Beauty Best Books of the Year So Far STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Wickedly Prime Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Book House Cleaning TheTick TheTick TheTick  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire 7 Kids Edition, starting at $99.99 Kindle Oasis GNO Water Sports toystl17_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 151-175 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2011, 1:03:25 AM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
"The fact is that the total mortality from BOTH types of meningitis was not affected by the removal of Hib as a major contributor, which means (and I hate having to repeat this) that whether or not you get the Hib vaccine, you're still just as likely to die from meningitis." Logic would dictate that, if there are, let's say three for simplification, causes of a disease, and you eliminate one of those three causes, but the rate of that disease does not change (much), or appear to change, a point which is also at issue, then something else is happening not related to the elimination of one of those causes. Most people would immediately theorize that, if you could then add that third cause back into the mix, the rates would rise, unless you are going to claim that the causes are linked physically. I guess it would surprise you that there are numerous factors that cause a disease to occur, particularly infectious diseases, as well as factors that affect its likelihood of being fatal. By your logic, a certain number of cases are going to occur no matter what, and by eliminating one cause, we are magically allowing some other cause to manifest itself, so that the rate does not change. In a case where two equally lethal pathogens are present and in direct competition with each other, that might make sense. But it sounds almost like you are preaching predestination to me: it sounds like you are saying that there is no point in eliminating a particular cause--as by vaccination--because those people who would have contracted the disease from the pathogen you have eliminated will now miraculously contract it from a different pathogen. There might actually be a germ of truth to that, to the extent that those people who contract the disease may be doing so, not because of the infectiousness of the disease, but because of an increased susceptibility to diseases in general, such as by, say, reduced immunity.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2011, 6:16:23 AM PDT
I came acrossed a website titled:
"The Think Twice Global Vaccine Institute" (

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2011, 8:22:54 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 13, 2011, 8:31:51 AM PDT
Darks says:
"I find it difficult to imagine anyone who could possibly oppose a vaccination that would, without side effects, cure a disease like prostate cancer--a cure which seems to be in the works--and who would choose instead to opt for less successful treatments with greater side effects, or perhaps no treatment at all, simply out of a blind opposition to vaccination."

Not only would I need several conclusive safety studies proving that no side effects will occur upon receiving this phantom vaccination, I'd also require an iron-clad guarantee from the vaccine manufacturer stating that they will cover any and all ongoing costs involved with my care and (hopefully) my recovery should I suffer any unforeseen side effects before I'd even consider taking the vaccine. I've been burned once, I don't wish to be burned again.

"Similarly, considering the billion humans in our history who died from just that one disease, smallpox, I cannot imagine anyone who would oppose our having used vaccination to eliminate the disease--which it did, most convincingly."

Firstly, if you make an assertion like that, you need sufficient evidence to back it up. Secondly, the largest outbreak of smallpox in England's recorded history was the epidemic of 1871-72. 40,000 died. Interestingly, this occurred when 97.5% of all people between the ages of 2 and 50 had either been vaccinated against smallpox or had smallpox in the past. This, to me, is far from "most convincing". It's a filth disease. Sanitation, hygiene, living conditions, proper nutrition; these were far bigger factors in the eradication of smallpox than vaccines ever were.

"Arguing that the lethality of the disease diminished with time does not swing the risk/benefit ratio in favor of not vaccinating, particularly considering the non-universality of the medical care required to ensure reduced mortality."

My argument has always been that the introduction of vaccinations has had no noticeable effect on mortality rates for many diseases, not that the risk of death has diminished over time.

"But to argue that all vaccinations are not worth whatever risks exist, which vary from vaccine to vaccine, and from population to population, simply because they are "vaccinations," is blind."

Simply because they are vaccines? No, I don't trust vaccines because there is no sense of accountability from the manufacturer each time someone suffers significant vaccine-induced damage or death. I wouldn't take any risk on anything that I could not trust. Why should I regard vaccines any differently? Especially considering that my own research has uncovered evidence that vaccines have done almost nothing to save lives.

"We don't want one person to, say, die as a result of a vaccination. But if the vaccination will save, say, 500 lives, would it be worth having that one person die?"

