Vaccines Debate

[muir]

http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/sc...rom-covering-dangers-of-aluminum-in-vaccines/

[h=2]Scientists in Canada Being Censored from Covering Dangers of Aluminum in Vaccines[/h]
Health Impact News Editor Comments
It is very obvious to anyone paying attention these days that news regarding vaccine safety is routinely censored in the mainstream media. We know that the U.S. Government puts pressure on the U.S. media to not publish anything negative regarding vaccine safety, as Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under President Obama, openly admitted this in an interview with Reader’s Digest:

RD:What can be done about public mistrust of vaccines?
KS:There are groups out there that insist that vaccines are responsible for a variety of problems despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. We have reached out to media outlets to try to get them to not give the views of these people equal weight in their reporting to what science has shown and continues to show about the safety of vaccines. (Source.)
​

The U.S. Government has a serious conflict of interest when it comes to discussing vaccine safety, as they are the largest purchaser of vaccines in the U.S. The CDC alone purchases over $4 billion in vaccines every year.
Outside the U.S. the largest purchaser of vaccines is the United Nations, primarily through UNICEF, and the World Health Organization (WHO), funded primarily by pharmaceutical companies, is the Government body approving the vaccines to be purchased and distributed. Negative news regarding vaccine safety is, therefore, vigorously opposed.
Christina England writes about vaccine censorship in Canada and the involvement of the World Health Organization. This is an especially crucial topic, as recent studies show just how toxic and dangerous aluminum adjuvants in vaccines are, and the public has a right to have access to this information from scientists in Canada.
[h=2]Canadian Media and the WHO Attempt to Discredit Scientists from University of British Columbia[/h] by Christina England
Health Impact News
When a professional gets a little too close to the truth for comfort, the most efficient and effective way for government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry to prevent them from exposing the truth is to destroy their credibility.
This is exactly what happened when Professor Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic published a series of leading papers exposing the possible links between aluminum adjuvants and autism.
The question is, what exactly is being covered up and why?
[h=3]Canadian Media are Involved in the Attack, but Exactly WHO are They Working For?[/h] Over recent weeks, the Canadian media have been actively criticizing the work of two researchers from the University of British Columbia. Newspapers have stated that studies written by Professor Christopher Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, outlining a correlation between the adjuvant aluminum used in vaccines and autism were “weak and misleading,” stating that the studies had been previously discredited by the World Health Organization (WHO).
Award-winning journalist, Ms. Carly Weeks from the Globe and Mail, opened her report by citing a study that had been highlighted on the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI) website, written by the researchers in 2013. She wrote:

Organizations that promote messages about the dangers of vaccines, such as the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI), have used the results of the UBC research as evidence that vaccines cause autism and other serious harm. The front page of the CMSRI website states that in a “landmark” 2013 paper, the two UBC researchers show that “the more children receive vaccines with aluminum adjuvants, the greater their chance is of developing autism, autoimmune diseases and neurological problems later in life.” In that study, the researchers note that the rate of autism spectrum disorders increased along with the number of pediatric vaccines that contain aluminum.
​

Instead of actually researching their paper in depth and quoting what the researchers had discovered and how they had come to their conclusions, Ms. Weeks continued her vicious attack by cleverly averting her readers’ attention away from the 2013 paper, focusing their attention instead on a WHO report written in 2012 which referred to two 2011 studies.
It is a complete mystery as to why such a capable young journalist could only find an out-of-date report consisting of a total of three poorly written and inaccurate paragraphs to support her argument. Especially since the WHO has no solid proof that aluminum adjuvants are safe. In a statement written in their paper titled World Health Organization. Weekly and epidemiological record 7 Jan 2005 in a section titled Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, 2–3 December 2004, they admit that they have neglected this subject:

The Committee considered the safety of adjuvants used in vaccines. This hitherto neglected subject is becoming increasingly important given modern advances in vaccine development and manufacture.
​

If only she had spent a little less time trying to discredit Professor Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic and a little more time researching their work, she may have discovered further studies written in 2013, 2014 and 2015 that had added even further weight to their work.
Instead, Ms. Weeks, like so many others before her, chose to reel off the usual mantra, stating that:

