Bubble Witch Saga 3 Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Month Shop new men's suiting nav_sap_hiltonhonors_launch Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited GNO for iPhone 8 Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Transparent Transparent Transparent  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Trade in. Get paid. Go shopping. Shop Now FFII_gno
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 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Oct 22, 2013, 7:11:17 AM PDT
And with this, I have the last word;

Vaccines are effective and relatively safe and there is nothing nay-sayers can say about it.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2013, 7:09:30 AM PDT
"It'll stop at 10,000 posts? Wait, we haven't gotten to the good part yet! "

Yes, and good riddance!

This thread started with a totally stupid concept....and has continued to lose ground.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2013, 7:08:12 AM PDT
"Once again, Debbie attacks herself for creating distractions. Maybe she's having an out-of-body experience"

If she is, I hope Galligan can find her.

He is a man that knows his way around alternate realities!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2013, 7:06:06 AM PDT
Debbie has "researched" all manner of scientific atrocities....vaccines, cancer therapy and GMOs.

Yet completely misses an obvious joke!?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2013, 6:38:51 AM PDT
Debbie: "So says one who believes chemo, with it's atrocious effectiveness and horrible side effects, is an effective treatment."
Debbie: "This discussion is about vaccinations."

Once again, Debbie attacks herself for creating distractions. Maybe she's having an out-of-body experience.

"Whew, six more posts until the end."

It'll stop at 10,000 posts? Wait, we haven't gotten to the good part yet!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2013, 6:26:37 AM PDT
Darks says:
OMFG IKR

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2013, 6:25:52 AM PDT
Darks says:
He was making a funny. Please don't dissuade him. It's rare enough as is.

Besides, squirrel nut pics are a serious issue.

Posted on Oct 22, 2013, 6:21:38 AM PDT
Whew, six more posts until the end.

Posted on Oct 22, 2013, 6:11:21 AM PDT
"You people can argue vaccination ethics until you're all blind. You are all ignorant to the real problem in society."

This discussion is about vaccinations. That is probably the reason people are discussing the ethics of vaccinations. Ya think?

Posted on Oct 22, 2013, 6:04:36 AM PDT
You people can argue vaccination ethics until you're all blind. You are all ignorant to the real problem in society.

"French bank apologizes after posting picture of squirrel's testicles"
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2013/10/19/French-bank-apologizes-after-posting-picture-of-squirrels-testicles/UPI-34761382209876/#ixzz2iSIxOKQ1

Posted on Oct 22, 2013, 5:15:49 AM PDT
Still wondering what sort of "medical provider" wouldn't know that every disease covered by the U.S. vaccine schedule can be fatal - even ones that some people trivialize, like chickenpox:

"Chickenpox used to be very common in the United States. Each year, about 4 million people would get chickenpox. Between 10,500 and 13,000 people would be hospitalized, and 100 to 150 people would die because of chickenpox. Most people who had severe chickenpox were healthy beforehand."

http://www.cdc.gov/Features/preventchickenpox/

Posted on Oct 22, 2013, 2:44:59 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 22, 2013, 4:48:14 AM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
I'm sure that there do exist some physicians who would be contemptuous of the possibility that an "adverse reaction" to a vaccine could occur in one of their patients. I had a doctor recently who was contemptuous of the possibility that dark urine after taking a statin could possibly be a side effect of the statin, despite that particular pathology being well known. On the other hand, I'm sure that there exist some doctors who would go overboard in the other direction, and overtreat what might not even be a cause/effect relationship. Welcome to earth: physicians are human beings, and they do vary in their knowledge, ability and concern.

