Customer Discussions > Health forum

Anti Vaccines - Disease by Injection?

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 24, 2011 8:48:15 AM PDT
ColdShot says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2011 6:07:44 AM PDT
bossdog says:
I am 61 yrs old,told by my doctor to start taking flu shots. Didn't tell me until after He gave me the shot that it was a combination shot with swine surum in it,I have not felt well since the shot!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2011 6:12:39 PM PDT
ColdShot says:
you can try clay packing the injection area

then look online for detoxing heavy metals and or flu shots

good luck

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2011 9:01:59 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 25, 2011 9:03:13 PM PDT
Ali says:
Packing it with what?

[I see from the earlier post---with clay.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2011 9:03:51 PM PDT
Ali says:
What is the rationale for packing the area with clay?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2011 9:05:24 PM PDT
Ali says:
bossdog, what do you mean that the influenza vaccine had swine serum in it? And will you be more specific about how you have "not felt well since the shot"?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2011 10:32:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 26, 2011 12:37:06 AM PDT
Ali says:
On page one, J. Espresso said, "Having lived several years in a developing country, it was not uncommon to see people dragging useless, emaciated, polio stricken paralyzed legs behind them as they begged for change on the street corner -- a disease we fortunately no longer see very often in our country. Why is it still common there, but not here? You don't think vaccinations might have something to do with that?" [Jun 21, 2011 9:47:57 AM PDT].

Darks responded, "As for why polio is uncommon in the US but common in this developing country of yours, polio is spread through contact with faeces, therefore hygiene and sanitation play a far larger role in preventing polio than the vaccine ever did" [Jun 21, 2011 10:13:45 AM PDT].

Paradoxically, even the antivaccinationist, having the explanation quite backwards, if not plainly irrational, has been swayed by medical propaganda, the germ theory of polio---overturned 99 years ago. With such tenacious faith in allopathic medical ideology on both sides, even by antivaccinationists, it is tough to discuss what actually brings about paralytic polio, including in the Third World. In any case, although it is commonly accepted that polioviruses are spread by the 'fecal-oral route'---merely that infectious virions exit a host in feces and eventually wind up entering another individual's mouth---it is not asserted to significant regard that epidemic polio had ever occurred by a chain of contact 'with feces'.

This present post does not discuss the 'causes' of paralytic polio---merely what makes a population 'susceptible' to paralytic polio.

"Paralytic poliomyelitis has always been a relatively rare disease in spite of the fact that poliovirus infections are common in the United States and in most other countries. More than 99% of these infections cause no paralysis" [Evans CA, "Factors influencing the occurrence of illness during naturally acquired polimyelitis virus infection", Bacteriol Rev, 1960 Dec;24(4):341-52, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13697553]. Till 1916 polio was so rare that it was not a reportable disease, although retrospective research revealed that, in a typical year before 1916, some 3 of 10 susceptible children acquired poliovirus infection [Evans CA, 1960, p 341]. "Most naturally acquired human infections with even the most virulent strains of virus result in no paralytic illness. Therefore, factors other than the nature of the infecting strain of poliovirus must be crucial in determining the outcome of most infections" [Evans CA, 1960, p 350].

In paralytic polio, nerve axons are destroyed and the muscles atrophy (shrink), yet normally the nerves regenerate and the muscles hypertrophy (regrow) [Melnick JL, Figure 1, "Current status of poliovirus infections", Clin Microbiol Rev, 1996 Jul;9(3):293-300, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8809461]. Ancient and even historical depictions of polio are uncertain, as viruses besides polioviruses---for instance enterovirus 71 or EV71---can bring similar apparent condition, although "a study of normal Norwegian infants found the prevalence of EV71 in stool to be about 7%" [Lipkin WI, "Microbe hunting in the 21st century", Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2009 Jan 6;106(1):6-7, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19118201].

Still, in 1789 British physician Michael Underwood described an affliction mainly of children leaving debility of the lower limbs, and by the early 19th century some European outbreaks were reported [De Jesus NH, "Epidemics to eradication: The modern history of poliomyelitis"---section "Background', subsection "Poliovirus vaccines", Virol J, 2007 Jul 10;4:70, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17623069]. Outbreaks appeared in the 1870s and 1880s in Norway and Sweden [Leavitt JW, Numbers RL, ed, Sickness and Health in America: Readings in the History of Medicine and Public Health, 3rd ed (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1997), p 544, http://books.google.com/books?id=6eOlhNkjXaAC&pg=PA544]. The largest occured in 1894 in the American state Vermont---132 cases---and sporadic epidemics grew in size till New York state had 2,000 cases in year 1907 [Leavitt JW, 1997, p 544]. In 1910 Massachusetts had 800, and Minnesota had 1,000 [Leavitt JW, 1997, p 544].

