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by katndew
 


I checked the actual references - which is how I found the one I quoted.

And you will note that the wiki piece you included states that some people think SV40 MAY cause cancer - they have not found any definitive link - no cancer has ever been positively linked to being caused by SV 40.



posted on Sep, 7 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by katndew
reply to post by Pardon?
 

"I'm guessing you've skipped the first as you can't argue with it. There have been no cases of cancer caused by SV40. That's the fact." ..... If you look at my post right above your last one, you will see that your statement is NOT a fact, and that I did argue with it. The experts are still debating it. The experts have been debating vaccines ever since they have been used. Both sides have good arguments, but I feel the anti-vaccine studies and articles are superior. Neither you nor I are experts in this field, so how can you claim it is a fact when even the experts can't. That is why I decided to try to use common sense since studies are not even needed for this. This is something people will be able to observe with their own eyes and start taking notice of.

Here are the ONLY FACTS that both sides do agree on.... that SV40 did cause cancers in numerous species of animals, and that millions of vaccines contained this cancer virus and were given to humans. .It will never be proven to have caused cancer in humans, because vaccines are a trillion dollar industry. The farthest this will ever go is debates back and forth with both sides showing studies favoring their own sides. Could you imagine the lawsuits if ever this was admitted to cause cancer in humans? Much less all the money they would lose in vaccine revenues and people no longer getting many diseases if they were to stop taking vaccines? We all know this will never be allowed. At least not until human consciousness improves and becomes more widespread.

But both sides of the studies do show THEY CAN NOT BE PROVED NOR DISPROVED that any human cancers were caused by the SV40 vaccine. This is why I gave everyone the monkeys eating bananas example, which is a very accurate example of this same vaccine scenario. Once again, it is obvious that YOU would choose to eat the bananas containing cancer and causing cancer in the monkeys, In your reasoning you don't know that it will cause cancer in you/humans, so no big deal. Everyone should just eat the cancer containing bananas until it can be proved that it causes cancer in humans. While I take the common sense approach and choose not to eat the bananas that I know contain cancer and was proven to cause the cancer tumors in the monkeys. With my reasoning, there is no reason to put something into my body that I know contained cancer and caused cancer in animals that share a 99.4% genetic similarity with myself/humans. But I admit, that even if the bananas caused cancer tumors in mice with little genetic similarity to us humans - I STILL WOULD REFUSE TO EAT THE CANCER CONTAINING BANANAS.

My hope is that people will begin to open their eyes and quit saying that this is acceptable, and allowing it to continue. Cancer and toxic chemicals in vaccines is neither reasonable nor acceptable, but happens continuously because of the pro-vaccination people that keep saying it's no big deal. Now argue all you want, and take as many cancer containing vaccines as you want or are forced to. But do not say that others should have to do the same. It is obvious that they should be able to refuse toxic vaccines that can not be proved to be effective. Do you want proof of this statement. You don't need a study. Just open your eyes and see all the people that are getting the flu that are also getting the flu vaccine this flu season. Question why you are admitting all these patients diagnosed with pneumonia that got the pneumonia vaccine.

Now, I know you will have to get the last word, and i'm going to let you because this has to end sometime, lol. Plus, I figure that I owe it to you since you have to take these vaccines to keep your job and many aren't as lucky as I was - being able to have the choice to just say no! Bye for now until the next big disclosure - then I'll be back, because people have the right to know when they are getting poisonous bananas. Of course, you probably don't agree with that. ; )


Naturally I'll have to have my final word and I'll keep it brief.

You're going on about something which stopped over 50 years ago and this seems to be forming the whole basis of your belief. So...
Did those vaccines cause cancer?
Nope.
Do vaccines cause cancer now?
Nope.
Is there really a basis for your belief?
Nope.
Do I need to have vaccines for my job?
Nope.
Am I pro-vaccine?
Nope.

A lot of nopes there.

I may not be an expert in immunology per se but reviewing clinical studies is a huge part of my current post so I would say I was pretty expert in that field. So when you say that the anti-vax "studies" (have there actually been any?) are superior it just reinforces that yours is a belief and not knowledge.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


Oops, guess the devil is making me do it. Ok this is the last one, really. You said:
"You're going on about something which stopped over 50 years ago and this seems to be forming the whole basis of your belief. So... Did those vaccines cause cancer? Nope. Do vaccines cause cancer now? Nope.
Is there really a basis for your belief? Nope. Do I need to have vaccines for my job? Nope.
Am I pro-vaccine? Nope."

