Industrial Deals Beauty STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book House Cleaning TheTick TheTick TheTick  Amazon Echo now $99.99 Limited-time offer: All-New Fire 7, starting at $39.99 Kindle Paperwhite Trade it in. Fund the next. Tailgating STEMClubToys17_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 101-125 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Jul 8, 2011, 3:03:01 PM PDT
DJD says:
The important thing about polysorbate-80, is that whatever it is combined with, look for it to effect the brain. Heavy metals or artifically flavored icecream.

Posted on Jul 8, 2011, 4:35:27 PM PDT
D. Petitpas says:
I've seen how vaccines have reduced some diseases. For example, they certainly seem to have nearly eradicated polio, although I'm not sure of the effectiveness of smallpox vaccines since we're no longer a rural society and our level of personal hygiene is much better.

But I think the problem is that the pharma companies are now ganging as many as 25 inoculations into a single shot, and although the FDA has approved each vaccine individually, I think some kids' immune systems might be overwhelmed by having to fight as many as 25 different diseases at one time. Also, adding mercury as a preservative seems to have been a huge mistake, and I can believe that some kids might be very susceptible even to a small amount of mercury whereas it wouldn't have an effect on an adult at all.

Also, many of the diseases kids are being inoculated against are not life-threatening and have no more effects than a bad cold. It seems like we have overdone the inoculations. For example, there are radio ads for parents to get their kids inoculated for HIB, but if you look online, you find that HIB has no clinical definition at all. 5% of healthy kids live with HIB bacteria with no ill effects. Since labs don't normally test for HIB, there's no way to know if the injection is even working!

Also worrisome is the statistic that 1 out of 1 million kids will die from vaccines and thousands of others will get seriously ill. These are kids who wouldn't have gotten sick or died otherwise. The government tries to quantify it as thousands of other kids would have gotten sick if they didn't get the vaccines, but it really don't know that for sure.

When I was a kid, I had smallpox and polio vaccines. That's it. One was a shot and the other was a drink. I think the measles and chicken pox vaccines may have value, although there are some studies that suggest their effectiveness may only be 25%, and kids are still getting measles and chicken pox while having been vaccinated. But most doctors can't even tell you what all the other diseases are that are in the shots. I heard a report that the average school kid has been vaccinated against 125 diseases! That's quite a hit to the immune system.

I think there's some merit for parents to push back against all these vaccines. A few doctors refuse to give out the entire battery of vaccines, but particularly troublesome is that under Medicaid and soon, under Obamacare, there may be no way to avoid them. You might get reported to Child Protective Services if your kid doesn't get all the inoculations! So I think there's a valid argument to be made against all of these vaccines.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 8, 2011, 4:59:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 21, 2013, 10:59:14 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
An apparent correlation is either coincidental or not. Someone with a mind would try to find that out instead of running around yelling that the sky is falling. That is exactly what scientists do: find out whether the correlation is real or is coincidental. In other words, a scientist would look on the ground to see if chunks of "sky" can be found. And that is exactly what most non-scientists DON'T do: instead, what we see is fear mongering--which is not to say that fear mongering is completely without merit. The Yellowstone caldera is going to blow one of these days: should we be prepared? The next new flu that makes the rounds might make the Spanish flu of 1918 look like a Girl Scout party: should we be prepared?

SV40 is a different issue. Again, those with minds have been trying to find out the facts. Unfortunately, some early polio vaccines were contaminated by the simian virus SV40. I might have been affected, since I was vaccinated as soon as the vaccine was available, the Salk when it came out, and, by then, a Sabin as a booster of sorts. SV40 was NOT found in "most vaccines," contrary to what Brian states, but it was a contaminate of various polio vaccines, especially during the first few years of the immunization campaigns: the CDC contended that between 10 and 30 million Americans were given SV40 contaminated polio vaccine. [Edit: after this was posted in 2011, a new model was put forth that explained all the contradictory studies over the years, and almost all of the SD40 infections resulting from the contaminated vaccine turn out to have been from the oral one, the Sabin vaccine, since it was not inactivated and had several orders of magnitude higher levels of SD40 in it. See]

Our government did react to what at that time was only a possibility--that it might cause cancer in humans--and mandated that polio vaccines be virus free. In other words, a little bit of sensible fear mongering caused vaccine makers to start manufacturing what we hope was a pure vaccine, despite the hit to their wallets that process caused, and SV40 has been absent from that vaccine for almost 50 years. An even worse problem than SV40 existed in one of the first few batches of polio vaccine that was produced: it was contaminated with live virus, which caused the disease it was supposed to prevent, and our government apparently assisted in trying to hide this fact from the public at first. Their rationale was that massive immunizations would safeguard the public in the long run, and that the hysteria generated by the revelation of the contamination would nullify that benefit.