"[I]n urban, industrialized parts of Europe and North America, there followed epidemics that grew more severe, more frequent, and more widespread. Cases of what had been called infantile paralysis also began to be observed in adolescents and even in young adults. Large epidemics spread across the United States and Europe in the first half of the 20th century" [Melnick JL, 1996]. Increasing sanitation had raised the average age at poliovirus infection to an age beyond the duration of circulation of 'maternal antibody'---IgG antibody that diffuses through the placenta during gestation---which infants typically carried till about age 1 year. "Consequently, epidemics of poliomyelitis surfaced. In the mid-20th century, in efforts to combat the ever growing epidemics of poliomyelitis ravaging the United States, research focused on the design of vaccines as a means of halting transmission" [De Jesus NH, 2007, section "Background"].

In 1905 in Sweden, experiencing the globe's largest polio epidemic so far, 1031 cases, Ivar Wickman researched the outbreak's epidemiology and proposed an infectious---and also contagious---etiology of polio [Wilson DJ, Polio (Santa Barbara CA: ABC-CLIO, 2009), p 17-8, http://books.google.com/books?id=9D1BR2xwg3gC&pg=PA17]. In Nov and Dec 1908 both Karl Landsteiner and Erwin Popper, two Austrian physicians, independently identified polioviruses. In 1910 a newspaper quoted Simon Flexner, the leading American authority on the viral etiology of polio, as saying, "Now that the virus of poliomyelitis has been discovered, the development of a vaccine to prevent the disease should only be a matter of months" [Paul JR, "The case for live poliovirus vaccination", Yale J Biol Med, 1960 Feb;32(4):241-9, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2604088/?page=1].

In Sep 1912 Simon Flexner, director of pathology and bacteriology laboratories at The Rockefeller Institute (for Medical Research), attended the Fifteenth International Congress on Hygiene and Demography, where "some very important observations and experiments were presented for the first time in [America]. Experiments demonstrating the presence of the virus of poliomyelitis in...persons in the acute stage of the disease, convalescents [those recovering], persons suffering from clinically obscure infections of poliomyelitis, and apparently quite healthy persons in the immediate vicinity of poliomyelitis patients were announced" by a group from the Swedish Medical Institute, which distributed the research data "to all those present at the meeting" ["Weekly reports for October 11, 1912: Notes on the discussion at the Fifteenth International Congress on Hygiene and Demography", Public Health Rep, 1912 Oct 11;27(41):1659-94, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1999206/?page=3]. Somehow, however, confusion persisted---blaming the disease on the mere spread of polioviruses.

"In explaining what was predictable and what was anomalous, epidemiologists linked poverty and filth with the spread of disease, even when their evidence suggested that polio did not fit this pattern. This is also, then, a case study of what happens when old theories do not fit. When researchers found that poverity and filth did not seem to predict the appearance and pattern of epidemic poliomyelitis, they did not suggest that good sanitation and [santitary] living conditions were better predictors [of polio victims]. Instead, they reinterpreted the appearance [of polio] in clean suburban homes as random [introductions of infection], and sought additional factors such as infected milk, insect vectors, and individual sanitary carelessness to reinforce their belief in the relationship between filth, poverty, and disease" [Leavitt JW, 1997, p 544].

In winter 1915-16 NY City had its worst influenza epidemic of the century [Olson DR at al, "Epidemiological evidence of an early wave of the 1918 influenza pandemic in New York City"---section "Results", Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2005 Aug 2;102(31):11059-63, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16046546]. Summer 1916 the greatest polio epidemic ever began in NY City [Trevelyan B et al, "The spatial structure of epidemic emergence: Geographical aspects of poliomyelitis in northeastern USA, Jul-Oct 1916", J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc, 2005 Nov;168(4):701-22, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16741560], spanning 26 states with 27,000 cases and 6,000 deaths reported [Leavitt JW, 1997, p 544]. Quarantines were attempted in NY City [Risse GB, "Revolt against quarantine: Community responses to the 1916 polio epidemic, Oyster Bay, New York", Trans Stud Coll Physicians Phila, 1992 Mar;14(1):23-50, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1604465].