I'll try to keep it brief also.... "This" has been going on since vaccines began. That is, them finding/putting toxic chemicals in vaccines. And, it's always 50 years ago - that's the problem. In 2063 it will be 50 yrs ago when the newest disease caused from vaccines is hitting.

So..... Did those vaccines cause cancer? Yep - the cancer in the vaccines have been proved to cause cancer, therefore - the vaccines cause cancer. Do vaccines cause cancer now? Yep, These are just SOME of the toxic ingredients used to make a vaccine: Ethylene glycol (antifreeze), Phenol also known as carbolic acid (this is used as a disinfectant, dye), Formaldehyde A KNOWN CANCER CAUSING AGENT. Aluminum which is associated with Alzheimers disease and seizures ALSO CANCER producing in laboratory mice Thimerosal (used as a mercury disinfectant/perservative) can result in brain injury and autoimmune disease
These vaccines are also grown and strained thru animal or human tissue like monkey kidney tissue, chicken embryo, embryonic guinea pig cells, calf serum, human diploid cells (the dissected organs of aborted fetuses as in the case of rubella, hepatitis A, and chickenpox vaccines) - ANY NUMBER OF WHICH MAY CONTAIN CANCER. . Is there really a basis for your belief? Yep - ummm, that would be all the studies showing that injecting cancer into numerous species actually gives them cancer. Do you need to have vaccines for your job? Nope? - Awesome! Enjoy your freedom while it lasts. Are you pro-vaccine? Yes - you obviously just don't know it or you would not have spent all this time arguing against the FACT that THERE IS cancer in vaccines.

OK, Mara - I see you now and i'm not playing this game with you anymore (inside joke with someone). But really, you can have the last post now.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   


Yes, just put that mercury in your body and you all wonder why iq tests have gone down and why our kids can't think? Might it be on purpose?

Here is one from Dr. Blaylock




posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
In the above video, Dr. Blaylock referenced his article which is being used in law suits in England for children damaged by vaccines.

The Truth Behind Vaccines

One portion of the article which has the notes from the actual Simpsonwood secret meeting:




Hypocrisy and bogus claims At this point Dr. Johnson tells the group of his concerns for his own grandchild. He says, (page 200) "Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at eight o'clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by c-section. Our first male in the line of the next generation and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on.

It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meanwhile I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines." So, we have a scientist sitting on this panel which will eventually make policy concerning all of the children in this country, as well as other countries, who is terrified about his new grandson getting a thimerosal-containing vaccine but he is not concerned enough about your child to speak out and try to stop this insanity. He allows a cover-up to take place after this meeting adjourns and remains silent.


It is also interesting to note that he feels the answers will be a long time coming, but in the mean time, his grandson will be protected. The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Academy of Family Practice, the AMA, CDC and every other organization will endorse these vaccines and proclaim them to be safe as spring water, but Dr, Johnson and some of the others will keep their silence.

It is only during the last day of the conference that we learn that most of the objections concerning the positive relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and ADD and ADHA were bogus. For example, Dr. Rapin on page 200 notes that all children in the study were below age 6 and that ADD and ADHD are very difficult to diagnose in pre-schoolers. She also notes that some children were followed for only a short period. Dr. Stein adds that in fact the average age for diagnosis of ADHD was 4 years and 1 month.

A very difficult diagnosis to make and that the guidelines published by the American Academy of Pediatrics limits diagnosis to 6 to 12 year olds. Of course, he was implying that too many were diagnosed as ADHD. Yet, a recent study found that the famous Denmark study that led to the announcement by the Institute of Medicine that there was no relationship between autism and the MMR vaccine, used the same tactic. They cut off the age of follow-up at age six. It is known that many cases appear after this age group, especially with ADD and ADHD. In fact, most learning problems appear as the child is called on to handle more involved intellectual material. Therefore, the chances are they failed to diagnose a number of cases by stopping the study too early.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by katndew
reply to post by Pardon?
 