Yes, every now and then, there have existed other problems with various other vaccines. The logic used by the fear mongers is that, since such problems have occurred, we need to remove vaccines from the market. By that "logic," we should have all stopped driving automobiles after Firestone had the "problem" with its tires in 2000, or after Ford had the "problem" with its Pintos in 1978. I suppose that we should all have stopped buying pet foods after the 2007 melamine recall, and I suppose we should have all stopped eating things like beef, lettuce, spinach, and various other fresh foods after the various e. coli recalls of those products.

Instead, those of us with minds vow to try and make our standards stricter to avoid such problems, although political forces, like the Caffeine Party supporters, don't seem to mind endangering the public by not allowing or enforcing such standards, in order to maintain corporate profits. What I find extremely ironic is that many in the anti-vaccine lobby are staunch members of that new Caffeine Party, so that, on the one hand, they don't want the government to force us to vaccinate because of the rare side-effects or because of the non-existent effects that they hallucinate about, but on the other hand, they don't want the government to regulate things like mercury in the air or phosphates in the water or BPA in household goods. All in all, I would look at them as anti-health, anti-life, anti-civilization.

If you want a good read on the SV40 issue, and on the governmental and corporate malfeasance involved, try The Virus and the Vaccine: Contaminated Vaccine, Deadly Cancers, and Government Neglect, which I purchased from our friend Amazon.

Regarding the SV40, scientists are still trying to figure out whether that known cancer-causing virus has had any effect on humans or not. You have to remember that a virus is a different issue than, say, a molecule of formaldehyde. Formaldehyde molecules don't reproduce themselves. They are present in the body normally, and your body can handle a REASONABLY small number of such molecules. That virus is not necessarily something your body can handle, even if there is only one of them, so there is no real comparison. One single virus particle IS a threat.

There is no doubt that SV40 causes cancers in animals, yet a number of epidemiological studies have failed to find any such "link" in humans, despite the contrary in vitro evidence. As a matter of fact, a Danish study which used more than 50 years of cancer registry data, found the opposite effect: persons exposed to SV40 had a lower incidence of cancer. That said, the confounding factors, both those that would increase and that would reduce such risk, are so multitudinous that I would be hesitant to jump up and down with joy if I were wanting that particular result.

Separate from the epidemiological issue is the attempt of researchers to find traces of that virus in human cancer cells. Some researchers have found it in cancers such as mesothelioma, and some haven't. Trying to decide whether viral residues are there is not quite as simple as figuring out whether your car battery is dead or not. It's more like trying to find a Higgs boson. When a laboratory reports finding traces of such a virus in human cancer cells, which has been done repeatedly, you can be assured that those traces were there. But when Billybob down the street reports that his lab was unable to find it, and therefore it's not there, you ought to be inquisitive: a negative finding in this case does not mean that the virus was not there, which is not to speak disparagingly about the sloppiness at some laboratories.

Baylor researchers state, "The polyomavirus simian virus 40 (SV40) is a known oncogenic DNA virus which induces primary brain and bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and lymphomas in laboratory animals. Persuasive evidence now indicates that SV40 is causing infections in humans today and represents an emerging pathogen. A meta-analysis of molecular, pathological, and clinical data from 1,793 cancer patients indicates that there is a significant excess risk of SV40 associated with human primary brain cancers, primary bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Experimental data strongly suggest that SV40 may be functionally important in the development of some of those human malignancies. Therefore, the major types of tumors induced by SV40 in laboratory animals are the same as those human malignancies found to contain SV40 markers. The Institute of Medicine recently concluded that 'the biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure could lead to cancer in humans under natural conditions.'" (

SV40 is a different issue than something like autism. In the case of SV40, we have evidence at the molecular level about a connection with cancers. In the case of autism, we have hyperbole. The first case of autism reported in the literature was not in 1943, when the condition first got a name, that date being the basis for the conjecture about a correlation with vaccination, but centuries earlier. "The Wild Boy of Averyon" (1801) exhibited all the symptoms of autism. Other descriptions of autistic individuals in the literature exist, such as Haslam's in 1809, Barr's in 1898, and Witmer's in 1919. Hugh Blair's case in 1747 is well-documented, and one writer researching autism found a description of what could only be described as an autistic boy in Martin Luther's "Table Talk," published in 1566. The fact that the condition did not get a name until 1943 does not mean that the condition did not exist, and, considering changes in social attitudes about what can or should be allowed to be known publicly, such as the disability of a relative, it would be impossible to ascertain its true incidence prior to the present era--other than the fact that it did exist long prior to any vaccinations. What is amazingly overlooked is the fact that, in special education classes, where hitherto autistic children had been included as "mentally retarded" prior to being categorized separately, the apparent incidence of mental retardation dropped just as the apparent incidence of autism increased.

