Originally posted by bigman88
reply to post by Pardon?
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)
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.
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.
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. ; )
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.
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.
Approximately 1/3 of Doctors Refuse Vaccinations
Exposure to illness is an occupational hazard for the medical community. Doctors are among the highest risk population groups and most hospitals and practices make it mandatory for physicians to be vaccinated. Researcher and author Neil Z. Miller reports that approximately 66% of pediatricians and obstetricians refused the MMR shot in one study. An equal percentage of doctors refused the Hepatitis B shot, mostly citing safety concerns because of rumors of animal DNA contamination in the shots.
The American Medical Association's (AMA) Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine cite a 1994 study where approximately 1/3 of doctors were working without mandatory flu vaccines. Yet the doctors blindly follow national recommendations to vaccinate every child they can round up (sometimes with as many as five vaccines in one visit).
FIVE BAFFLING VACCINATION FACTS
Over half UK doctors, third of nurses, to refuse flu vaccine
A survey of general practitioners published on Healthcare Republic, the website of GP magazine, found that up to 60% of GPs may decline vaccination. A much bigger survey of nurses published a week ago by Nursing Times found that a third of 1,500 nurses would refuse vaccination. But the biggest problem in persuading people and healthcare professionals to have the jab may be the relative shortage of evidence from trials about its safety and efficacy. Link
Protecting Their Own: The Unofficial Vaccination Policy of Doctors in the Know
I recently reconnected with a mainstream doctor affiliated with a large hospital and a thriving practice in the midwest. These were his words as they were spoken to me. For the purpose of protecting his anonymity I will refer to him as "The Doctor."
"You do not question vaccines openly. It's not done. I know I sound ridiculous here but it's like Nazi Germany. Really, I know it sounds silly. I mean, in our own groups, of course, we question vaccines all the time, among ourselves, but you never ever say it openly. You have to understand, doctors are scientists. We pride ourselves on our knowledge. You just don't question, they look at you like you're crazy.
I have to tell you to vaccinate because if I don't and your kid gets sick, I get sued. I am legally responsible. My partners are always telling me, "You make them vaccinate on schedule or they are out." You know you could get in a lot of trouble for not vaccinating yourself--you know that though--you have a medical background." Link
"One of the true tests of a fanatic is whether or not he takes his own medicine—or believes his own press releases." ~ Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D.
Many doctors and health‐care practitioners do not get vaccinated
and do not vaccinate their children. Why not?
• They know vaccines are not proven to be safe or effective.
• They know vaccines contain dangerous substances.
• They know vaccines cause serious health problems.
• They have treated patients with serious side effects from vaccines. Source
Dr. Gordon T. Stewart, head of the department of community medicine at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, is one of the most vigorous critics of the pertussis vaccine. He says he supported the inoculation before 1974 but then began to observe outbreaks of pertussis in children who had been vaccinated. "Now, in Glasgow," he says, "30 per-cent of our whooping cough cases are occurring in vaccinated patients. This leads me to believe that the vaccine is not all that protective." Source