Oops, guess the devil is making me do it. Ok this is the last one, really. You said:
"You're going on about something which stopped over 50 years ago and this seems to be forming the whole basis of your belief. So... Did those vaccines cause cancer? Nope. Do vaccines cause cancer now? Nope.
Is there really a basis for your belief? Nope. Do I need to have vaccines for my job? Nope.
Am I pro-vaccine? Nope."

I'll try to keep it brief also.... "This" has been going on since vaccines began. That is, them finding/putting toxic chemicals in vaccines. And, it's always 50 years ago - that's the problem. In 2063 it will be 50 yrs ago when the newest disease caused from vaccines is hitting.

So..... Did those vaccines cause cancer? Yep - the cancer in the vaccines have been proved to cause cancer, therefore - the vaccines cause cancer. Do vaccines cause cancer now? Yep, These are just SOME of the toxic ingredients used to make a vaccine: Ethylene glycol (antifreeze), Phenol also known as carbolic acid (this is used as a disinfectant, dye), Formaldehyde A KNOWN CANCER CAUSING AGENT. Aluminum which is associated with Alzheimers disease and seizures ALSO CANCER producing in laboratory mice Thimerosal (used as a mercury disinfectant/perservative) can result in brain injury and autoimmune disease
These vaccines are also grown and strained thru animal or human tissue like monkey kidney tissue, chicken embryo, embryonic guinea pig cells, calf serum, human diploid cells (the dissected organs of aborted fetuses as in the case of rubella, hepatitis A, and chickenpox vaccines) - ANY NUMBER OF WHICH MAY CONTAIN CANCER. . Is there really a basis for your belief? Yep - ummm, that would be all the studies showing that injecting cancer into numerous species actually gives them cancer. Do you need to have vaccines for your job? Nope? - Awesome! Enjoy your freedom while it lasts. Are you pro-vaccine? Yes - you obviously just don't know it or you would not have spent all this time arguing against the FACT that THERE IS cancer in vaccines.

OK, Mara - I see you now and i'm not playing this game with you anymore (inside joke with someone). But really, you can have the last post now.


This "thing" hasn't been going on since vaccines began.
You've not backed up any of your statements yet at all. It's like a christian trying to prove the existence of god by using the bible.
I'm disappointed in that you, an alleged respiratory therapist, has decided to eschew real science and go with the pseudo-scientific and fallacious side of anti-vax nonsense.
Aside from the fact that the likes of thimerosal has been removed from childhood vaccines for over a decade what you lot seem incapable of grasping are the true pharma-kinetics of these substances in the amounts and concentrations used.
OK, as a resp tech, you probably wouldn't have the biochem background to fully comprehend it all but you should at least be able to understand the basics? I'm quite shocked that it's obvious that you can't but at the same time since your whole belief is exactly that, a belief, you probably wouldn't let any facts whatsoever get in the way.

I love the shock tactics you lot use, especially the "aborted fetus" part.
Answer me this...do they still use aborted fetuses to produce cell-lines for vaccines or was that the initial way of deriving the human cell-lines in the late 1960's?
Are these "aborted fetus cells" present in the vaccines after all of the human cells involved have been killed prior to the vaccine being completed?
So are there any cancer cells present in the vaccines or are they killed off when the human cells are killed?

Obviously I answered the questions for you but it goes to show just how much you lot will try to distort the facts to push your misguided agenda.
Well I say misguided, the anti-vax lawyers know exactly what they're doing.

What would be useful (as I mentioned earlier) is for you to show proof of your statements that vaccines cause cancer. We've been through the SV40 one I think but it would be nice to know about others.

As for me being pro-vaccine?
No, I'm really not at all.
I believe people, especially parents should make their own decisions based upon the information around them. However, this information has to be valid and based upon cold, hard facts rather than a belief. There is a lot of misinformation and downright lies on the internet about vaxxers, propagated by you and your ilk and I feel very sorry for people who don't have a scientific background trying to make any decision.
As of yet, when anti-vaxxers are pressed on their beliefs I still haven't seen a convincing study or data to prove their beliefs as where they all fall down is on the actual science.
The rhetoric might look good but the basis is usually rubbish.



top topics
 
23
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join