Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Study: Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk To Anyone  (Read 716 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline apollo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 259
  • Reputation: +153/-74
  • Gender: Male
Study: Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk To Anyone
« on: March 07, 2019, 12:53:29 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/03/06/unvaccinated-children-pose-no-risk-to-anyone-says-harvard-immunologist/
    .
    Excerpts from her talk ...
    .
    "The evidence showed that 48% of those who had contracted measles were fully vaccinated for measles..."
    .
    "You get your PhD in Immunology, and you leave school to go out into the world to work on things like, oh,
    immunization, and you haven’t learned that you can still get certain diseases even if you’ve been fully vaccinated
    against them? Despite this being scientifically documented and an uncontested fact?"

    Apollo was an Egyptian hermit, founder, and miracle worker, born about 310 AD.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 22783
    • Reputation: +19959/-224
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Study: Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk To Anyone
    « Reply #1 on: March 07, 2019, 01:54:24 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • One of the biggest problems in the world is people thinking they know-it-all when they don't.

    Closely related to this: they simplified something down to a 5 year old's level, and any complexity more than that they reject.

    "They discovered that dead viruses injected into you can form antibodies so you don't get that disease. There is a % chance you can die from each of these diseases. So it's a no-brainer. I think those who don't vaccinate their children are committing the only legal form of child abuse..."

    Nevermind the fact that vaccination isn't 100%, which is scientific fact. They'd rather pass over and ignore that fact.

    Oh, and it's also possible that the vaccine will cause autism, allergies, serious complications, cancer, or even death. What % chance of this, vs. the % chance they're going to die of the Measles?

    Let the parents decide, I say.

    Why are the parents who "take their chances" with vaccines considered better than those parents who "take their chances" with diseases that are mostly a non-issue because of herd immunity?

    At least if they die of the Measles you can say God wanted them home. If you inject them with a bunch of crap and they die, you can only blame yourself because you were trying to avoid *all suffering* in this world. When you try to avoid suffering, it has a way of coming back to get you later. Just trust in God.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline josefamenendez

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 578
    • Reputation: +356/-30
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Study: Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk To Anyone
    « Reply #2 on: March 08, 2019, 08:08:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0


  • " When you try to avoid suffering, it has a way of coming back to get you later. Just trust in God."

    That is certainly a profoundly true statement.


    Offline apollo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 259
    • Reputation: +153/-74
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Study: Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk To Anyone
    « Reply #3 on: March 08, 2019, 12:42:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Vaccination is the largest denomination of the religion of "Science & Technology".
    You just have to believe in it.  You've been told since childhood that vaccines
    save lives.  You don't question it.  If you do, you are mentally ill.  
    .
    If you claim that vaccines cause Autism, you must have proof, because you are
    going against the government, the really big corporations and the CDC, FDA, NIH,
    and against humanity.  
    .  
    If you ask for proof that vaccines are EFFECTIVE, meaning actually prevent
    diseases, you are scoffed at like you were born yesterday.  The fact is, there is
    no real proof.  
    .
    One study in Britain tested some vaccine on two-years olds many years ago.
    Now days, they start vaccinations at age 2 months or even birth.  Your child
    may get 4 vaccines at one time.  Nobody has studied that.  They don't dare.
    The truth might get out that the religion is a HOAX.
    .
    "A longing will arise (and become) general opinion: Whatever is spiritual, whatever is
    of the spirit, is nonsense, is madness!  Endeavors to achieve this will be made by
    bringing out remedies to be administered by inoculation, just as inoculations have
    been developed as a protection against diseases, only these inoculations will influence
    the human body in a way that will make it refuse to give a home to the spiritual
    inclinations of the soul.  People will be inoculated against the inclination to
    entertain spiritual ideas.  Endeavors in this direction will be made; inoculations
    will be tested that already in childhood will make people lose any urge for spiritual
    life."
    .
    -    Rudolf Steiner: Fall Of The Spirits Of Darkness Lecture 13:
    -    The Fallen Spirits Influence In The World, Dornach, 27, Oct. 1917.
    .
    "I have told you that the spirits of darkness are going to inspire their human hosts,
    In whom they will be dwelling, to find a vaccine that will drive all inclinations toward
    spirituality out of people's souls when they are very young, and this will happen in a
    roundabout way through the living body.  Today, bodies are vaccinated against one thing
    and another.  In future, children will be vaccinated with a substance, which it will
    certainly be possible to produce, and this will make them immune, so that they do not
    develop foolish inclinations connected with spiritual life, "foolish" here, of course,
    in the eyes of materialists."
    .
    -    Rudolf Steiner: Lecture 3, Secret Brotherhoods and the Mystery of  
       the Human Double, Seven Lectures.