Firstly, who are you to play God? Unless its your own life you are sacrificing, you have no right to determine who dies to save who. You want to sacrifice someone to save the rest, you should get their express permission before doing so. Have doctors warn people that they may die if they receive any vaccine and ask whether they accept the possibility that their life might be the cost of keeping the rest of the population safe. If the vaccine kills them after accepting that responsibility, then it is on their own heads. But without that acknowledgement, any "sacrifices" that occur will be tantamount to murder and the blood will be on your hands.

Secondly, such a scenario is irrelevant anyway, because what guarantee is there that the 500 will die without vaccines? Or even with?

"Do you imagine that you can live in this world without risk, or that we can live collectively without taking any risk? Using your same argument would mean that we should never fight whenever attacked by enemies, because some of us would likely die. America suffered more than 400 thousand military deaths during WWII: by your logic, we should have surrendered and all be speaking Japanese now in order to have saved most of those lives. Yes, war is evil, but sometimes societies have to make difficult choices."

Are you serious? Not wanting to vaccinate means I'm a wuss who is half-scared to get out of bed in the morning just in case I slip and fall graze my knee and die from infection, however unlikely that scenario might be? Please. I have made an informed decision not to vaccinate for personal reasons, not because I am scared to take any risks involved with life on earth. Don't insult my intelligence by suggesting otherwise.

"Public health interests also sometimes force us to make difficult choices, some of which, in retrospect, will turn out to have been wrong. That's life on earth; get used to it. Diseases are our enemy; let us use every tool at our disposal to win that war."

My personal health is my responsibility and I will not vaccinate purely because the public demands it for health reasons. I will not be forced into anything. Use your vaccines as tools of war if you wish. I refuse to as is my right as a human being. I decide what risks I take, not you or anyone else.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2011, 9:59:27 AM PDT
K. Wilkins says:
I agree, the medical industry is about big money, they are not in the business of making people well, if they did they would be broke. We have everything on this planet to fight off whatever illness that we have. In the ancient times what did they rely on? Herbs, vegetables, fruit and things from the earth. The same herbs that the medical industry use to formulate thier medicines. I'm not suprise to read the comments from the doctors on this discussion, calling your thoughts paranoia. I say your concious, aware, enlightened and taking charge of your life.

I refuse to vaccinate my son, he is one years old and is bright, active and perfectly healthy. I refuse to allow some Doctor that id "Practicing" medicine inject my child with some foreign medicine that has no telling what kind of side effect. If my child become sick I will consult a homeopathic healer whom practice the natural remedies to heal. Medicine does not heal. I believe it makes a illness worse by masking the problem and not healing the underline problem.

There are many homeopathic doctors that has HEALED cancer and many other life threatning illnesses, by simple means. Believe it or not 88% of people who undergo chemo dies within the first year, of course the medical professionals will object but just research for yourself and see it for what it is, Doctors do not heal.........

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2011, 10:12:34 AM PDT
DJD says:
George A. Butel says, "should we be prepared?"

There are different kinds of preparation for different possible scenarios. It isn't practical to think that humans can prepare for every possibility. For those of us who try to live according to divine laws, foremost among them is free will to choose how we will live our lives, we recognize that ultimately our lives come under control of universal laws that take into consideration the rest of the universe. The problem with "vaccinators" is that they are like terminators. They are programmed to believe they have more control then they actually do. In reality, they know so little about the universe that at best when they create something artificial like a vaccine, it is just an experiment with untold consequences. How far is the American population going to let them go in this experiment with our children's bodies.
They see correlations and use them as guides to further investigate, but their perspective is so isolated with regard to the overall impact on the system and they do not do longitudinal studies before they rush to market.
No, don't trust the "vaccinators" find a homeopath, who practices isopathy and tautopathy. You will not only live longer, but your quality of life will be without side-effects from vaccines.!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2011, 10:21:26 AM PDT
DJD says:
Hurray for Brian!

That is the point that everyone should know about the companies producing vaccines. They are more interested in money than people's health.

America is a grand experiment in freedom. We took a wrong turn when we allowed companies to be treated like individuals. No company should be allowed the freedom to produce a product that is harmful and full disclosure should be manditory on any product that has the potential to hurt life, human, animal or the plant. Does it mean that we won't in some instances choose it over something else, no. But when there is something better lets not stick with the more harmful product because we are ashamed to admit that it ever was inferior to something else.

Failure to progress is using the same processes even when they are shown to be fallible.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2011, 10:30:28 AM PDT
DJD says:
George A. Butel says, "vaccines as preventives or as, such as in the case of the new treatment for some cancers, treatments."

