Measles Vaccine Reduces Death From Other Infections Too

a reply to: Pardon?

I read what was available in the opening op. The whole study, along with the funding is in question as I am not going to create an account nor pay to see what I suspect is bad science. I think that this particular study needs a bit more reviewing and scrutiny.

I am not against vaccines, I am against the bad science behind their development and manufacturing, along with the silly scare tactics that are used on us so the industry can still play it cheap and reap windfall profits.

Cute little edit of my post. Kind of sizes up the vaccine pushers for me. Small

originally posted by: Unity_99
a reply to: TorinoFer

Agree 100%! Won't put poisons into my child or self either.

Number 5.
So you haven't read it then?

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: Pardon?

I read what was available in the opening op. The whole study, along with the funding is in question as I am not going to create an account nor pay to see what I suspect is bad science. I think that this particular study needs a bit more reviewing and scrutiny.

I am not against vaccines, I am against the bad science behind their development and manufacturing, along with the silly scare tactics that are used on us so the industry can still play it cheap and reap windfall profits.

Cute little edit of my post. Kind of sizes up the vaccine pushers for me. Small

I'm dubious that you did read it.
Properly anyway rather than just the title.

As if you did you would realise that the study is about the measles virus and not the vaccine.
The part the vaccine plays is consequential to their findings and not the subject.

What's your basis for "The whole study, along with the funding is in question "?

And since you obviously believe that the ingredients in vaccines are "bad" I would question your ability to actually understand what constitutes good and bad science anyway.

I will try to get hold of a copy of the full study, post it in this thread and then I will look forward to you dissection and scientific rebuttal of it.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: Pardon?

I read what was available in the opening op. The whole study, along with the funding is in question as I am not going to create an account nor pay to see what I suspect is bad science. I think that this particular study needs a bit more reviewing and scrutiny.

I am not against vaccines, I am against the bad science behind their development and manufacturing, along with the silly scare tactics that are used on us so the industry can still play it cheap and reap windfall profits.

Cute little edit of my post. Kind of sizes up the vaccine pushers for me. Small

I'm still trying to access the full version of the study for your scientific rebuttal.

In the mean time, here's one of the original studies it was based upon.
Please, in a scientific manner, tell me why it's incorrect and why the study in the op is therefore incorrect.

journals.plos.org.../journal.ppat.1002885

When this issue took flight a couple of years ago, I entered into it out of curiosity alone. I had no preconceived notions about vaccinations, I just knew what I had been told by various medical authorities. I would have continued with a prescribed series of vaccinations myself, and if I would have been a parent, would likely have accepted the recommended regimen of vaccinations for my child. The more I found out about the vaccine components, the "science" proving the efficacy and safety of our current vaccination schedule, the agenda of misguided, uneducated but zealous vaccine proponents, and the spin that our mainstream media puts on things, the more I would not let myself or especially a baby undergo the retarded and misguided vaccine schedule as it stands in North America.

I won't rehash the same tired arguments here, but I am driven to state a few generalities, for the sake of any that might be ambivalent or curious about the vaccine industry as it stands now. The worst science of all is the idea that the science is settled. The worst science of all is stating that we must continue in the status quo. The worst science of all is denigrating those with an opposing or new viewpoint. The existing mainstream position regarding further investigation into vaccine efficacy is reminiscent of the dark ages burning of heretics. How is it good science to dissuade further research or to disallow questions? It's not. There's more junk science on the part of the pro-increased vaccination schedule crowd than there ever was on the anti-schedule crowd.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: GetHyped

Probably not. The stupid vaccine will most likely contain mercury , aluminum, formaldehyde, MSG, phenoxyethanol, polysorbate 80, Bovine cow serum and I'm sure a few other toxins for good measure. Really.....Who are the stupid ones?

Anti-vaxxers.

a reply to: SadFrankenstein

Insightful post. We share the same thoughts concerning the science behind the current vaccination schedule, and for me the simple fact that Mercury is used as a preservative leaves me feeling that science has taken a back seat to profit. The vaccine schedule as it is now just screams profit for the pharmaceutical industry.

I regard the health and safety of myself and my family much higher than the medical industry does.

a reply to: Witness2008

The only back seat science has taken is in your understanding of it.

a reply to: GetHyped

I got my information from the vaccine inserts.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: SadFrankenstein

Insightful post. We share the same thoughts concerning the science behind the current vaccination schedule, and for me the simple fact that Mercury is used as a preservative leaves me feeling that science has taken a back seat to profit. The vaccine schedule as it is now just screams profit for the pharmaceutical industry.