Numerous peer-reviewed, high-quality studies have shown that vaccines are not linked to autism. Although they are not risk-free, the incidence of adverse events linked to vaccination is low.
​

This left many of her readers with a lot of unanswered questions, especially since the University of British Columbia fully backed the work of the two researchers and refused to be interviewed on the subject.
[h=3]What Had Professor Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic Discovered and Why Had it Been Covered Up?[/h] If Ms. Weeks had researched their 2013 paper titled Aluminum in the central nervous system (CNS): toxicity in humans and animals, vaccine adjuvants, and autoimmunity in depth, she would have discovered that Professor Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic had revealed that during a 17-year period, the rates of autism had increased significantly in countries that had the most vaccinations containing the adjuvant aluminum.
The researchers had compared the number of vaccines recommend by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the period from 1991 – 2008 and the changes in the autism rates during the same period. They wrote:

The data sets, graphed against each other, show a pronounced and statistically highly significant correlation between the number vaccines with aluminum and the changes in autism rates. Further data showed that a significant correlation exists between the amounts of aluminum given to preschool children and the current rates of autism in seven Western countries. Those countries with the highest level of aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines had the highest autism rates.
​

They revealed:

The observed correlation between the number of aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines and ASD was further tested using Hill Criteria and met eight of nine of these indicating that vaccines containing aluminum are highly likely to be at least partially causal for autism.
​

Professor Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic continued their paper by adding:

There are other links between aluminum exposure/toxicity and ASD. These include the following: A pilot study showed higher than normal aluminum levels in the hair, blood and/or urine of autistic children; children are regularly exposed to higher levels of aluminum in vaccines per body weight than adults; practically, nothing is known about the pharmacokinetics and toxicodynamics of aluminum in vaccines in children; and aluminum in vaccines has been linked to serious neurological impairments, chronic fatigue and autoimmunity.
​

In fact, Professor Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic not only linked the adjuvant aluminum to autism, but also linked the adjuvant to the rise in the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, Gulf War syndrome and a relatively new syndrome, ASIA (autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants) that had also been discovered that same year.
What is even more bizarre is the fact that had Ms. Weeks researched a little further, she would have discovered a further paper written by the researchers that had been published that same year, titled Administration of Aluminum to Neonatal Mice in Vaccine-Relevant Amounts is Associated With Adverse Long Term Neurological Outcomes.
Professor Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic wrote:

Our previous ecological studies of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has demonstrated a correlation between increasing ASD rates and aluminium (Al) adjuvants in common use in paediatric vaccines in several Western countries. The correlation between ASD rate and Al adjuvant amounts appears to be dose-dependent and satisfies 8 of 9 Hill criteria for causality.
We have now sought to provide an animal model to explore potential behavioural phenotypes and central nervous system (CNS) alterations using s.c. injections of Al hydroxide in early postnatal CD-1 mice of both sexes. Injections of a “high” and “low” Al adjuvant levels were designed to correlate to either the U.S. or Scandinavian paediatric vaccine schedules vs. control saline-injected mice. Both male and female mice in the “high Al” group showed significant weight gains following treatment up to sacrifice at 6 months of age. Male mice in the “high Al” group showed significant changes in light-dark box tests and in various measures of behaviour in an open field. Female mice showed significant changes in the light-dark box at both doses, but no significant changes in open field behaviours.
These current data implicate Al injected in early postnatal life in some CNS alterations that may be relevant for a better understanding of the aetiology of ASD.
​

In other words, these results clearly supported their original findings. This leads us to wonder whether or not this was the real reason that the Globe and Mail chose to ignore the researchers’ investigations and outcomes in favor of an outdated WHO report and whether it is possible that the Globe’s staff had been instructed by the WHO to take this approach. After all, the WHO had been well aware that aluminum was a neurotoxin with the potential to cause Alzheimer’s disease, developmental, behavioural and intellectual disorders in animals and humans since the 1980s.
[h=3]Association Between Aluminum and Neurological Disorders Known for Years[/h] In 1998, the WHO published a paper titled Aluminium in Drinking-waterBackground document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality.
They wrote:

In 1988, a population of about 20 000 individuals in Camelford, England, was exposed for at least 5 days to unknown but increased levels of aluminium accidentally distributed to the population from a water supply facility using aluminium sulfate for treatment. Symptoms including nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, mouth ulcers, skin ulcers, skin rashes, and arthritic pain were noted. It was concluded that the symptoms were mostly mild and short-lived. No lasting effects on health could be attributed to the known exposures from aluminium in the drinking-water (Clayton, 1989). (emphasis added)
​

They continued:

Of the six studies that examined the relationship between aluminium in drinking water and dementia or AD, three found a positive relationship, but three did not.(emphasis added)
​

Even though the WHO concluded above that the evidence did not support a risk, their conclusion to this paper appeared to state otherwise:

The Environmental Health Criteria document for aluminium (WHO, 1997) concluded that:
On the whole, the positive relationship between aluminium in drinking-water and AD, which was demonstrated in several epidemiological studies, cannot be totally dismissed. However, strong reservations about inferring a causal relationship are warranted in view of the failure of these studies to account for demonstrated confounding factors and for total aluminium intake from all sources.(emphasis added)
​

This paper clearly indicated that the WHO has been fully aware of the links between aluminum in drinking water and neurological disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease, for many years.
Interestingly, a WHO PowerPoint presentation, titled Children’s Health and the Environment WHO Training Package for the Health Sector World Health Organization, appeared to further support this fact.
A slide titled Children & neurodevelopmental behavioural intellectual disorders stated:

NEURODEVELOPMENTAL PROCESSES & ENVIRONMENTAL LINKAGES
Neurotransmission processes
Cholinesterase inhibitors
Ethanol
Methylmercury
Aluminum
Pharmaceuticals and pesticides
designed to target specific neurotransmitter systems
Synaptogenesis may be adversely affected by ethanol, lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), triethyltin, parathion, permethrin, and serotonin antagonists.
Apoptosis or cell death is a complex process in which appropriate cells are removed to ensure optimal neurodevelopmental behavioural intellectual development. However, this intricate, balanced process may be adversely affected at critical stages of gestation and postnatal development by exposure to ethanol, lead, mercury and chlorpyrifos.
Neurotransmission processes may be adversely affected by cholinesterase inhibitors, ethanol, methylmercury, aluminum, as well as pharmaceuticals and pesticides designed to target specific neurotransmitter systems.
Ref: Rice D, Barone Jr S. Critical periods of vulnerability for the developing nervous system: evidence from humans and animal models. Environ Health Perspectives, 2000, 108(S3):511-533. (emphasis added)
​

Once again, this presentation clearly indicates that the WHO had been aware for many years that aluminum had the potential to cause neurological deficits in children, and this was further supported in a paper titled Aluminium (EHC 194, 1997), sections 7 and 8.
However, as section 7 referred to animal models only, for the purpose of this article, I have decided to highlight only the information in section 8 relating to humans.
The paper was headed:

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME ON CHEMICAL SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CRITERIA 194
Aluminium
The paper began with the following statement:
“This report contains the collective views of an international group of experts and does not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, or the World Health Organization.
Environmental Health Criteria 194
First draft prepared by Dr H. Habs, Dr B. Simon and Professor K.U. Thiedemann (Fraunhofer Institute, Hoanover, Germany) and Mr P. Howe (Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Monks Wood, United Kingdom)
Published under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization, and produced within the framework of the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals.
World Health Organization Geneva, 1997
​

It continued by adding:

The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) is a joint venture of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization. The main objective of the IPCS is to carry out and disseminate evaluations of the effects of chemicals on human health and the quality of the environment. Supporting activities include the development of epidemiological, experimental laboratory, and risk-assessment methods that could produce internationally comparable results, and the development of manpower in the field of toxicology. Other activities carried out by the IPCS include the development of know-how for coping with chemical accidents, coordination of laboratory testing and epidemiological studies, and promotion of research on the mechanisms of the biological action of chemicals. (emphasis added)
WHO Library Cataloging in Publication Data
​