Medical students are well known to experience two related diseases, one in which they think that they are seeing in their patients whatever diseases they have just studied, the other in which they imagine themselves to be afflicted by said diseases. I imagine that, eventually, they become a little jaded, and stop looking for the unusual, the unfortunate consequence of that being that, when the unusual strikes, they don't see it. One is always safe in assuming that the best explanation for a symptomatology is something common, but it might be that a common intellectual blind spot within the profession is to not see the rare: they get the tendency to see the unusual quickly trained out of them in medical school. A cough and a fever is probably not pneumonia or tuberculosis. The fact that competent epidemiologists have difficulty in determining whether a rare adverse "reaction" to a vaccine is, in reality, a reaction or not, should tell you something. Scientists still argue over whether Guillain-Barré syndrome is coincidental or is a possible real adverse reaction to vaccination; playing it safe, it is listed as a potential complication, although an extraordinarily large Chinese study found the opposite effect--that, in the case of influenza vaccine, Guillain-Barré occurred less often among those who'd been vaccinated. Perhaps we should have a nationwide campaign of mass influenza immunization in order to protect people against Guillain-Barré syndrome instead of to prevent influenza, just as we should have a massive campaign to require that aspartame be put into public water supplies in order to protect people against ochratoxin A toxicity.☺

I'm one who groans when I get the mandatory warning about adverse reaction to a treatment, drug, or a vaccination. "Yes, I know, just do it." I do question some things, such as when they try to prescribe a drug with known hepatotoxicity to me--and many physicians seem to totally unaware of that as something that one should worry about--but, having had a liver problem for five decades, I double check them. I am living proof that the hallucinatory beliefs of some that chemotherapy is atrociously ineffective and has horrid side effects is not true. Cisplatin/5-FU killed my SCC nine years ago, and the combination didn't really even kill my appetite. The worst side effect at the time was not being able to eat anything spicy, which I put up with in return for being kept alive. Of course, I'm different: instead of sitting there weeping about the winds of fate, and moaning about, oh no, there's nothing I can do, I proclaimed that I'm strong and I know that I will beat whatever it is. There was a long-term side effect, not from the chemotherapy, but from the radiation, a stenosis, but I can live with that. I was surprised that the chemo was so free of side-effects; it might be because it was administered by an IV-catheter which I had to wear continuously, and which is probably much freer of side-effects than taking regular measured doses.

I don't believe that those who complain about such things realize the gravity of the situation: you're trying to kill something before it multiplies. It's war, not friendship. Your body is always a sort of battleground anyway, but, in the case of cancer, you have these ultimate libertarian cells, oblivious to the needs of anything but themselves, trying to take over. Multicellularity is really a paradoxical development in biology. Our cells cooperate with each other; the heart doesn't try to expand and kill off the liver and kidneys, but the libertarian cells, cancer cells, are like free-living cells outside: they try to do just that. Their philosophy is "Me first and me only."

When you think of cancer cells, start thinking about how vigorous life is, how you find it almost everywhere, no matter how inhospitable a place might be. How many weeds do you kill that keep coming back? You can't keep the crack in the sidewalk free of plants. All the surfaces of your home will eventually grow some kind of mold if you don't keep them clean, all because life is strong, and is very hard to stop. Cancer cells are very hard to stop, and it should be self-evident that the notion that you can miraculously eradicate only those cells with no physiological disturbance to the rest of your body is a utopian dream. Perhaps, inevitably actually, that will be, but not yet.

It all boils down to a question of risk vs. reward. Should I get vaccinated against this or that? What is the danger of the disease? What risk is there that I might suffer an adverse reaction, for real? I'm not sure that I'd want to turn into the Incredible Hulk as a result of getting a vaccination, but I'd certainly not want to turn into Wonder Woman either. I relax, though, knowing that those particular "adverse effects" have only been reported one time each. We are all different, and anything can happen at any time, biochemically, or so it seems. You might have consumed scallops a thousand times, but on the thousand and first suffer an anaphylactic reaction. You might be that one in a million who suffers whatever the most horrid side effect a particular drug might have. I'm a little paranoid that way: with a totally new medicine, I'll take a tiny amount at first instead of a full dose, despite whatever the directions are, unless it's time release or enteric. My rationale is that, if a quarter of a pill, say, makes my skin start peeling off, I'll probably change my mind about taking it. So far none have done so, though, not even that, gasp, dreadful chemotherapy. How dare doctors save my life! I do have the same concern about foodstuffs, particularly about the ones for my birds. There've been so many pet food recalls during the last year or so that, despite the premium I place on freshness, my philosophy has become to buy something and then let it sit for a while, and freeze it if necessary: if I don't see any news reports on recalls, then I figure it's probably safe for them to consume.