    Apollo was an Egyptian hermit, founder, and miracle worker, born about 310 AD.

    Offline Stanley N

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 365
    • Reputation: +97/-135
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Study: Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk To Anyone
    « Reply #4 on: March 09, 2019, 10:48:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • At least if they die of the Measles you can say God wanted them home. If you inject them with a bunch of crap and they die, you can only blame yourself because you were trying to avoid *all suffering* in this world. When you try to avoid suffering, it has a way of coming back to get you later. Just trust in God.
    This is a poor argument to make. Your argument, if applied generally and not just to vaccines, would mean rejecting any technology humans have developed to avoid or limit injuries.  I doubt you would say "just trust in God" and avoid using car seatbelts, for example.
    Catholics are not Amish. Using a routinely available technology to limit injuries is not only acceptable, it can be obligatory.
    (This comment is specifically about the quoted argument, and not about vaccines.)


    Offline Stanley N

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 365
    • Reputation: +97/-135
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Study: Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk To Anyone
    « Reply #5 on: March 09, 2019, 10:53:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    "You get your PhD in Immunology, and you leave school to go out into the world to work on things like, oh,
    immunization, and you haven’t learned that you can still get certain diseases even if you’ve been fully vaccinated
    against them? Despite this being scientifically documented and an uncontested fact?"
    This quote is not from the Dr. Tetyana, but from the author of the article commenting about Dr. Tetyana.
    Doesn't it seem a little odd to use this Dr. Tetyana as an authority based on her training, while simultaneously noting she had a huge misunderstanding after all that training?

    The article is partly referring to immunizations for non-contagious diseases, like tetanus. But the costs of a non-contagious case are still borne by society through insurance. Treatment of a 6-yr old with tetanus in Oregon recently racked up $800k in charges (excluding air transport and "in patient rehabilitation and ambulatory followups").

    Offline Seraphina

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 423
    • Reputation: +369/-75
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Study: Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk To Anyone
    « Reply #6 on: March 09, 2019, 06:23:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • An unvaccinated child is no danger to anyone unless he is incubating or has a contagious disease.  And then he's a danger only to another who is able to get that disease.  If the recipient has a weakened immune system, it becomes more likely to catch the sickness, whether it's measles or anything else.  For example, an unvaccinated child carrying measles is of no danger to me at all.  I had the measles when I was young and have lifelong immunity.  Same thing for mumps, rubella, chicken pox.  If, however, my grand nephew who is eight months old comes in close contact with measles, there is a likely chance of him becoming sick as he is not vaccinated. 

    I'm not a complete anti-Vax person, but I think many of the vaccines given to infants unnecessarily overtax the immune system and pump in too many harmful additives.  Some diseases like Hep. A are mainly contracted through sex and blood. Unless a baby is born to a prostitute or injecting drug addict, why give this vaccine at all?  The HPV vaccine being pushed on prepubescent girls and boys is another unnecessary and proven dangerous treatment, all based on the belief that they will become sexually active by 10 or 11!  Doctors are even now pushing for women up to 50 to get it!  Many  vaccines are derived from fetal cell lines of aborted babies.  The novus ordo calls it a remote connection, but a Catholic is morally free to decline any vaccine or treatment because of this.  Thankfully, the few vaccines I received in childhood pre-date this evil.  

    I do believe in taking responsibility if you or your child becomes sick with a potentially dangerous sickness.  If one has measles, quarantine yourself as was done in the days before vaccines out of respect for others.  Think of the possible ramifications of an unvaccinated adult male getting the mumps.  He could be rendered sterile.  The elderly or already weakened could become fatally ill due to another's carelessness.  This goes also for less virulent sicknesses.  

    In 1988, I worked in a Kindergarten where a child was left off sick with strep throat.  When all was said and done, 15 of 17 children got strep, some more than once, and I had it five times in six months, absenteeism that led to me losing my job.  