One "description of the times indicates that 'the 1916 epidemic caused widespread panic. Thousands fled the city to nearby mountain resorts. Movie theaters were closed, meetings were cancelled, and public gatherings were shunned. Children were warned not to drink from water fountains; amusement parks and bathing beaches were off limits. In some towns, visitors from the New York City area were turned away by armed citizens who feared the spread of contagion'. Increased public awareness and fear, together with the ongoing developments that had taken place in medical science, led to intensified study of the disease and its control by vaccination" [Melnick JL, 1996]. Till 1918's so-called influenza pandemic, this was the greatest epidemic in the public mind [Leavitt JW, 1997, p 544].

"With improvements in sanitation it would be expected that here would be a reduction of disease caused by enteric viruses [intestinal viruses].... However, there have been some unpleasant suprises. In conditions of poor sanitation, poliovirus infects young children as soon as they can crawl outside the house, but results usually in a sublicincal gut infection. With improved sanitation, poliovirus is not contracted until adolesence, and is then associated with an increase in the incidence of paralytic poliomyelitis" [Dimmock NJ, Easton AJ, Leppard K, Introduction to Modern Virology, 6th ed (Singapore: Blackwell Publishers, 2007), chapter 16 "Transmission of viruses", section "Transmission via the fecal-oral route", p 264, http://books.google.com/books?id=E3ntv9XwsFwC&pg=PA263].

So another way to eradicate polio is either to keep wildtype polioviruses in great circulation or to inoculate every infant with wiltype poliovirus---from feces---before age 1. "In areas with poor hygiene and poor sanitation, most infants are infected relatively early in life and acquire active immunity while still protected by maternal antibodies. Infants who escape early contact with poliovirus become susceptible to infection as maternal antibodies wane. With improving sanitation, infants may escape early contact with polioviruses and become susceptible for an outbreak of poliomyelitis when wild poliovirus is introduced into the community" [Baron S, ed, Medical Microbiology, 4th ed (Galveston TX: University of Texas Press, 1996), chapter 53 "Picornaviruses", subchapter "Enteroviruses", section "Polioviruses", subsection "Epidemiology", http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7687/#A2862].

Posted on Jun 25, 2011 11:01:34 PM PDT
Nathan S says:
Whilst it's true that modern hygene standards have helped prevent the spread of several diseases, it's also very clear that in recent years as immunisation rates have fallen, outbreaks from preventable diseases such as whooping cough and measles have claimed the lives of many children who would otherwise be alive.

Autism has been increasing across the board - even as immunisation rates have been dropping in recent years.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 25, 2011 11:45:04 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 26, 2011 12:26:30 AM PDT
Ali says:
Hello, Mr Nathan A Schultz. Your post confuses three issues---the 'causation' of an infectious disease, the 'incidence' of an infectious disease, and the typical 'outcome' of an infectious disease.

Amid the above web of sociocultural assumptions, you say, "[I]t's also very clear that in recent years as immunisation rates have fallen, outbreaks from preventable diseases such as whooping cough and measles have claimed the lives of many children who would otherwise be alive".

Will you cite or explain how it is very clear either that the outbreaks---the ones you indicate---are due to falling vaccine coverage or, even more principally, that the children who experience the diseases are often dying and with higher vaccine coverage would be alive?

In 2005 it was explained, "Controversy over vaccine safety has achieved high visibility over the past decade. At the same time, however, levels of coverage for routinely recommended childhood vaccines in the United States are at their highest ever" [Health Aff (Millwood), 2005 May-Jun;24(3):729-39, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15886167]. Perhaps the rates have fallen since 2005---I am sincerely unsure.

Besides vaccine coverage, the population's nutritional status, average age at measles development, and quality of basic care determine measles 'case fatality rate' (CFR), which today in modernized counties is typically under 0.1%---under 1 death per 1000 cases---whereas elsewhere it can be 5% to 10% (50-100 deaths per 1000 cases), or in African refugee camps 20% to 30% (200-300 deaths per 1000 cases), with most complications due to secondary acute bacterial infections amid malnutrition like vitamin A deficiency [PLoS Med, 2007 Jan;4(1):e24, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1712354/#s2].