The idea of using a vaccine to "treat" cancer is interesting. I would really like to know what is in one of those vaccines. Using minute doses of the same substance sounds very much like homeopathy unless you make a cocktail of it like children's vaccines and start adding heavy metals and such.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2011, 10:37:41 AM PDT
DJD says:
At some point we need to stop treating disease and treat humans. The cause of disease is the failure of the immune system which ,when operating as intended, keeps people healthy. We need to find out why people's immune systems aren't working properly and correct that. When people really get the kind of medical treatment they should, doctors will stop working for pharmaceutical companies and start working for their patients. The approach to medicine needs to be first find out about a patient's state of health. The American Medical Association should take a lot of heat for what has happened because the doctors have allowed it to happen instead of stepping up to the plate and saying this isn't the way medicine should be practiced.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2011, 4:13:32 PM PDT
jhmr17 says:
I work for a drug company and yes, I can confirm your theory. Damn! How'd you figure out out?!

Posted on Jul 13, 2011, 5:24:43 PM PDT
D. Storm says:
If you think vaccines are safe and the pharmaceutical companies are looking out for our best interest, just do a search on SV-40, Simian Virus-40, also known as money virus. You will be shocked as to how many animal virus's we all have in us from vaccinations. And how many modern day diseases these virus's cause.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2011, 10:21:11 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Feb 11, 2013, 12:43:48 AM PST
ParrotSlave says:
If you or K. Wilkins would suggest homeopathy, you obviously don't understand the so-called "principles" of it, one of which is that the more you dilute something, the stronger it gets.

Try making homeopathic coffee and tell me how well that theory works. Here's how: make a pot of coffee, then take one drop of that coffee and put it into a gallon of plain water and shake it well. Now, take a drop of that mixture and put it into another gallon of plain water and shake it. The C (or X) rating you see on homeopathic labels refers to the number of times they have diluted it, like you just diluted the coffee (if it says "C," it is twice as dilute as the same number followed by an "X"). The majority of homeopathic "remedies" are unlikely to contain even one single atom of the purported active ingredient.

You just made 2C homeopathic coffee--a dilution of a dilution: drink some of the homeopathic coffee and tell me how strong it is. If you believe in homeopathy, you will believe that your diluted solution of a diluted solution is stronger than the coffee you started out with. And think: when the homeopaths do it, they don't just do one or two dilutions--they dilute it again and again until nothing is there but water. You could save a lot of money on your grocery bill if you started drinking only homeopathic beverages and prepared them yourself.

In the case of solid homeopathic substances, the original substance is diluted with a large amount of lactose by mixing, then they take a tiny amount of that dilution and mix it with with another large amount of lactose. They repeat this process over and over, until they obtain a powder that may or may not have a few molecules or atoms of the supposed active ingredient in it. You could make homeopathic tea that way, most easily if you start with instant tea. Take a tiny amount of instant tea, add it to a pound of lactose, then mix it well--quite a chore for a solid--then take that and dilute it again with more lactose. Then do it again, and again, and again. I would have to question the sanity of anyone who would imagine that the homeopathic tea--the diluted tea that results--would be as strong as the original, real tea, but homeopaths hallucinate that it gets stronger as it gets diluted.

To counter the argument that there is nothing in their "remedies," they contend that it's not the diluting itself that "makes" the substance they're working with turn into some kind of remedy, it's the agitation, the shaking--they call this "potentiation by succussion." Go into your kitchen, rinse out a glass that has just had milk or soda or some other drink in it, now fill that glass with water. Shake it vigorously. In so doing, according to homeopaths, you are "potentiating" the liquid. Pour all of it out, and there will be a drop or two left, so fill it again with more water, and shake it vigorously: you have just made homeopathic milk (or whatever drink you started with) 2X. No sane person is going to stand there and tell me that you have just put some kind of miracle healing force into that water. Imagine the shaking inside a dishwasher as glasses get washed and shaken, and the food particles and debris get more and more diluted: by homeopathic "principles," what goes down your drain must be the strongest medicine in the world.

One of the oldest exposes of it came from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., father of the famed jurist, who, in the 19th century, wrote a book about it entitled, "Homeopathy And Its Kindred Delusions." Despite expose after expose over the last two centuries by various men of learning, there are always a few people who continue to believe the nonsense, ideas that are contrary, not just to schoolroom logic, but to what we think of as common sense.