    Parents should choose what they believe is right for their children, to vaccinate in full, in part, or not at all.  Regardless, it is an obligation for a Catholic to act responsibly when his children or family have a contagious disease.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4127
    • Reputation: +2561/-1192
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Study: Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk To Anyone
    « Reply #7 on: March 09, 2019, 07:55:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    If one has measles, quarantine yourself as was done in the days before vaccines out of respect for others.  Think of the possible ramifications of an unvaccinated adult male getting the mumps.
    You're missing the point of being against modern vaccines because they don't work.  This is why the medical community is frothing at the mouth to get as many vaccinated as possible - because modern vaccines aren't full proof.  Many have admitted this outright.  So, their logic goes, if 60% of the population is vaccinated, but it only has a 75% success rate, that's a LOT of people that could get the measles or mumps or whatever.  This is why they want the % to be closer to 80-90%, so that the odds of an outbreak are lowered.

    If vaccines were as effective as in previous generations, then one wouldn't have to worry about the unvaccinated; they'd die off.  But, with the low-grade health of many people, mixed with their suppressed immune systems due to GMOs, chem-trails and nutrition-deficient diets, an outbreak of a major disease would kill many - vaccinated or not.

    On the other hand, lots of this is fear mongering by the media and corp drug companies who want to sell a product, and use americans as test subjects for biological warfare.  That's another topic...


    Offline LongHaired CountryBoy

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 55
    • Reputation: +33/-26
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Study: Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk To Anyone
    « Reply #8 on: March 09, 2019, 09:39:01 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Flu viruses are in a constant state of antigenic drift and, at times, antigenic shift (rapid mutation), which is why vacs have as much likelihood of being efficacious as you winning the lottery. The only way vacs work is if a virus subtype, which has already infected the population and is enough of a concern to make a vac, is identified, thus, a vac is developed targeting it. By that time, there have already been mass casualties. Even that subtype is reassorting into something with a different infectiousness, transmission rate and pathogenicity, so time is even limited there, too. Vacs don't work in preventing infections in people when the virus subtype isn't known ahead of time (it can't be known). That means 99.9% of vacs DON'T WORK. They're a money-making racket and a conduit to pump the sheeple full of unknown agents that are a detriment to health rather than a benefit. Class dismissed..
    the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men.
    ~ 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15

    I knew in my faith that the Jews were accursed and condemned without end, except those who were converted. ~ Bl. Juliana of Norwich

    Offline MaterDominici

    • Owner's Wife
    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 4906
    • Reputation: +3651/-60
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Study: Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk To Anyone
    « Reply #9 on: March 09, 2019, 10:53:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is a poor argument to make. Your argument, if applied generally and not just to vaccines, would mean rejecting any technology humans have developed to avoid or limit injuries.  I doubt you would say "just trust in God" and avoid using car seatbelts, for example.
    Catholics are not Amish. Using a routinely available technology to limit injuries is not only acceptable, it can be obligatory.
    (This comment is specifically about the quoted argument, and not about vaccines.)
    Your example is not reflective of the original statement. With seat belts there is a clear, undisputed "winner" in that wearing the belt offers a huge possible benefit with very low risk. The injuries caused by seat belts are much less severe than those caused by not wearing them. And, you'll never have a seat belt injury by merely wearing the belt, but only when the belt is doing its job of avoiding more serious injury. When there is a clear and undisputed benefit like this, it becomes easy for society to require its use.
    .
    Vaccines, on the other hand, have no clear-cut "winner" for a multitude of reasons. Each individual is free to choose which path they consider to be less risky and then leave the rest to God.
    .
    I think if society really wished to reach a 99% vaccination point, there would be more $$ invested in pinpointing and eliminating the major causes of concern for those who choose not to vaccinate. But, as it stands now, medicine in general is not a very trusted profession.
    "If I could only make the faithful sing the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei ... that would be to me the finest triumph sacred music could have, for it is in really taking part in the liturgy that the faithful will preserve their devotion. I would take the Tantum ...

    Offline josefamenendez

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 578
    • Reputation: +356/-30
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Study: Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk To Anyone
    « Reply #10 on: March 10, 2019, 08:12:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is a good blog posting that touches on the fallacy of "herd immunity"...
    the blog is called "The Far Side" .

    Vexxed By Vaxxing


    A company called Ndemic Creations recently announced that it is adding anti-vaxxers to its popular game Plague Inc.  No word on how much cash Big Pharma is pumping into their stock to "help out".

    From the outset, let's establish that Big Pharma is motivated solely and completely by profits.

    A recent article announced that Big Pharma was "urging" governments to stockpile antibiotics in case of a major "flu outbreak."  This is absurd on its face.  Influenza is caused by any number of viruses, and antibiotics have no effect on viruses - at all.  This article has only two purposes: first, to cause fear that a flu epidemic could occur at any time, and second to sell vast quantities of a drug that is wholly ineffectual for the given reason.  Profit.