In 1977 McKinlay and McKinlay falsified the notion that vaccination had brought the significant drop in deaths by way of infectious diseases. The work of McKinlay and McKinlay stands. Even applying the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy---the assumption that a pattern following an event is due to the event---vaccination brought in the U.S. about 1% of the decline in death rate by infectious diseases, while both vaccination and antibiotics together brought about 3.5% [Conrad P, ed, "Medical measures and the decline of mortality", The Sociology of Health and Illness, 8th ed (New York: Worth Publishers, 2009), p 7-19, http://books.google.com/books?id=wYKWr2N19CgC&pg=PA16].

Definitive 20th-century mortality statistics published by Armstrong et al in JAMA in 1999 [Armstrong GL et al, "Trends in infectious disease mortality in the United States during the 20th century", JAMA, 1999 Jan 6;281(1):61-6, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892452], and by researchers at The Rockefeller University in 2001 [Ausubel JH et al, "Death and the human environment: The United States in the 20th century", Tech Soc, 2001;23(2):131-146, http://phe.rockefeller.edu/death], when overlaid by dates of vaccine introductions [U.S. CDC, "Impact of vaccines universally recommended for children---United States, 1990-1998", Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 1999 Apr 2;48(12):243-8, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10220251], reveal that mass vaccination yielded insignificant contributions to the 20th century's declines in death rates by infectious diseases.

It was Thomas McKeown who led the charge overturning the reputed contribution of medicine, although McKeown oversimplified his assertion of what brought the 19th century's population growth in England and Wales---which later scholars attributed partly to increased fertility and not merely reductions in deaths because of better nutrition and living conditions---yet as to medicine's contribution, McKeown's thesis couldn't be refuted [Evans RG, "Thomas McKeown, meet Fidel Castro: Physicians, population health and the Cuban paradox"---section "Introduction" (4 paragraphs starting at "About 40 years ago..."), Healthc Policy, 2008 May;3(4):21-32, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19377323]. At stark contrast from general belief---set by clinicians, mass media, public policy, health officials, and public education---a scholar of public health explains, "The McKeown hypothesis, as it later became known, has become widely accepted, orthodox, and a powerful argument for public health efforts in nutrition" [Ward JW, Warren C, eds, Silent Victories: The History and Practice of Public Health in Twentieth-Century America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), p 163-4, http://books.google.com/books?id=5SDkvRBkQXAC&pg=PA163].

"The general public are happy to give modern medical care credit for these great benefits, and the providers of care have been willing to accept. McKeown's demonstration that correlation is not the same as causation, at least with respect to infectious disease, was understandably unpopular and controversial. He could not be directly refuted---the data and the timing were what they were---but clinicians largely ignored his observations" [Evangs RG, 2008].

In America at 1960 measles was considered mild, with roughly 400 reported deaths a year and 4 million estimated cases (400,000 reported): 1 reported death per 10,000 estimated cases (0.01% CFR) [J Hist Med Allied Sci, 1973 Jan;28(1):34-44, http://jhmas.oxfordjournals.org/content/XXVIII/1/34.extract].

In 1855 in Scotland some 1,180 measles deaths were recorded. Fifty years later, in 1905, it was up to some 1,660. In 1955---eight years before measles vaccine existed---20 were recorded [General Register Office for Scotland, Table 2.1, "Selected statistics on deaths and causes of death for 1855, 1905, 1955, and 2005", Scotland's Population 2005: The Registrar General's Annual Review of Demographic Trends, 151st Edition, http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files1/stats/scotlands-population-2005-the-register-generals-annual-review-151stedition/j9085e05.htm].

In 1963 the first measles vaccines were released---a "live" one by Merck and a "killed" one by Pfizer.

In Feb 1967 came the CDC's first plan to eliminate measles from America. The CDC's director and colleagues explained, "For centuries the measles virus has maintained a remarkably stable ecological relationship with man. The clinical disease is a characteristic syndrome of notable constancy and only moderate severity. Complications are infrequent, and, with adequate medical care, fatality is rare. Susceptibility to the disease after the waning of maternal immunity is universal; immunity following recovery is solid and lifelong" [Public Health Rep, 1967 Mar;82(3):253-6, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4960501].

In 1967 40% of children in Southeast Asia, and 60% in Northern Brazil, died by age 4. "The vast majority of these child deaths are attributed to infectious diseases. Yet most of these diseases are relatively minor childhood ailments. The cause of the death, we now know, is not the infection itself, but usually the malnourished condition of the child.... ... ...[S]uch childhood diseases as chickenpox are often fatal because of the child's malnourished condition" [Berg AD, "Malnutrition and national development", Foreign Aff, Oct 1967, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/23929/alan-d-berg/malnutrition-and-national-development].