I regard the health and safety of myself and my family much higher than the medical industry does.

Mercury nor any compound containing mercury have never been in the measles vaccine.
In fact, there are no preservatives of any kind in the MMR vaccine nor has there ever been.
If you knew anything about science you would understand why.

So I don't believe you when you say your "got my information from the vaccine inserts".
You're lying.

a reply to: Pardon?

The MMR is not the only vaccine that children receive. Many other vaccines still contain trace amounts, not to mention the various other toxins that they contain. Flu vaccinations still contain mercury.

Back in 1980 I was wise enough to read a vaccine insert before letting a doctor inject my child. It was not just the mercury in the DTP it was all the other toxins present. I made a wise choice for my family.

a reply to: Witness2008

Then you do not understand the information you read, i.e. scientific illiteracy (just like all anti-vaxxers).

a reply to: GetHyped

Pro-vaxxers, certainly the ones here always resort to insults.

I don't trust an industry that uses 1929 pseudo science to justify a cheap and dangerous short cut, and the newest vaccine schedule just proves to me that the whole vaccine campaign is for profit.

Hospitals, doctors and big pharma, all in cahoots with one another have become the leading cause of death in the United States. Not the kind of science I care to rely on.

For things like measles, the vaccines harm more people than the illness!

I remember a quote from the W.H.O a few years back, they said "If every person in the US were vaccinated, they would expect about 300,000 deaths caused by vaccine reaction"

So, when was the last time even just 300 were killed by the measles? Compare that with the 300,000 deaths caused by a mass vaccination!

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: Pardon?

The MMR is not the only vaccine that children receive. Many other vaccines still contain trace amounts, not to mention the various other toxins that they contain. Flu vaccinations still contain mercury.

Back in 1980 I was wise enough to read a vaccine insert before letting a doctor inject my child. It was not just the mercury in the DTP it was all the other toxins present. I made a wise choice for my family.

Measles and it's associated vaccine is the subject of this thread therefore your reference to mercury can be seen to be associated with them.
Thimerosal (which is a mercury salt, NOT mercury, the same way that common salt is a sodium salt but isn't sodium) was removed from all childhood vaccines over a decade ago not because of any adverse effects but because of the negative publicity anti-vaxxers had created.
Flu vaccinations for children are in the form of a nasal spray which does not contain thimerosal.

Now go back and define "trace amounts" and reference that to your use of the word toxin.
Then try to understand this phrase "the dose makes the poison".
Then think if it's all a big conspiracy and covert then why are they printing the ingredients on the package insert?
Now realise how silly you sound.

Btw, I'm still waiting for your scientific rebuttal from a few posts ago.
And the replies to the other questions I asked of you.

a reply to: VoidHawk

Before I answer that question, how about sourcing that claim from the WHO?

originally posted by: VoidHawk
For things like measles, the vaccines harm more people than the illness!

I remember a quote from the W.H.O a few years back, they said "If every person in the US were vaccinated, they would expect about 300,000 deaths caused by vaccine reaction"

So, when was the last time even just 300 were killed by the measles? Compare that with the 300,000 deaths caused by a mass vaccination!

Can you show proof of your outlandish remarks?
You know, rather than just "remembering" a quote?
It would be useful to back things like this up.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: GetHyped

Pro-vaxxers, certainly the ones here always resort to insults.

I don't trust an industry that uses 1929 pseudo science to justify a cheap and dangerous short cut, and the newest vaccine schedule just proves to me that the whole vaccine campaign is for profit.

Hospitals, doctors and big pharma, all in cahoots with one another have become the leading cause of death in the United States. Not the kind of science I care to rely on.

From what you've posted so far I don't believe you understand the basic concept of science let alone be in a position to judge it.
As for medicine being the leading cause of death, I think you might actually find that it's the leading cause of life.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: GetHyped

Pro-vaxxers, certainly the ones here always resort to insults.

I don't trust an industry that uses 1929 pseudo science to justify a cheap and dangerous short cut, and the newest vaccine schedule just proves to me that the whole vaccine campaign is for profit.

Hospitals, doctors and big pharma, all in cahoots with one another have become the leading cause of death in the United States. Not the kind of science I care to rely on.

Here is the Top 10 leading causes of death in the United States. Death by medial malpractice doesn't even make the list. For someone talking about pseudo-sciences, you seem to be doing your part pushing lies.