    Next, why are vaccines the ONLY government-mandated health regimen?  Most of the vaccines are for childhood diseases that have vanishingly small death rates - measles, mumps, chicken pox.  They are not pleasant diseases, but per capita, the death rates are tiny.  Over the last 10 years, the measles death rate has been less than 1 per year, while the number of known cases has varied between 100 and 200.  The number of deaths from mumps and chicken pox are vanishingly small.  On a global scale, death rates don't even rise above the statistical noise level.

    Why are vaccines mandated and not, say, hand washing, vitamin supplements, healthy diets, and so on ad nauseum.  Profit.

    If vaccines are so effective, why are there no vaccines for the really dangerous viruses?  Could it be that infection rates and/or affected populations are too small to generate tremendous profits?  Or maybe there's no political interest in certain diseases.  In fact, there are dozens of viral diseases that primarily affect Third World populations who don't have the wealth or trust to use vaccines, and so Big Pharma ignores them.

    It's also possible that vaccines don't work, and so they are only produced for diseases that are generally harmless.  If someone gets a flu vaccine, then still gets the flu, they are most likely not going to die from it and there's a convenient excuse about a strain that wasn't planned for.  If, for instance, an HIV vaccines were announced and people who got it still fell prey to the virus, it would be quite obvious that the vaccine didn't work.  Pure Profit.

    In fact, there is almost no metric of vaccine efficacy that can't also be explained by better hygiene, better diets, and better overall health care when one is sick.  If vaccines were stopped altogether this moment, disease rates would likely not increase over current levels.

    That the scientific cabal (scientidiots as we call them) finds the term "herd immunity" an acceptable way to describe human beings and our health is at once revolting and telling.  Revolting because these high priests of the secular religion actually view us collectively as flock animals, and telling for the same reason.

    It seems that lately, Big Pharma has been on a massive campaign to scare us all into queuing up for our vaccines.  They are using every tool at their well-funded disposal to inject us with fear porn and instill guilt.  We are told, as members of the "herd," that if any one of us gets sick, then it is the fault of those who have the sense enough to question this whole vaccine regimen.

    To that I reply, if vaccines actually worked as advertised, why would any vaccinated individual need to worry about the unvaccinated.  In fact, what better marketing tool than to show that vaccinated folks need not worry about outbreaks of measles, chicken pox or flu?  There would be no question of efficacy.  We could all witness the value in action.  Sign me up!

    It seems to me that blaming unvaccinated individuals for disease outbreaks is a blatant admission that their products do not work.

    In point of fact, do you actually know what is in any given vaccine?  I mean really know?  Sure, they are labelled, but labels lie and obfuscate.  And how many times have you asked your doctor, or been offered the container to read?  And those "drug information sheets," you need degrees in medicine, chemistry and ancient Greek to wade through the first paragraph.

    Sure, your highly trained doctor promotes them, but what is he/she receiving from the pharmaceutical companies to do so?  I've witnessed first-hand the gimmies, elaborate meals and "retreats" hosted by Big Pharma, and I almost want to promote their crud because of all that.

    Sure, the government mandates them, but what has government ever done to earn your implicit trust - besides murder, maim and steal, of course?  How many government-approved products have ultimately been shown to be harmful?

    When you go to the doctor's office to get your jab, have you ever asked to see the vaccine packaging?  Have your ever sent samples to an independent lab to be tested and verified as to contents?  No?  So you are just taking the word of a bunch of people with vested financial interests that what is being delivered directly into your bloodstream is both composed of what is claimed, and works as advertised.

    At least heroin users get immediate feedback as to the purity and efficacy of the product they inject.

    And there's always an out for Big Pharma.  With the flu vaccine, when you still get the flu, well...it's a strain we hadn't planned on last year when we made the potions.  Or perhaps there's a new mutated form of the virus that doesn't respond to the current vaccine.  Or perhaps you came into contact with an anti-vaxxer.

    This last excuse is the one that makes me most suspicious and angry.  If the potions worked as advertised, then a vaccine should allow a member of the "herd" to walk into a room full of sick people without worry.  After all, you're immune, right?  That's what they advertise, right?

    The US federal government, paragon of trust and good faith that it is, has actually set up a special court system, called the , just for claims against vaccines and manufacturers.  In that court, the manufacturer is never liable.  The American taxpayer is.  If your claim is found to be valid, you are paid off with tax dollars and required to sign a form giving indemnity to the manufacturer and vowing silence as to the details and outcomes of cases.