The only real concern I have about vaccination is not about the theoretical basis for the procedure--it's action is undisputed except by those bereft of enough functioning neurons--but about ingesting anything prepared by people whom I don't know, i.e., was their factory filthy, or is the product contaminated. Or, possibly, is the nurse a drug user who's reusing hypodermics in order to obtain his or her own supply. Or, is the nurse someone who doesn't believe in things such as germs: people like that exist, and that possibility should be in all of our nightmares, that people like that might be in a position to kill us by virtue of their stupidity when they supply our medicine or food--horror of horrors. But those possibilities are remote, and I can't spend all my life worrying about such things. If I walk outside and get struck by a meteor, that's life: I'll get the vaccinations and take the medicine.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2013, 7:59:33 PM PDT
Darks says:
Damn, that was from way back in the day lol.
Glad you liked. :D

Posted on Oct 21, 2013, 7:51:04 PM PDT
"A medical provider should know that these and other vaccine-preventable diseases can not only be fatal, but cause serious illness, suffering and possible lifelong complications."

So says one who believes chemo, with it's atrocious effectiveness and horrible side effects, is an effective treatment.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2013, 7:36:38 PM PDT
"People should first realize that vaccines carry risks and that it why we have the VAERS system. If you don't know what that it is then that is a good place to start in educating yourself with facts."

Fact: VAERS is a database for reporting _possible_ reactions associated with vaccines. It is just a starting point for potential investigation; anyone (not just doctors) can contribute to it, and completely unrelated events can and have been reported, including people dying of accidents and heart disease within various time periods after immunization (people have even reported being turned into the Incredible Hulk and Wonder Woman after being vaccinated).

"As a medical provider I was taught the ignorant view that all vaccines are good, necessary for everyone and without harm."

Obviously this is not what "medical providers" are taught; they learn that all medical interventions have associated benefits and risks and discuss them with patients as a matter of course. They also learn how numerous harmful infectious diseases have been drastically reduced or eliminated by vaccination, and thus benefits greatly outweigh risks.

"Most of the diseases we are vaccinated against don't even cause death."

I believe you are overlooking diseases such as pneumococcal pneumonia, meningitis, tetanus, measles, pertussis, polio, diphtheria...the list goes on. A medical provider should know that these and other vaccine-preventable diseases can not only be fatal, but cause serious illness, suffering and possible lifelong complications.

Doesn't it seem foolish to you to rant about VAERS reports which lack confirmed connections to vaccines, and then denounce those who "fan the flames of paranoia" for providing factual evidence about dangerous vaccine-preventable diseases?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2013, 6:39:56 PM PDT
MedicalBuff says:
I don't think you would dismiss the 'adverse reactions' that are possible with vaccinations if you were knowledgeable about them. If you would read nothing else to enlighten yourself read the package inserts that come with vaccinations and you would see that in certain populations they can cause more than redness and edema at the injection site. That is why we have the VAERS system. Vaccinations can cause anything from lifelong asthma and seizures as well as death. Most of the diseases we are vaccinated against don't even cause death. If you have your vaccinations you can sit down and be quiet now because you should be safe....right?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2013, 6:39:00 PM PDT
Wow! Medical Buff. Welcome to the fray. You have much reading to do yet, or if you like skip all that and join in on today's themes, but your logic, morality and expressions are welcome.

Certainly vaccines are here. They exist. Like honey, alcohol and heroin,so we have choices. A free society is one where we can make them for ourselves. Long live the freedom of speech and actions.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2013, 6:30:57 PM PDT
MedicalBuff says:
Very well said. It's easy for people to regurgitate what has been read somewhere else without even comprehending the facts, but we shouldn't fault the ignorant for not understanding.... We have to educate them without bias or inflammatory nonsense. People should first realize that vaccines carry risks and that it why we have the VAERS system. If you don't know what that it is then that is a good place to start in educating yourself with facts. As a medical provider I was taught the ignorant view that all vaccines are good, necessary for everyone and without harm. Then my child and I were both injured by vaccines. Then I discovered that vaccines come with inserts that list all of their potential complications (including what happened to my child and I), but I nor any other medical professional were ever required to discuss this with our patients. It is ignorant and unacceptable in a free society to expect all citizens to have vaccines that may harm them. There are recognized conditions that exempt people from some or all vaccines and as we are more educated that list should be expanded. If an individual wants a vaccine then they should be able to get it, but they nor the government should not force others to put vaccines in their bodies for someone else's paranoia... and vaccine companies do fan the flames of paranoia.