Regardless, as with any other medical treatment, we have to look at the risks and the benefits. I grew up during the polio scares, and I can assure you that I slept much better after having been vaccinated. Every summer when I was little was spoiled by worry about polio. The disease, for all practical purposes, has been eliminated from earth, at least in the civilized, i.e., vaccinating, parts of it. Was it worth it? Where is the balance--were the lives saved from having to live in an iron lung worth the occasional idiosyncratic reaction? Were they worth the unintended diseases caused by various cases of contamination? I would say yes. And I would say that, the fact that people may have, in the past, and no doubt eventually at some time in the future, have screwed up this or that other batch, does not reflect on the validity of the procedure. The fact that the Chinese have poisoned us with chloramphenicol in their honey does not mean that honey should be removed from the market. The fact that American peanut butter makers poisoned us with their e. coli does not mean that we should no longer consume peanut butter. Vaccines have saved countless lives.

Posted on Jul 8, 2011, 5:51:20 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 8, 2011, 5:58:45 PM PDT
Brian says:
"SV40 is a different issue. Again, those with minds have been trying to find out the facts."

No they have not. Mostly what we hear is manipulations of the type you are trying to serve here.

" Unfortunately, early polio vaccines were contaminated by the simian virus SV40."

Unfortunately you have no means of knowing for sure which vaccine is contaminated with what.

"I was no doubt one of those affected, since I was vaccinated as soon as the vaccine was available. SV40 was NOT found in "most vaccines," contrary to what Brian states,"

No, it was in all of those produced using monkey tissues. The only unfortunate thing is that Merck scientists discovered another 30-40 viruses in those tissues and did nothing about it.

" but it was a contaminate of polio vaccines during the first few years of the immunization campaigns: there are possibly as many as 30 million Americans who were injected with SV40 contaminated polio vaccine. "

No, there were more, and there are even more who were never vaccinated but are now infected by people who were vaccinated.
Gotta give up on trying to make money with your PR... you are spending too much effort and time for your posts to look like innocent opinions.

Here is the truth:

In that article those who can read will see that SV-40 was in vaccine for more then a decade, well into the 70's. However, once introduced into the general population, it is now everywhere, even in people who were not vaccinated as it can be transmitted from parents to children.

How's that for "vaccinated" being safer for everyone? How's that for "you people who are not vaccinated are just freeloaders"?

And that's just one virus. Once we realize how damaging it is, and how once that can of worms is opened there is no going back, we can move onto researching all the other viruses and who knows what else.

Posted on Jul 8, 2011, 5:56:46 PM PDT
Brian says:
One question for folks on both sides of the fence: when you are entering an airplane, do they ask you if you packed your luggage yourself? What happens if you are not sure what is in your suitcases? You don't get to fly, and may even be subject to interrogation or worse (arrest, and who knows what else).

Now, would your doctor be able to tell you EXACTLY what is packed into a vaccine? I don't mean what is LISTED, or what SHOULD be in it, but EVERYTHING that is in there, including the stuff that no one knows is in there because no one saw it?

If you are OK with that, then you are OK with anyone boarding the flight you are on, and not really being 100% positive about the contents of their luggage. The only difference is that with vaccines, you will neverknow... your child may get leukemia, you will never know the real reason. Or you may get heart disease, or your older child may get non-Hodgkins lymphoma, or you may get incurable cancer such as pancreatic cancer... and you would never be able to connect it to the real cause.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 8, 2011, 6:05:53 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 8, 2011, 6:50:18 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
Strangely enough, lots of such vaccines are saved for the specific reason that they might need to be tested at some later date. And yes, I am in favor of more stringent standards: Merck and every other company need to be held accountable, and to make a pure product. You are preaching to the choir when it comes to SV40. Again, you have to think: we were collectively injured via a combination of corporate and governmental negligence, not because there was something wrong with the idea of vaccinations to prevent disease.

That does not change the validity of the process of vaccination. If you try very hard you might be able to distinguish intellectually between the process itself, and an improperly applied version of that process.