    Such a deal!  The government mandates vaccines, then holds the manufacturers free of blame for any injuries or damages caused by vaccines, then uses your money to pay off the injured parties and shut them up.

    And we wonder why we never hear of problems with vaccines?

    There are two basic kinds of vaccine.  One uses chopped up pieces of viruses - the protein coats - to bind to cell receptors and activate immune responses in the form of B and T cells.

    The other uses dead or "inactivated" viruses to the do the same thing.

    The first question that arises is, if biologists can't agree whether viruses are actually living creatures, then how do we know they are dead, or "inactive"?  Don't exobiologists talk about viruses and bacteria lying dormant for centuries in the harsh environment of space?  Besides, if something is never alive, how can it be dead?

    A virus is simply a protein shell with various bumps and dimples on the surface that lock into receptors on a cell's "skin".  Once a virus latches onto a receptor, it dissolves and injects a set of instructions - like mRNA - into the cell to high-jack the cell's normal processes and re-task them to producing more viruses.  In other words, a virus cannot reproduce itself.  It must take over a host cell and use it to do the job.  This violates one of the basic definitions of Life.

    Viruses do not reproduce themselves, they must usurp the life processes of something else.  Viruses do not metabolize food and create energy - again they must use the processes of a living cell.  Viruses cannot move themselves, they depend on a medium such as air or fluid to randomly float to the next victim.  Viruses do not respire - take in oxygen and expire CO2.

    They do not meet any of the criteria for life, and in fact many don't even have complete genomes or even DNA.  No motility, no respiration, no reproduction equals no life.

    So exactly how do we know something is dead that shows no signs of life in the first place?  And if it is "deactivated," how does it do anything that provides immunity?

    The next big issue is how vaccines are made.

    Among other methods, some vaccines are produced by incubating the virus in human fetal tissue.  There is only one source of human fetal tissue that is not in utero - aborted babies.

    This is one of those little details that are not widely advertised, since most people abhor the idea of having the tissue of aborted children injected into their bloodstreams.  On a cellular level, this is hardly different from cannibalism.

    Then there's the is use of adjuvants.  An adjuvant is a potion that "enhances" the body's immune response, causing the release of antigens, and thus creating immunity (supposedly).  The mixtures that different companies use as adjuvants are the primary source of patents, and thus are proprietary to each manufacturer.

    If, in fact, adjuvants act as advertised, one wonders why any part of a virus is needed in the first place?  What's more, we are not privy to the exact formulae because they are company secrets.  In other words, they are the part of the trick that even a magician won't tell another magician.

    The most discussed issue with vaccines are the preservatives used to give the potions shelf-life and prevent contamination.  In the US, the three approved chemicals are phenol, 2-phenoxyethanol, and thiomersal.  The latter is well known to contain mercury, which causes the brain to short-circuit.

    Mercury is the suspected cause of autism, and the origin of the expression "mad as a hatter".  More in a moment.

    Phenoxyethanol is an interesting substance.  It is composed of a glycol chain and an ethanol chain bound by oxygen atoms.  It is also called ethylene glycol monophenyl ether, phenoxytolarosol, Dowanol EP / EPH, and several other names.  It is used in cosmetics and perfume as a liquifier base that evaporates leaving the other ingredients behind.  It is also a commercial solvent for various materials such as cellulose and resins.  It has the property of preventing bacteria and yeast from reproducing, so it is also used as a topical (on the skin) antiseptic.  Lovely stuff to shoot in your veins, especially if you are religiously bound to avoid alcohol.

    Phenol is a white crystal composed of C6H5OH, or a phenyl group bonded with a hydroxy group.  It is aromatic, meaning it readily evaporates, and volatile, meaning it readily bonds with other substances.  It is produced from petroleum.  Let's let Wikipedia tell us about it:
    Quote
     "It is primarily used to synthesize plastics and related materials. Phenol and its chemical derivatives are essential for production of polycarbonates, epoxies, Bakelite, nylon, detergents, herbicides such as phenoxy herbicides, and numerous pharmaceutical drugs."
    [color][size][font]

    Plastic?  Epoxy?  Nylon?  Herbicide?  And they inject that crap into our veins?  Recall that phenoxyethanol is basically this stuff mixed with grain alcohol.  Double-plus good!
    We should also note at this point the connection to nylon and a strange disease called Morgellon's.