Posted on Oct 21, 2013, 6:22:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 21, 2013, 9:27:05 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
There's a fascinating article in New Scientist about the possibility of a more universal flu vaccine. When flu vaccines are co-administered with rapamycin, an immunosuppresant, the antibodies produced in response to the vaccine are more general, i.e., less strain specific. The article discusses research just published in Nature Immunology, along with previous supporting research. That reminds me; I need to get my flu shot this year. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37940/title/Drug-Widens-Immunity-to-Flu/

Posted on Oct 21, 2013, 6:09:06 PM PDT
Doctors Speak About Vaccinations:

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/08/27/vaccination-a-mythical-history-by-roman-bystrianyk-and-suzanne-humphries-md/

That's one article, but there are more on this page: http://vran.org/about-vaccines/general-issues/doctors-speak/

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2013, 8:24:49 PM PDT
Everyone's truth is propaganda to those who do not agree.

I insist DJD did not knowingly admit to posting propaganda, no more than I would class my defense of honey as propaganda. Yet you ivory tower people choose to make DJD's statement into just such an admission.

We once used to word 'heresy' to describe statements of this nature.

I will also point out that amazon do not appear to be encouraging new participants into these forums. They are not advertising them. They are not making links to them in conspicuous places. And can you blame them for that? I consider us lucky they have left them run this long. I doubt if they are a profitable operation, although for some reason the honey books seem to be selling well, so I hope amazon are getting their fair share of the proceeds.

Occasionally when I am changing computers or purging, reformatting, etc. and I lose my favourites list, I have more than enough trouble finding these forums again.

No the public are not excluded, nor are they encouraged.

DJD got it right again by my standards. GO DJD!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2013, 7:38:35 PM PDT
Well, DJD, it may be seen as a crime against humanity in fifty years, but at the moment it is legal, so no crime is committed. That is the nice way to prevent a collection of persons from becoming a conspiracy, ................. simply make their intended activity legal!

Blood letting and bed wetting are both undesirable events, yet both are still legal.

A democracy is far easier to control than a fiefdom, as long as control over information can be maintained. This is why the Catholic Church lost so much ground when the printing press arrived, and now the www is eating away at the influence of our present minders like white ants in a pine stump!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2013, 11:55:05 AM PDT
"they endanger their children or the public welfare if they do not vaccinate."

Agreed.

Posted on Oct 19, 2013, 10:57:05 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 19, 2013, 11:04:48 AM PDT
DJD says:
Viemester v. White: "the fact that the belief (in the efficacy of vaccination) is not universal is not controlling, for there is scarcely any belief that is accepted by everyone. The possibility that the belief may be wrong, and that science may yet show it to be wrong, is not conclusive...the legislature has the right to pass laws which , according to the common belief of the people, are adapted to prevent the spread of contagious disease...for what the people believe is for the common welfare must be accepted as tending to promote the common welfare, whether it does in fact or not."

The propaganda comes from the pro-vaccine promoters namely: government, cdc, pharmaceutical companies and others in the medical industry who profit from mass sales of vaccination. Some, do it knowingly and some ignorantly.They tell the public we should mandate vaccines or lead the public to believe that they endanger their children or the public welfare if they do not vaccinate.

Start asking these people to provide evidence for their claims. Also, make them take financial and moral responsibility for the side effects of vaccinations. If our government had stood up to the threat that pharmaceutical companies would not continue to manufacture vaccines unless the government protected them from lawsuits, they would have stopped. The only reason they are still creating these dangerous vaccinations is because our government said the public could not sue them.

In essence they are experimenting on the public and the U.S. Government is an accomplice to this crime!

Posted on Oct 19, 2013, 10:47:34 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Oct 19, 2013, 10:53:29 AM PDT]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400 Next ›
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Health forum

 

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 18 customers