The World Health Organization (WHO) formed in 1948. At 48 years later, in 1996, the Third World's average case fatality rate for severe malnutrition stood unchanged since the 1940s, and ill-advised treatments, by outdated guidelines, were still in use [Bull World Health Organ, 1996;74(2):223-9, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8706239]. Keeping adequately nourished children from shedding measlesvirus in school might elevate childhood mortality, however.

In a 1996 research in rural Senegal, of 6,924 unvaccinated children, 1,118 developed measles [Aaby P et al, Am J Epidemiol, 1996 May 15;143(10):1035-41, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8629610]. For every 100 who never developed measles but died, 110 children who, called 'secondary cases', developed measles by contact with a case inside the home died, yet only 27 children who, as 'index cases', developed measles outside the home died [Aaby P et al, 1996]. "The authors conclude that measles infection was not associated with increased mortality after the acute phase of infection, and that index cases had lower mortality than uninfected, unvaccinated children. The reduction in mortality after measles immunization can therefore not be explained by the prevention of post-measles mortality" [Aaby P et al, 1996].

In 1977 the U.S. government initiated compulsory vaccination, as previously federal mass vaccination campaigns---for instance polio in 1955 and the campaign to eliminate measles in 1967 and the swine flu vaccination campaign in 1976---applied persuasion, namely mass media, public relations, and medical propaganda [Hinman AR, "Book review: State of Immunity: The Politics of Vaccination in Twentieth-Century America (Univ California Press, 2006)", J Clin Invest, 2007 May 1;117(5):1118, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1857257]. On 7 April 1977 the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) launched the Childhood Immunization Initiative, an effort "to increase dramatically the present, intolerably low levels of childhood immunization against poliomyelitis, measles, German measles [or rubella], pertussis [or whooping cough], diphtheria, and tetanus" [Dickson 3rd JF, Public Health Rep, 1977 May-Jun;92(3):i2, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1432002]. In May 1977 the CDC asserted, "For several years vaccination rates had drifted downward", and some 40% of children under age 15 were "unprotected", while the new plan was to raise childhood vaccination rates to over 90% by late 1979 [Dickson 3rd JF, 1977].

In Jun 1977 Time magazine explained that the 14 years of measles vaccination had reduced the amount of circulating measlesvirus, leaving unvaccinated individuals newly reaching college still susceptible to measles, often harsher after age 15. Dr James Cherry, professor of pediatrics at UCLA: "What we now have, for the first time in history, is a whole herd of older people who are not immune. I think it is a problem that will increase in magnitude" ["An alarming comeback for measles", Time, 6 Jun 1977, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,915009,00.html].

In 1978 reported measles cases were 26,871 [U.S. CDC, MMWR, 1989 Dec 29;38(S-9):1-18, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00041753.htm]. Deaths in 1977 were 15---and in 1978 were 11 [Am J Public Health, 1982 Sep;72(9):1037-9, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1650105]. In 1978 U.S HEW launched the Measles Elimination Program, aiming to eliminate measles from the U.S. by 1 Oct 1982 [U.S. CDC, MMWR, 1982 Oct 1;31(38):517-9, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001164.htm].

Though not eliminated by 1982 (endemic transmission was declared gone in 1999), reported cases were 3% of 1977's figure, or 0.3% of 1962's [U.S. CDC, 1982]. Reported cases in 1983 were 1,497 [U.S. CDC, 1989], "and measles became a rare disease in the USA. However, a high vaccination rate was necessary, and to achieve this, legislation was passed prohibiting children from attending school unless they had been immunized or had had a natural infection. (The ethics of this decision make for an interesting debate.)" [Dimmock NJ, Easton AJ, Leppard K, Introduction to Modern Virology, 6th ed (Singapore: Blackwell Publishers, 2007), p 385, http://books.google.com/books?id=E3ntv9XwsFwC&pg=PA385].

By late 1981 97% of kids entering school were vaccinated [U.S. CDC, 1982]. Till surging at 28,000 cases in 1991, measles was at record low during 1980s [Dimmock NJ et al, Intro to Modern Virol, 2007, Fig 21.9, p 384, http://books.google.com/books?id=rmBXvWDaKpIC&pg=PA384]. From 1980 to 1992 America's death rate by all infectious diseases increased by 58%, however, "a trend that was unforeseen" [Armstrong et al, JAMA, 1999 Jan 6;281(1):61-6, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892452].