The authors stated:

8. EFFECTS ON HUMANS
8.1 General population exposure
8.1.3 Neurotoxic effects
8.1.3.1 Aluminium and Alzheimer’s disease (AD)
It has been suggested that aluminium exposure is a risk factor for the development or acceleration of onset of AD in humans (Crapper McLachlan, 1986; Crapper McLachlan et al., 1989). The precise pathogenic role of aluminium in AD is judged controversial and remains to be defined (Wisniewski & Wen, 1992; Wischik et al., 1992; Edwardson, 1992).
​

In section 8.1.3.5 they concluded:

8.1.3.5 Conclusions regarding neurological effects of aluminium
The positive relationship between aluminium in drinking-water and AD, which has been demonstrated in several epidemiological studies, cannot be totally dismissed.However, strong reservations about inferring a causal relationship are warranted in view of the failure of studies to account for demonstrated confounding factors and for aluminium intake from all sources.
Taken together, the relative risks for AD from exposure to aluminium in drinking-water at levels above100 µg/litre as determined in these studies are low. But, because the risk estimates are imprecise for a variety of methodological reasons, a population-attributable risk cannot be calculated with precision. Such predictions may, however, be useful in making decisions about the need to control the exposure to aluminium in the general population.
In light of the above studies, which consider water-borne aluminium as the sole risk factor, and the recent findings that water accounts for less than 5% of daily uptake of aluminium, it is difficult to reconcile a presumable impact on cognition. Several lines of investigation should be pursued to elucidate further the nature of the relationship found in these studies (see Chapter 12). (emphasis added)
​

As we can see, this paper appears to support the fact that the WHO has been aware of a risk between aluminum in drinking water and AD for many years, even though they admit that the risk is low. The very fact that they have recommended further investigation is worrying, especially when they later discredit studies questioning the use of aluminum in childhood vaccinations.
[h=3]Conclusion[/h] I have outlined enough evidence in this article to indicate that the WHO has been aware for many years that aluminum can cause neurological, behavioural and developmental disorders in humans. It is highly suspicious that the Globe and Mail should criticize anyone daring to expose the truth, at a time when the WHO is under immense scrutiny for having been exposed using experimental vaccines, on vulnerable men, women and children in the developing world. (See Developing World – The WHO’s Private Vaccine Laboratory.)
It is about time the people of the world woke up to the fact that the World Health Organization is an organization that can no longer be trusted when it comes to vaccination.
We need to ask ourselves exactly why they are covering up the truth and what their agenda really is.
Comment on this article at VaccineImpact.com

 

[muir]

http://www.naturalnews.com/049273_MMR_vaccine_autism_Andrew_Wakefield.html#

[h=1]Dr. Wakefield was right: The MMR vaccine-autism connection[/h] Tuesday, April 07, 2015 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

For the past decade and change, he's been unjustly relegated to "anti-vaxxer" whipping boy status by the corrupt mainstream media. But gastroenterologist Dr. Andrew Wakefield never committed any fraud, and his study in The Lancet linking the MMR vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella to novel bowel disease and autism has repeatedly been affirmed as accurate in the years following its forced retraction.

If you've only heard about Dr. Wakefield on television or from other corporate media sources, you might believe that he's some discredited quack whose supposedly disproven research was financially or otherwise deceitfully motivated. But nothing could be further from the truth -- hear Dr. Wakefield tell the full truth in this powerful interview with NaturalHealth365.com host Jonathan Landsman, available through the Vaccine World Summit:
VaccineWorldSummit.com.

Several years after Dr. Wakefield's study was forcibly retracted from The Lancet on orders from the UK government, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention senior scientist Dr. William Thompson co-authored a study published in the peer-reviewed journal Pediatrics that was meant to counter it. The premise of this study basically maintains that MMR is safe and effective for children.

But last fall, Dr. Thompson came forward as a whistleblower with some shocking information: Data published in his paper, entitled "Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta," had been manipulated and altered to create the illusion that the MMR shot is safe and doesn't cause adverse effects.