They messed up some vaccines, so we shouldn't vaccinate is your attitude. I see you fail to respond to the question of why you should not apply your same attitude to food or tires or other cases where people have been injured by corporate neglect, or do you go without automobiles, food, etc.? Trial lawyers have put together an excellent short pdf outlining some of the most egregious examples of corporate neglect, at A more recent example of it would be Pfizer's in the case of Bextra; I think Pfizer should have gotten the corporate death penalty for what it did.

I'm not going to go without pharmaceuticals because this or that company engaged in negligent or even criminal behavior. I'm not going to stop driving because Firestone killed people with its tires. I'm not going to try to eliminate vaccinations because of what happened with SV40. What I insist on is proper policing: these corporations have demonstrated that they cannot self-police, and as far as I'm concerned, one of the reasons that governments are instituted among men is to protect us against criminals--including corporate criminals.

What it means is that we must redouble our efforts to keep politicians, such as the GOP, from allowing these corporations to damage our health unhindered. It costs them money to make the products we need for our health to be safe, money that they would rather put into their own pockets, with a little left over to donate to political campaigns. We want the benefits of such products without the danger. I don't want lead or mercury in my food, air or water either, nor do I want BPA in it. I don't want to be prescribed a drug, only to find out that people were dying from it and that the manufacturer was covering it up. And I don't want anyone being vaccinated with a contaminated product.

One of the most noble goals of the human race has been to eliminate diseases. We have actually eliminated some diseases, for all practical purposes.

Yet, in that process, people have screwed up, no different that what they have no doubt done since the beginning of time. I imagine that, maybe around 24,367 BC, a caveman, possibly named Grok, was making some stone axes for his tribe, and he messed up, so that the axe heads came off, and his tribe was annihilated during warfare. And, possibly in 4,672 BC, a farmer, possibly named Lithia, discovered that he didn't have enough allium ursinum to barter for the tools he wanted, so he decided to bulk it up a little with a similar plant growing nearby, colchicum autumnale, which resulted in his neighbors being poisoned with colchicine.

The point is, if you think about it, and reflect on the human condition, you should realize that this sort of thing has to have been going on since the beginning of humanity.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 8, 2011, 6:44:02 PM PDT
ColdShot says:
I really don't know the appears to be
psychosomatic to me...but I agree that 25 shots in one is dr frankenstein insane

and they'd NEVER get my approval for any of them til I figured out which was acceptable at the right age....maybe

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2011, 6:40:01 AM PDT
"The important thing about polysorbate-80, is that whatever it is combined with, look for it to effect the brain."

Did you actually read what I wrote? Polysorbate-80, BY ITSELF does not pass the blood-brain barrier.

Like I said, typical of people learning science from websites. It is like saying that glycol is used in the manufactor of TNT therefore, it must explode, right?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2011, 3:01:56 PM PDT
Hib, or haemophilus influenzae B, is inoculated against because it is one of the leading causes of meningitis in children under 2. Many diseases show asymptomatic colonization including staphylococcus species and streptococcus species, e. coli, c. difficile. These vaccines protect from the invasive forms of the disease. Hib has no clinical definition because it causes a variety of diseases, including the aforementioned meningitis, pneumonia, otitis media, and cellulitis.

I can't recall the childhood vaccine schedule off the top of my head, but it's not 125 diseases. It's closer to around 15-20.

Posted on Jul 12, 2011, 2:16:43 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2011, 2:18:09 AM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
One of the most promising use of vaccines is not just to prevent cancer, but to treat it after it has appeared. "Mayo Clinic investigators and collaborators from the United Kingdom cured well-established prostate tumors in mice using a human vaccine with no apparent side effects. This novel cancer treatment approach encourages the immune system to rid itself of prostate tumors without assistance from toxic chemotherapies and radiation treatments." See This is a promising treatment for the most aggressive tumors. One can only speculate as to why the anti-vaccine lobby would be opposing the elimination of and cure for various diseases. I have heard speculation that the loudest ones in the anti-vaccine lobby are actually "pharma shills," engaged in trying to increase the amount of disease on the planet by using propaganda to turn others away from simple preventive medicine and simple treatments in order to boost long term profits for the so-called "medical establishment." I find that hard to believe, however; I think it's a simple matter of education, or lack thereof.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011, 3:34:56 AM PDT
Darks says:
"One can only speculate as to why the anti-vaccine lobby would be opposing the elimination of and cure for various diseases."

Since when have we opposed the elimination and cure of various diseases? Oh, I get it. You are suggesting that vaccines are the only way to achieve this.