James Randi has offered one million dollars to anyone who can prove that homeopathy works: no one has collected for one simple reason--it doesn't work, other than by placebo. His speeches on the subject, given at Cal Tech and Princeton, are available on youtube, such as at Those lectures don't appear to have been attended by any homeopathy devotees; we might surmise that they would never get into such institutions, other, perhaps, than as janitors. Randi's challenge is at

How could anyone possibly believe that a medicine gets stronger the more dilute you make it? We put people in jail when they do that, like the Midwest pharmacist who diluted anti-cancer drugs a few years ago. But when they call themselves homeopaths, we let them walk free. Homeopath, fraud, charlatan--same thing. It is, for reasons unknown to me, still legal to defraud people of their money by selling them something that is worthless as long as you call it "homeopathic." I wonder if you could sell televisions that don't work and get away with it by calling them homeopathic televisions. You could sell water and call it homeopathic gasoline; the homeopaths could not complain. What more lucrative criminal enterprise could there be than homeopathy? That's why we have prisons, to protect the public from such quackery.

I can understand how, not knowing what it actually is, someone might think to try it. But if you continue to believe in it after the so-called "principles" of it are explained to you--and what I mentioned is just one of their lunacies--well, no amount of reason is going to convince you of the truth, just as no amount of reason would convince you to change a religious belief.

The believers are so fanatical about it that even watching people consume entire bottles of the homeopathic materials without having any effect whatsoever does not make the believers realize that the substances are worthless. There is no better profit margin than in homeopathic materials, since the cost of the supposed active ingredient is nil.

And because there are no active ingredients, I wouldn't worry about their preparations that start out with "pathological excretions and secretions," called "nosodes" by them, even though those preparations may originate from things like diseased tissue or fecal matter: they've diluted it so much that there isn't anything left. A description of that, and a fascinating history of the pseudoscience of homeopathy, can be found at

By the way, WHO has a publication you can view online about preparation for influenza pandemics, at

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011, 1:10:26 AM PDT
Darks says:
Thanks for mentioning me in a debate I have no wish to be a part of.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011, 2:39:21 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 14, 2011, 6:16:59 AM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
I corrected the mention; sorry. I was looking at the K. Wilkins post and had enlarged the font size on my screen, and somehow, with scrolling too rapidly, thought the end of her post was the end of yours. I can tolerate a certain amount of anti-vaccination to the extent that any reasonable person would debate, not the concept, for that is one of the greatest achievements of the human race, but rather the risk/benefit issue related to a particular vaccine, but any mention of homeopathy other than as a joke arouses an anger in me.

The question of whether or when we, the people, have the right to intervene and physically force you to take a health-related action, such as quarantining you if you have contracted a virulent form of tuberculosis, or demanding that your children be vaccinated against something or other, is a political question. An anarchist would deny that a government should exist, let alone that it do anything, while a one-worlder might insist that the government come to take care of you if you get a splinter in your thumb.

If your action or inaction endangers anyone else in the public, then many of us consider that we, the people have the right to limit or control your actions to the extent necessary to mitigate that danger. Would a reasonable person claim that our government has a duty to keep an HIV-positive hooker--or anyone else who is HIV-positive, actually--from engaging in unprotected sex? Would you consider that it is incumbent upon our government to protect us from someone with drug resistant TB, or should we let such a person wander around freely, untreated, and pray that we are not the ones who will be affected? Would you say that it your life, and you should be free to infect whoever you wish? If, by being unvaccinated, you would be more likely to cause injury to another, not intentionally on your part, of course, would that give the state the right to demand that you be vaccinated, or is the control of infectious diseases not anything that the state should be concerned with?

Your rights are not unlimited in America, or anywhere else that I know of. You might consider looking up the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act; most of us consider that the state does have the power to promote the general welfare. We would agree when it comes to, say, a bio-terrorist act, that it can take extraordinary measures, but I'm sure that when it comes to the splinter in your thumb, most of us would surely agree that it does not.

None of us enjoy telling others that they have to be medicated, but this same intellectual question often comes up in the case of psychotics who commit crimes, such as the man who shot Congresswoman Giffords. Some would argue that the state has no right to medicate him, others, including myself, disagree. I don't care what others do as long as it doesn't interfere with my life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and as long as it doesn't take money out of my pocket. If it takes more of my tax money to care for the sick as a result of a disease that could have been prevented by immunization, then I believe that it is my right, as expressed through my government, to intervene.