Based on the information publicly provided by Dr. Thompson, which is now being extensively reviewed by a U.S. court, MMR isn't actually safe, and it does cause autism. In fact, the true data that was omitted from Dr. Thompson's study affirms, rather than denies, the findings of Dr. Wakefield's study in The Lancet.

"Here is a man with a very troubled conscience who was involved in the design, the conduct, and the analysis of vaccine safety studies who admits, in his own words, that he has been responsible for deceiving millions of taxpayers about vaccine safety," explained Dr. Wakefield during his interview with Landsman.

"It's not my opinion alone that MMR vaccine, or many vaccines, are associated causally with autism. It is the opinion of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and it is the opinion of senior scientists at the CDC as well, as of many, many, many thousands of parents who have experienced this injury first hand in their own children."

The full interview with Dr. Wakefield is available through the Vaccine World Summit:
VaccineWorldSummit.com.

As far as the data presented by Dr. Thompson and his colleagues, their case-controlled study, if presented accurately and honestly, would have clearly shown that children vaccinated with MMR during the first 36 months of life were more prone to develop autism than other children. This effect was especially pronounced in African American boys, who were found to have a 340 percent increased risk of autism from MMR.

Content with just endlessly accusing Dr. Wakefield of committing fraud and slandering him throughout the press, the mainstream media has been completely absent in addressing the bombshell confessions of Dr. Thompson. And a re-analysis of his study conducted by biomechanical engineer Brian Hooker, who presented the original data as it should have been presented, was subsequently retracted without valid cause, further exposing the foul play involved in protecting MMR from scrutiny at all costs.

Be sure to listen to Dr. Wakefield tell his story in his own words at the Vaccine World Summit:
VaccineWorldSummit.com.

Sources:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk

http://www.i-sis.org.uk

http://www.thelancet.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

​

 

[SlowUpTake]

this is an awesome debate!

 

[muir]

this is an awesome debate!

I'd say it was more of a rout

 

[Artisan]

I'd have to agree, very few come up with well referenced, and educated counter arguments that are in support of vaccines.
I also doubt anyone would look at these arguments and actually place any label on it other then they had before they voiced their opinions.

I don't think i'd be easily swayed in favor of a vaccine, ever.

 

[SlowUpTake]

I'd have to agree, very few come up with well referenced, and educated counter arguments that are in support of vaccines.
I also doubt anyone would look at these arguments and actually place any label on it other then they had before they voiced their opinions.

I don't think i'd be easily swayed in favor of a vaccine, ever.

here is a perfect example of the unreferenced and uneducated counter arguments.

anti vaccine movement
Generally, I love a debate. But as I get older, I no longer debate guns or vaccines. Those are two topics that I stay away from, just to save my own sanity. But today, I don’t know, something moved me. I wasn’t going to write about this. Then we had a minor scare with my friend Lindsay’s little boy last week, as we thought that maybe he had gotten the measles despite being vaccinated. It is crazy to me that this disease was all but eradicated 20 years ago, and now it’s back. For the most part I have sworn off of or out of vaccine debates. But I couldn’t resist because a decent friend who seems to be reasonably intelligent appeared to be buying into the fear. And in somewhat of an a-ha! moment I realized what it is about the anti-vaccine movement that I loathe. Aside from the fact that they put the medically fragile and medically complex and the very young at risk…to the point where a family cannot even go to Disneyland for the holidays.

It’s the constant lying. Lord do I hate liars. And that’s what you all are, liars. So here you go, here is your opportunity to have that ‘come to Jesus’ moment and be honest with yourselves. Because when you lie about this, I don’t trust anything else you say. You know these statements are true, and when you try to convince yourselves and others differently, you look ridiculous.

Truth #1

“I’m buying into fear, not facts.” There you go, say it out loud. Stop trying to convince others that you have facts on your side because you do not. You are embarrassing yourself when you state information that simply isn’t true. Admit it, and say it out loud. “Despite the overwhelming evidence that vaccines are safe for most of the population, for whatever reasons, I am still afraid to vaccinate my child.” For 99.9% of you, you do not know anyone who was harmed by a vaccine. You don’t. So stop telling us these stories that you do–it’s not mathematically possible. You’re buying into the fear and speculation that you read on the internet. Own that.