That's quite a bold claim, Butel. I doubt it's one you'd be able to adequately defend.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011, 3:49:37 AM PDT
Darks says:
In Australia, the introduction of the Hib vaccine had no discernible effect on mortality rates from meningitis. Or pneumonia, for that matter. The vaccine was successful in eradicating Hib meningitis. Unfortunately, serotype replacement nullified any positive impact this should have had on mortality. A 2 year old is still just as likely to die from meningitis, with or without the Hib vaccine.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011, 3:53:01 AM PDT
"That's quite a bold claim, Butel. I doubt it's one you'd be able to adequately defend."

And? I never heard anyone ask Solomon, Wong or John Smith to "defend" their claims that Webster and I were "Pharma Shills"

And George said "simple preventive medicine and simple treatments" not simply "vaccines"

And why is his speculation wrong? If I wanted to sell OTC cold medicine, the best way to drum up business is to stop people washing their hands.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011, 4:02:42 AM PDT
Darks says:
"And? I never heard anyone ask Solomon, Wong or John Smith to "defend" their claims that Webster and I were "Pharma Shills"

Wasson, don't play the victim card. It doesn't suit you. Besides, I don't know any of those people you just named.

"And George said "simple preventive medicine and simple treatments" not simply "vaccines"

Actually, he said "the anti-vaccine lobby". As in those that oppose vaccines. Therefore, his statement does in fact imply that opposing vaccines is the same as opposing the elimination of various diseases.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011, 4:08:49 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2011, 4:15:03 AM PDT

If you are going to argue serotype replacement in conjugate vaccines, you must agree that vaccines are effective for the targeted strain or type. If we are seeing an emergence in type f Hi, where did the Hib go?

We have heard you, among others, post that vaccines such as polio were actually ineffective and better hygiene and sanitation were actually responsible for the lower incidence of disease seen.

So do vaccines work, or don't they? You cannot have it both ways.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011, 4:13:10 AM PDT
I am not "playing the victim card" I have been called a shill dozens of times on these boards and I have never once heard anyone ask those people to defend their claims.

Yes he said "anti-vaccine lobby" but the group was not just targeting vaccines, but also preventative medicine and treeatments. He did not claim "vaccines are the only way to achieve this" as you posted.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011, 4:22:30 AM PDT
Darks says:
I did acknowledge that. Well, at least that the Hib vaccine did. But if we don't benefit in any way, why even bother?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011, 4:39:04 AM PDT
Darks says:
Then I am sorry that no one has challenged such claims in the past, however I am sure you are far too fair a person to fault me for the shortcomings of others.

And as far as I know, the term anti-vaccine meant the opposition of vaccines and vaccines only. If some random anti-vaxxer also opposes modern medicine in general, those views shouldn't then be considered typical of all anti-vaxxers. If George didn't mean anti-vax, then he shouldn't have said anti-vaccine.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011, 5:03:31 AM PDT
"But if we don't benefit in any way, why even bother?"

Because the incidence of invasive Hib in industrialized nations has dropped 90%. The incidence of other other types has not caught that is a lot of kids that did not get Hib which is a good thing.

If you need a reference; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Progress toward elimination of Haemophilus influenzae type b disease among infants and children--United States, 1987-1995. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1996

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011, 5:14:52 AM PDT
"George didn't mean anti-vax, then he shouldn't have said anti-vaccine."

What George was saying was the possibility of actual shills for the medical field infiltrating the anti-vaccine lobby and geting people to stop taking vaccines so they get sick.

For example, a whooping cough vacination costs $50. However, if you get whooping cough and it is detected early enough for antibiotics to work, those antibiotics are more expensive (sometimes hundreds; uninsured) If further medical treatment is needed like oxygen or nasopharyngeal suction.....that will cost more than $50.

Posted on Jul 12, 2011, 5:21:17 AM PDT
YTWong says:
131 Children Vaccinated at Gunpoint in Malawi

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011, 5:38:23 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2011, 5:44:49 AM PDT
Darks says:
What an incredibly risky and nonsensical gamble. Vaccine sales generated from immunizing 95% or more of the population would accumulate far more money than the odd 28 in 100,000 (roughly) of people that contract pertussis each year spending thousands on their medical bill.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011, 5:44:07 AM PDT
Darks says:
Oh, not this again...

Wasson, honestly, Hib's supposed victory is so shallow its barely worth mentioning. If a drop in Hib incidence doesn't equate to a drop in incidence of diseases of which Hib was a major contributor, then why should I be impressed?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011, 5:46:15 AM PDT
That is assuming the makers of the vaccine and the producers of antibiotics are the same company.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2011, 5:50:53 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2011, 5:51:22 AM PDT
Darks says:
Whether they are or not, the anti-vax-infiltration strategy you are proposing makes no financial sense whatsoever.
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