Neither our government nor our medical institutions and doctors are playing God. They do not always make the right decisions, but we hope, at least I hope, that they look at such health decisions from the risk/benefit standpoint. We know that if we give out, say, a million doses of any particular vaccine, there are going to be some idiosyncratic reactions. That's life on the earth. If we know that, say, 3 out of that million are bound to die as a result of the vaccine, no one would claim that as anything but a tragedy. The question is, when you add up all the harm that could conceivably result, and then compare it to the harm that it prevents, which one looks best? This is not playing God. I don't consider it to be a difficult choice. I would have absolutely no difficulty in approving a vaccine or a new drug if I thought it would save lives, but then, I'm not a Luddite. I might be wrong in any particular instance. But I would sleep more soundly at night, satisfied that I had saved lives. The ones who made those decisions have been wrong before, and they will assuredly be wrong again, and I am not going to question that there might not have been under the table financial considerations in some cases, or perhaps even a revolving door process regarding employment in the pharmaceutical business once a governmental regulator has left office. But when you look at the totality of what the process has done, we have benefited. You go with whatever you think is best for we, the people, as a whole, and when there are mistakes in the process itself, you correct them, and that's what we have legislators and courts for. Let us enjoy the fruits of civilization, admit that it is not perfect, and work to correct that which is wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011, 7:22:29 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 14, 2011, 7:53:36 AM PDT
DJD says:
In response to what D.Storm wrote about SV-40, Simian Virus-40. This is the first I have heard of this, but I will say that it brings back memories of a lecture by a microbiologist that talked about the AIDS virus. It's been many years since I heard the lecture, but I do recall him discussing the fact that it was a retro-virus and that it had to be created in the laboratory because diseases of animals don't transmit to humans through the air only when they are bitten.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011, 7:36:59 AM PDT
If you found that interesting, Read "Vaccine A".

Why would a known dangerous adjuvant be used?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011, 7:41:21 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 14, 2011, 7:55:02 AM PDT
DJD says:
In reference to homeopathy George A. Butel says, "those preparations may originate from things like diseased tissue or fecal matter: they've diluted it so much that there isn't anything left." This shows how little you know about it!
A scientist, would never take the anecdotal testimony of one person such as James Randi, who by the way, has not indicated what constitutes proof that would result in payment. However, do some searches on: water has memory or water remembers. There are some interesting videos on youtube about it.
Everything that is material has a vibrational frequency and if the homeopathic remedies were only placebo, they would not have different frequencies from the water or alcohol or lactose that it also contains.
Furthermore, if there is nothing to homeopathy why does the prestigious John's Hopkins University advocate more research into it, "The dilutions used in homeopathy leave very little active ingredient in the medicines that patients receive, but recent research suggests that they may introduce changes that may have an observable effect on such patients.

Explanations for why homeopathy works range from the idea that homeopathic medicine stimulates the body's own natural defenses to the idea that homeopathic medicine retains a "memory" of the original substance."

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011, 7:47:20 AM PDT
Well, HIV isn't airborne for one thing. Also, HIV is closely related to SIV (other primates), FIV (cats) and BIV (cows), so all evidence points to just a normal cross-species mutation of a lentivirus, which is not that uncommon.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011, 7:52:28 AM PDT
DJD says:
George A. Butel mentioned the "Model State Emergency Health Powers Act."

Here is what I found: "Within weeks after the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, the Centers for Disease Controland Prevention (CDC) began promoting health policy legislation that dramaticallysuspends civil rights during declared state of biological emergency. The text of the"Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA)" gives public health officials and governors of the several states the power to arrest, transport, quarantine, drug and vaccinate anyone suspected of carrying a potentially infectious disease. The Boston Globe originally broke the October 31, 2001. The story was almost immediately forwarded to medical freedom activists throughout the country who responded en masse in outspoken opposition to the proposal. The article was quickly removed from The Globe's website...While stating that their proposal considered the "civil rights of the individual," the appeals process described in the text describes the nearly absolute powers of public health authorities to detain people against their will and force them to submit to whatever medical intervention deemed appropriate by authorities. "

I am an anti-vaccinator specifically because of this kind of anti-civil rights attitude. I have no problem with being isolated/quarantined if I am infectious, but that is easy enough to prove or disprove. The American government has no right to force a vaccination on me or anyone ever!