    Finally, there's thiomersal.   You may know this stuff as Merthiolate, which used to be a common part of every medicine cabinet until it was quietly demarketed because of the mercury content.  It is a reddish substance used topically (on the skin) to treat cuts and scratches because of its antibacterial and antifungal properties.

    Put simply, mercury is highly toxic to life as we know it.  According to "scientific consensus," and regular readers here know what we think about that term, it is perfectly harmless, which is why it is used to kill a wide variety of critters and was banned from topical use.

    As a vaccine consumer, you have the choice of injecting your bloodstream with a petroleum distillate used in plastics, epoxies and detergents, or a mercury compound that kills everything it touches.  How exciting!

    I've only surveyed the most visible issues with vaccines.  There are many others, such as the wisdom of over-exciting the immune system and its relationship to the growing problems with allergies.  There is also scant evidence that vaccine immunity is "remembered" by the body years later, which would take an entire book to discuss thoroughly.

    Suffice it to say there are dozens of important considerations to entertain when deciding whether to pump your bloodstream full of toxins and pathogens in an effort to be healthy.  The arguments are similar to the use of radiation and toxic chemicals, all of which cause cancer, in cancer treatments: how does making the body sick create health?

    There is an all-out campaign to scare people into jabbing themselves with this crud.  News stories on measles, chicken pox, and influenza outbreaks, and uninhibited guilt trips on parents are among the many tactics to induce fear and panic.

    Of course, vaccines are offered as the only 'reasonable" solution to these fears.  Never mind that we are all the products of millions of years of humans surviving these ailments.  They are not pleasant, to be sure, but the death rates compared to the (hidden) damage caused by vaccines is laughable.  Furthermore, those who die from these ailments are usually immune-compromised to begin with.
    tox
    No one with a vested interest in selling you vaccines will tell you that a healthy diet, good hygiene and regular use of high-quality dietary supplements are as effective, if not more so, than any vaccines or combination of them.  In fact, the study of disease vectors, beginning with Pasteur and Leeuwenhoek, did more for public health than any vaccine ever has.  (Note polio infections were falling even before the introduction of the Salk vaccine in the 1950s)

    If the foregoing information and links have produced any doubt in your mind about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, then it behooves you to do more investigation, especially if you are a soon-to-be parent about to be surrounded by people with a vested financial interest in pushing vaccines on your child.

    Just looking at the preservatives used should make you question whether you want that crud pumped into your newborn.  Regular hand-washing, bathing your child and keeping the nursery clean will be far more effective and less dangerous.

    Some final questions to ask: if you are vaccinated against, say...flu, then why do they run breathless fear-porn articles about flu outbreaks every year?  Wouldn't it be more effective to show all the healthy vaxxers who didn't get the flu this year?  Don't you want to be like them?  Or can't they show that to us?
    [/font][/size][/color]
    Posted by Bernard Grover at 17:24  
    Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest


    Offline josefamenendez

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 578
    • Reputation: +356/-30
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Study: Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk To Anyone
    « Reply #11 on: March 10, 2019, 08:39:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sorry , I don't know why half the article wouldn't show up. Tried multiple times to get it right. Even tried to copy it to Word and then transfer it to a posting, but no luck. I know they are wiping all anti-vaxx info from the web. Don't know if this is a part of that effort.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17129
    • Reputation: +9518/-4101
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Study: Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk To Anyone
    « Reply #12 on: March 10, 2019, 08:42:11 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Why are the parents who "take their chances" with vaccines considered better than those parents who "take their chances" with diseases that are mostly a non-issue because of herd immunity?

    That's easy.  But perhaps yours was a rhetorical question.  Because of big pharma, that's why, and their paid propaganda.  Every time one kid dies of measles, it makes national news, and the pharma companies pay the media to run the story.  So people think it's news when it's really a paid commercial.  But they suppress the death rates from vaccines and you will absolutely never see a news story except on alt news about a vaccine death.  And people are too dumb and lazy to find the truth themselves.

    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5713
    • Reputation: +3154/-169
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Study: Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk To Anyone
    « Reply #13 on: March 10, 2019, 03:32:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sorry , I don't know why half the article wouldn't show up. Tried multiple times to get it right. Even tried to copy it to Word and then transfer it to a posting, but no luck. I know they are wiping all anti-vaxx info from the web. Don't know if this is a part of that effort.
    Josefa, I could read it. It is pale but legible. Looks a good comprehensive article. Thanks.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16