Truth #2

“I am un-apologetically relying on you vaccinating your kids so that my family can rely on herd immunity. Oh, and thanks for that.” Vaccine skepticism is a first world luxury. In other countries, moms walk for miles to vaccine clinics so that they can get their children immunized. Without herd immunity, you would not be able to make this choice and you need to own that. YOU’RE WELCOME. The irony here is that you are trying to recruit more members for Team Anti-Vax, when what you should be doing is convincing more of us to vaccinate. For every team member you get, you have increased the risk for your own child. The fact that you don’t see the irony or hypocrisy of this is amazing. We have every right to be angry with you for putting newborns and people with cancer at increased risk. Which you are doing. You are being selfish. OWN IT. Honestly, the fact that you come to us with this air of superiority and pious, condescending attitudes…all the while taking advantage of the herd immunity that WE ARE PROVIDING for you, this is the most annoying part and why sometimes pro-vaccine people want to smack that smug grin off your face. How dare you judge me for my choices, when it is MY CHOICES that make your choices possible.

Truth #3

“I am not having my freedom of speech rights suppressed. I have a very unpopular opinion because there is no science behind it.” Freedom of speech means that the government cannot cite you for saying something. However, that does not give you protection from criticism. Anyone can post their thoughts and beliefs. No one is denying you that. If you have unpopular beliefs, that does not mean that private individuals have to listen to this schtick without criticizing. Nor do I have to provide the forum or the bandwidth for you to express your opinions. You are unpopular because you are selfish (see Truth #2). There is no conspiracy on the part of doctors or ‘big pharma’ as you like to call it. All data will tell you that treating a disease nets more profits than cures or prevention so if anything, the opposite is true.

Truth #4

“I know that both options have risks, and I am choosing the side that has a higher risk to my child, my family and others.” Not vaccinating is not without risk, it’s just a different risk. All the scientific evidence points towards vaccinations having less of a risk than the disease. You are just banking on nothing happening, despite the increased risks. Stop trying to convince us that we are the ones putting our kids at a higher risk, because it simply is not true. Hey, my dad hates to wear a seat belt, and he knows the risks. But he doesn’t lie to me and tell me that I would be safer without a seat belt. Sometimes we choose different risks, but don’t lie about it.

Truth #5

“For reasons that either I do not know or will not share, I prefer to listen to blogs and speculation instead of doctors, the CDC and the AAP.” You don’t have any credible scientists or doctors on your side. You simply don’t. Own that, admit it. There is no conspiracy theory against you. You simply are trying to present facts that do not exist and you are putting others at risk. You also should be honest with yourself and realize that 99% of those websites have a product to sell you. And while we’re at it, can you please go refresh your memory on the difference between a theory and a hypothesis? Because all the anti-vaccine sites have provided is a hypothesis. Not a theory.

Truth #6

“For reasons I do not know or cannot articulate, despite the scientific evidence to the contrary, I am afraid of autism.” Admit it, you are. Really, enough with the “Oh, it’s not autism that I’m afraid of…” You are.

Truth #7

“Even though I say I care as a mom, truth is, I simply cannot comprehend what it feels like to have an at-risk or immunocompromised child in the community.” Stop telling us that you really do care about others in the community. You don’t. The newborns, the adults who are going through chemo….you don’t care. You are turning it off in your brain. Otherwise, as a human being, how you could possibly be willing to put a 3-year-old cancer patient at risk with your decisions? If you really understood what it’s like to have a child, for whom the flu/chicken pox/measles would likely be deadly, you wouldn’t make these choices.

Truth #8

“Fact is, I *think* that these diseases are harmless, but I’ve never seen them, so part of me is concerned.” You cannot in good conscience say with 100% certainty that you think that the measles are harmless. You simply are counting on herd immunity (Truth #2) and you think it won’t happen to you. I can tell you this–I have given many Shot@Life presentations to older generations like Lions Clubs, Rotary and GFWC. Many of those senior citizens saw polio, had siblings who died from the mumps, had neighbors with measles. Those folks need no convincing and are astounded that anyone would make the choices that you are making. Don’t worry though–at the rate you’re going, you’ll get your chance to see this stuff.