Posted on Jul 14, 2011, 8:00:20 AM PDT
DJD says:
In response to George A. Butel,s comment about psychotics. If someone commits a violent crime who needs medical attention, depending on the nature of the crime, they will lose many rights, but they should not be compared to those of us who have not committed violent crimes. Also, many people if practicing homeopathy would probably not commit those violent crimes because homeopathy is more effective at eliminating the causes of those violent urges than drugs are!

Posted on Jul 14, 2011, 2:22:34 PM PDT
Brian says:
"James Randi has offered one million dollars to anyone who can prove that homeopathy works: no one has collected"

Similarly, someone has posted a $250,000.00 reward for an MD who dares drink just preservatives from a vaccine given to infants. No one claimed the award:

Personally, I am a lot more worried by the double standard of doctors who push vaccines but would not drink the contents even for quarter million dollars, than homeopathy which no one is pushing on newborns anyway.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011, 2:27:59 PM PDT
Brian says:
"How could anyone possibly believe that a medicine gets stronger the more dilute you make it?"

This is not a question of belief but ignorance on your part.
There are medications which work better at lower doses than at higher, for various reasons... There are also toxins which are more easily eliminated by human body when ingested in larger doses then in lower.
"More" is not always "better" or "stronger".

Posted on Jul 14, 2011, 2:44:13 PM PDT
Brian says:
Here are some more interesting facts:

- A manufacturer of the Hepatitis-B vaccine was asked at a 1997 Illinois Board of Health hearing to cite his evidence that the vaccine is safe for a 1-day old infant. The representative replied:

"We have none. Our studies were done on 5- and 10-year-olds."

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011, 2:52:55 PM PDT
Brian says:
Or how about this:
...This raises questions about the CDC's recommendation that the series of shots be given to girls as young as 11-years old. "If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn't last... we've put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit," says Dr. Harper. "The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years, and over 70% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated." She also says that enough serious side effects have been reported after Gardasil use that the vaccine could prove riskier than the cervical cancer it purports to prevent. Cervical cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early through normal Pap screenings.

Dr. Scott Ratner and his wife, who's also a physician, expressed similar concerns as Dr. Harper in an interview with CBS News last year. One of their teenage daughters became severely ill after her first dose of Gardasil. Dr. Ratner says she'd have been better off getting cervical cancer than the vaccination. "My daughter went from a varsity lacrosse player at Choate to a chronically ill, steroid-dependent patient with autoimmune myofasciitis. I've had to ask myself why I let my eldest of three daughters get an unproven vaccine against a few strains of a nonlethal virus that can be dealt with in more effective ways."

Merck and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention maintain Gardasil is safe and effective, and that adequate warnings are provided, cautioning about soreness at the injection site and risk of fainting after vaccination. A new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found while the overall risk of side effects appears to be comparable to other vaccines, Gardasil has a higher incidence of blood clots reported. Merck says it continues to have confidence in Gardasil's safety profile. Merck also says it's looking into cases of ALS, commonly known as Lou Gehrig's Disease, reported after vaccination. ALS is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that attacks motor neurons in the brain and spinal cord. Merck and the CDC say there is currently no evidence that Gardasil caused ALS in the cases reported. Merck is also monitoring the number of deaths reported after Gardasil: at least 32. Merck and CDC says it's unclear whether the deaths were related to the vaccine, and that just because patients died after the shots doesn't mean the shots were necessarily to blame.

and this:

"Merck has never tested Gardasil for safety in young girls, but it is being recommended for children as young as nine.

Controversial drugs Gardasil and Cervarix will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates and even though they?re being recommended for girls as young as nine, there have been no efficacy trials in children under the age of 15."

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011, 3:56:11 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 15, 2011, 6:57:54 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011, 4:24:10 PM PDT

Gotta Agree, If infinite dilution were stronger, Then we should all be healed by what was diluted in the past and many times more diluted over the centuries.
I do believe water and other fluids can hold an induced frequency for a period of days, and is lost over time.

Dr. Richard Schultz always seemed to say, the stronger your tincture the better.
(anybody can believe what they wish, But I'll take Espresso over De-Caf)
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