In a 2002 report on rural Senegal, of 31 serologically confirmed measles cases (index cases), and 184 household members (contacts), roughly 20% of contacts developed measles (secondary cases), yet nearly 50% of contacts who didn't develop measles evidenced subclinical infection [Aby P et al, Vaccine, 2002 Nov 22;21(1-2):120-6, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12443670]. Though no cases died by measles, subclinically infected contacts had lower mortality rate at 4-year followup than did uninfected contacts, while contacts who developed measles had the lowest mortality rate [Aby at al, 2002]. The authors concluded, "When measles infection is mild, clinical measles has no long-term excess mortality and may be associated with better overall survival than no clinical measles infection. Subclinical measles is common among immunised children and is not associated with excess mortality" [Aby P et al, 2002].

Acute viral infections have long resulted in cancer remission [Mol Ther, 2007 Apr;15(4):651-9, http://www.nature.com/mt/journal/v15/n4/full/6300108a.html]. Although standard cancer treatments have improved significantly over the years, they're often ineffective on particular cancers, actually most solid tumors, and have severe side effects, whereas viruses trigger several actions destroying cancerous tumors (oncolysis) [Viruses, 2010 Jan;2(1):78-106. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20543907]. "The earliest case reports of viral oncolysis document...remission of Burkitt's and Hodgkin's lymphomas after a bout of measles" [Cancer Biol Ther, 2005 May;4(5):524-31, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15917655]. Measlesvirus enters the lungs, and thereupon measlesvirus is carried by the host's own innate immune cells---macrophages---to lymphatic organs [J Virol, 2010 Mar;84(6):3033-42, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20042501].

Posted on Jun 26, 2011 12:52:15 AM PDT
Nathan S says:
Admittedly it was on a media channel where I saw the chart of vaccination rates dropping in this country (Australia) and I don't have the actual figures.

Despite high overall vaccination coverage in the Netherlands, in the last two decades there have been epidemics of poliomyelitis (1992 to 1993), measles (1999 to 2000), rubella (2004 to 2005) and mumps (2007 to 2008). These epidemics were all largely confined to the Dutch Bible Belt where there are a relatively high number of orthodox (aka fundamentalist) Protestants. Almost all patients in these epidemics belonged to the orthodox Protestant minority and were unvaccinated because of religious objections. The Radboud University found little correlation based on urbanization, poverty, and immigration. The only meaningful statistical correlation was based on those areas respective immunisation rates.

In North Queensland, Australia, there was a high incidence of hepatitis A in the indigenous population. Vaccination of indigenous toddlers, with catch-up up to the sixth birthday, had a rapid and dramatic impact in eliminating the disease in the indigenous population and in the much larger non-indigenous population (who were not vaccinated) across the whole of Queensland.
Hanna JN, Hills SL, Humphreys JL. Impact of hepatitis A vaccination of indigenous children on notifications of hepatitis A in north Queensland. Med J Aust 2004; 181: 482-5.

As an Australian resident, I can tell you that sanitization in that part of Australia haven't improved greatly over that period of time - it's still relatively poor today. It'd take a brave person to say the correlation isn't strong.

I've got a baby to look after so don't really have time to dig up scientific studies (which lets face it - on almost any controversial topic you can almost always find conficting studies). I'm not sure of the relevance of half of the studies you have cited, but at least your position isn't out of ignorance. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2011 5:56:46 AM PDT
Mr Schultz, what is your resource for "vaccination rates have fallen"? According to the CDC, this is not true, they have stayed the same. The only thing that has changed is the number of vaccines that are now being administered to the 2 and under age group- almost 30! I am 33 and had 8 vaccinations. I also did not grow up with autistic children all over my neighborhood, or ADHD kids, kids with severe food allergies... and kids who also died from their vax's. These are all fairly recent innovations, as those who cry "they've changed the spectrum" are clearly missing the point that there were not this many "different" kids.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2011 8:39:52 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 26, 2011 8:41:30 AM PDT
ColdShot says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2011 1:48:59 PM PDT
Ali says:
tree hugger, you say, "Mr Schultz, what is your resource for 'vaccination rates have fallen'? According to the CDC, this is not true, they have stayed the same".