Truth #9

“It’s easier to be defiant and angry and argumentative than to admit I was wrong.” Any reasonable person has got to be asking themselves…if there was a risk to vaccines (higher than risk of disease), wouldn’t we have found it in 25 years? I mean, don’t you get tired of the same old arguments and lack of evidence? If no new evidence comes up…how long are you going to keep up these same talking points? Another 20 or 25 years? “We need to research them more.” No we do not. They have been researched over and over. When I came clean about my life as anti-vaxer, it was hard. I had to come clean to myself, my kids and my husband–that I had put all of us at risk. Admitting, as a mom, that for a period of time you picked a higher risk for your children…that’s really hard to do. I’ve been there. But now I can rest much easier knowing that we are safer and healthier since we are all vaccinated regularly.

As it should be.




Share this:

 

[Artisan]

here is a perfect example of the unreferenced and uneducated counter arguments.

I agree, There are no references listed at all in those and have tags saying Truth #number above them >.<
One person's Truths however are not facts x) As such these "Truths" can just as well be listed as: "Misinformation/Unfounded concept #Number"

 

[SlowUpTake]

Careful reading of most of the material posted here against vaccines leads me to believe that the aim of vaccinations is to actually depopulate the planet

 

[Y0u]

Careful reading of most of the material posted here against vaccines leads me to believe that the aim of vaccinations is to actually depopulate the planet

Well, something's certainly changed and are making tons of people have worse health with neurological diseases etc, and it's not doctors getting better at diagnosing... Reach into the grab-bag and take your pick, there are tons of incredibly unhealthy "perfectly safe" stuff out there. My point being: cleaning up vaccines isn't going to fix most of it, or any one thing from the grab-bag. At least, that's my guess.

 

[SlowUpTake]

Well, something's certainly changed and are making tons of people have worse health with neurological diseases etc, and it's not doctors getting better at diagnosing... Reach into the grab-bag and take your pick, there are tons of incredibly unhealthy "perfectly safe" stuff out there. My point being: cleaning up vaccines isn't going to fix most of it, or any one thing from the grab-bag. At least, that's my guess.

I think what I am driving at is that this debate goes way further then bad science and bad medicine, I think we are being targeted for extermination!

 

[Lerxst]

The Incredible Edible Egg, anyone remember those commercials? Prior to that, the USDA gave eggs a more or less "fair" nutrition label, which boosted it's daily recommended cholesterol level up over 100%. Then the dairy lobbyists got involved.

The "new" labeling reduces the weight of the egg and lowers the cholesterol to about 70% per serving. hat coincided with the Incredible Edible Egg campaign they launched (this is the behind the scenes stuff they actually used to teach you as a Marketing major in college).

True labeling from non-USDA source:

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/111/2

USDA altered labeling:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/HHFS_EGG_SHELL_100936Nov2012.pdf


Yep, here's the perfect example of how our government agencies always tell you the truth. They might alter every bit of information you have around it so the truth doesn't hurt so much though...

 

[Peppermint]

Careful reading of most of the material posted here against vaccines leads me to believe that the aim of vaccinations is to actually depopulate the planet

You can make an argument that the aim of telling people that vaccination renders them infertile or poisons them has an aim of depopulating the planet; since more people and children can get sick of potentially fatal illnesses, die and fail to reproduce. You can make an argument this mortality is particularity likely to happen in less developed parts of the world. It's actually a pretty sinister thought.


http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Co...fertility_agent_to_sterilizes_Muslim_children

 

[dogman6126]

I'd have to agree, very few come up with well referenced, and educated counter arguments that are in support of vaccines.
I also doubt anyone would look at these arguments and actually place any label on it other then they had before they voiced their opinions.

I don't think i'd be easily swayed in favor of a vaccine, ever.

This makes me wonder how far back you went in this thread. Several of us have argued against Muir from the standpoint of science. An actual PhD toxicologist posted in here at one point supporting our claims over Muir's. I will post some links to where in this thread to look for said arguments....
Some are far back because Muir tends to repeat and spam random articles, and (for the same reason) you might have to do some significant scrolling:

http://www.infjs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27909&page=6
- Jimmers article here was very good
http://www.infjs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27909&page=10
http://www.infjs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27909&page=14
http://www.infjs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27909&page=15

 

[Peppermint]

The people who believe vaccines are harmful don't believe the government and institutions, so why they would believe agents and representatives that have been indoctrinated by institutions of higher education and peer reviewed research? They doubt the veracity of those. What I'm saying is, you're barking up the wrong tree, dogman.

 

[Dohavior]

Why focus on vaccines? Aluminum seems to be a very big problem.

 

[SlowUpTake]

I'd say it was more of a rout

In truth, the weight of the argument falls on the side of those that see vaccinations as the real plague on humanity..

but why, for what reason? only for profit or is there something more insidious to it?

I can not help but wonder at all those medical doctors who are lying to unsuspecting parents throughout the western world.

 

[dogman6126]

The people who believe vaccines are harmful don't believe the government and institutions, so why they would believe agents and representatives that have been indoctrinated by institutions of higher education and peer reviewed research? They doubt the veracity of those. What I'm saying is, you're barking up the wrong tree, dogman.

Yeah that is definitely part of the problem. Said people tend to use an ad hominem argument against standard authorities in the field, then to use false authority claims as truths. I've recently been learning more about fallacies, so now I know some of the names of the fallacies committed. For example, the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is critical to the argument against vaccines, and I have personally be subject to shotgun argumentation....

 

[muir]

Why focus on vaccines? Aluminum seems to be a very big problem.

You're absolutely right...aluminium IS a big problem

Two ways in which they are exposing us to aluminium are:

• vaccines
• geoengineering aerosols dispersed from planes into the air above us

These are causing the spike in alzheimers and dementia

 

[muir]

In truth, the weight of the argument falls on the side of those that see vaccinations as the real plague on humanity..

but why, for what reason? only for profit or is there something more insidious to it?

I can not help but wonder at all those medical doctors who are lying to unsuspecting parents throughout the western world.

Ok..good question...massive topic though!

As @Y0u said there is a grab bag of ways in which the health of the population is being undermined; it is not just vaccines

See for example sky rocketting autism rates, lowering fertility, massive growth in auto immune disorders, spike in dementia and alzheimers etc

Bill Gates can be heard speaking online about population control, here, where he says vaccines are being used to reduce population growth:

[video=youtube;pjj4Iq-rsNg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjj4Iq-rsNg[/video]

Bill Gates's father was a member of Planned parenthood which was set up to abort babies and has its roots in eugenics

Bill also funds Monsanto whioch makes GMO's which have been shown to give rats tumours and it makes roundup pesticide spray which has now been shown to give people cancer

Bill gates also funds geoengineering which involves spraying toxins on the public through aerosols released from planes in the skies above our heads

Here's is Bill talking about his aim to depopulate the world:

[video=youtube;3TyAJZVARPw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TyAJZVARPw[/video]

Bill is part of a group of globalists who have a plan to control the world and to order the world a certain way. This has been set out in UN 'Agenda 21' which is a plan to cut the global population and to move all people into urban zones (heavily controlled and surveilanced) while land is allocated certain roles such as agriculture, mining etc.....the 'hunger games' films are basically based on Agenda 21

Bill gates has meetings with other billionaires who are obsessed with killing the poor for example ted turner and even oprah winfrey! These guys are in turn controlled by the CFR which has a sub group called the 'club of rome' which seeks to cut the global population

This is all being done covertly by poisoning the populations water, food supplies, air and bloodstreams (via vaccines)

This is why i tell people here to eat organic food, avoid vaccines, and avoid flouridated water

These guys don't even deny what they want to do

[video=youtube;N_zNFuVaqTI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_zNFuVaqTI[/video]

 

[SlowUpTake]

but why? why do they care how many people they are when their access to resources are assured because they own everything and command all the armed forces?