The post directly above yours---where Mr Nathan A Schultz says that Mr Nathan A Schultz is talking about Australia---answers the question.

Please, can we actually move on with relevant information that MIGHT contribute to the discussion, not merely incessantly blare the same emotional appeals, badgering, and popular beliefs over and over?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2011 4:00:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 26, 2011 4:02:32 PM PDT
Ali says:
Thank you for responding, ColdShot. I'm drafting a response, as your reply raises some questions, namely

* Where do the ingredients go?

* What do they do once they get there---do they cause damage?

* What kind of damage, and to what?

* How much of the ingredients remain---either at the injection site or elsewhere?

* Can they be removed?

* How much does removing them undo whatever damage?

In the meantime I want to respond to Mr Nathan A Schultz's post.

Posted on Jun 26, 2011 4:37:36 PM PDT
Mr. Lee says:
There is documented proof that there IS a cure for a large percentage of cancer types (believe its over 70% of types or higher even). Just go to Mexico to get treatment since it's illegal for a USA doctor to treat paitents anyway but chemo or surgery. Let me repeat that: It is ILLEGAL for Doctors in the US to treat cancer paitence except using the "standard" (western) methods!!
My own Grandfather was diagnosed with cancer and was given less than a year to live. He went to Mexico for treatment and his cancer went into remission and some of the for over 7 years. He would still be alive now if he continued following the regimine. As soon as he returned to his american doctor he died within a few months of chemo!! A few months compared to 7+ years (or potentially longer).
I feel bad for cancer paitence and acknowledge it brings up great emotion in people, espically those suffering, and I mean them no disrespect for their personal choices they are entitled to make. However, there are more options available besides standard Western medicine. Cancer treatment is so profitable that of course any other option is hidden from the public!
As for Doctors intentionally giving us cancer via vaccinations...
Everything gives us cancer! Processed food, pesticides, plastic, synthetic materials, the insulation in your walls, the bed you sleep on the car you drive, the carpeting you walk on, the clothes you wear, the deoderant you use. Doctors don't NEED to intentionally give you cancer! Don't get me wrong: I don't like doctors and don't go to one but I doubt they are intentionally evil.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2011 7:07:44 PM PDT
ColdShot says:
you would do best to find a quantum reflex technician, who has been fully trained on quantum reflex analysis, who could better answer those questions.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2011 1:29:31 PM PDT
um, what is emotional about the facts listed on the CDC website? Oh, that's right, NOTHING. YOU quit getting emotional and attacking people just because you don't agree with them from other threads.

if you had taken the time to click on " in reply to post"... you would see that the post I replied to was posted before the post you refer to. Completely off-base of you to be so snide.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2011 10:08:30 AM PDT
"Just go to Mexico to get treatment"

LOL!! I wouldn't even drink the water in Mexico.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2011 7:43:41 PM PDT
ColdShot says:
boil it first and you are fine....

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2011 4:28:48 AM PDT
Hey Dan!

Yet another "cure" for cancer that is available in Mexico! Where have we heard this before?

I wonder if this clinic keeps records?!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2011 5:29:37 AM PDT
Yeah, sadly it's the same rehashed vomit...just a different pudknocker at the controls. Don't these people have moon landing videos to go over or something?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2011 5:32:56 AM PDT
Nah!

They are too busy triple-distilling water.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2011 8:24:37 AM PDT
DJD says:
Mark Twain was quoted as having said, "there are lies, there are damned lies and there are statistics!" Statistics can be manipulated and correlation doesn't prove causation!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2011 8:57:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 29, 2011 8:58:17 AM PDT
Darks says:
Can you provide proof of manipulation? If you can't, your post is worth very little.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2011 11:26:28 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 29, 2011 11:27:41 AM PDT
D. Nelson says:
You don't have to prove anything to have a voice. What do these factoids prove. Anecdotal information does not prove vaccines are safe in the long run. Isolated vaccines may do more good than harm in the long run in certain scenarios, but giving combined vaccines and multiple vaccines to developing newborns and children is reckless and the statistics that are often quoted never address these scenarios because it would involve a meta-analysis that no one who is pro-vaccine wants to do! Facism by definition is an attempt to silence people with differing points of view and no one using anecdotal statistics is proving that vaccines are safe, but they have the right to mention it as much as I have the right to criticize the flaws in their argument!
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Health forum
Participants:  227
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jun 17, 2011
Latest post:  Oct 22, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 17 customers

Search Customer Discussions