Why You Should Avoid Taking Vaccines

[ifeelcrazy123]

Very nice!!

Our bodies are able to handle things AND SHOULD NOT BE FORCED to do it!!

I'd like to see you get smallpox and not go to the doctor for a vaccine or medication.

oh and next time you pull a tooth, remember not to use painkillers....You're body CAN HANDLE the pain.

I also suspect you're one of "those people" who believe that women should have natural births because that is the way it's been done for centuries.

Thank goodness the other 70% of people on this thread seemed well capable of thinking for themselves.

 

[Nanfeishen]

Indeed, the under-5 mortality rate was about 400 deaths per 1,000 live births.

So of the 40-odd-% of people who made it past the the age of 5, some would still die before adulthood and those that did survive would only live for a further decade on average after reaching that age! (Considering I'm around about that age).

The greatest link to infant mortality during the middle ages, was from lack of sanitry conditions, clean water, poor health of the mothers, premature births, and pneumonia.
Pretty much the same conditions that exist in most poor countries of today, and result in the same high infant mortality rates in those countries.

Those high infant mortality rates cannot be linked to lack of immunization.

The following article from The Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute is also qite enlightening, WRT Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) or "cot death" as its often referred.
http://www.thinktwice.com/sids.htm

Another article along similar lines:
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS / cot death ) and Childhood Vaccines: Is There a Connection?
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/vaccine_sids.htm

And a 3rd:
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Rally/Sids&VaxCoult.htm

For those who say - " their are studies that show no link between immunization and SIDS " bear in mind that SIDS remains an unknown cause of death, so how can those studies claim what they do?

 

[semiautomatix]

The greatest link to infant mortality during the middle ages, was from lack of sanitry conditions, clean water, poor health of the mothers, premature births, and pneumonia.
Pretty much the same conditions that exist in most poor countries of today, and result in the same high infant mortality rates in those countries.

Those high infant mortality rates cannot be linked to lack of immunization.

The following article from The Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute is also qite enlightening, WRT Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) or "cot death" as its often referred.
http://www.thinktwice.com/sids.htm

Another article along similar lines:
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS / cot death ) and Childhood Vaccines: Is There a Connection?
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/vaccine_sids.htm

And a 3rd:
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Rally/Sids&VaxCoult.htm

For those who say - " their are studies that show no link between immunization and SIDS " bear in mind that SIDS remains an unknown cause of death, so how can those studies claim what they do?

Once again you fail to provide all the facts, merely those that suit your argument. However

INFANT MORTALITY IN LONDON

Diagnoses are recorded in the Bills of Mortality, blamed about 12 per cent of infant deaths on 'teething', and around 75 per cent on 'convulsions'. This was a popular catch-all diagnosis which could cover the early stages of smallpox, and perhaps other childhood diseases, including measles, scarlet fever diphtheria and whooping cough, as well as the symptoms of gastritis, and infantile diarrhoea. Infants were especially vulnerable to gastric disorders and it is significant that the old description of these disorders, 'griping the guts', fell into disuse as the word 'convulsions' became more popular. Smallpox, one of the great eighteenth-century killers, was mainly a disease of infants and children, and most adult Londoners, unless they were migrants, had already had the disease. Well over 50 per cent of Quakers who died of smallpox between 1650 and 1800 were under five, and the disease did not often cause death among the over-thirties.

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~jsharp/6101/6101.html

Those are infectious diseases that you can get no matter the hygiene conditions, they are airborne and would be particularly lethal in our vastly populated areas and due to the fast pace of travel would become a worldwide pandemic.

Now don't we get vaccinated against measles, mumps and diphtheria? Might explain why none of those diseases is regarded as one of the great twentieth-century killers.

To add to that:

Smallpox is believed to have killed an estimated 400,000 Europeans each year during the 18th century (including five monarchs), and was responsible for a third of all blindness. Of all those infected, 20–60%—and over 80% of infected children—died from the disease.

That is 400 million people in 100 years - of course the disease has been eradicated thanks to vaccines. Of course, maybe you believe a population almost 10 times the size of South Africa "should be able to handle the disease themselves".

 

[semiautomatix]

The greatest link to infant mortality during the middle ages, was from lack of sanitry conditions, clean water, poor health of the mothers, premature births, and pneumonia.
Pretty much the same conditions that exist in most poor countries of today, and result in the same high infant mortality rates in those countries.

Those high infant mortality rates cannot be linked to lack of immunization.

The following article from The Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute is also qite enlightening, WRT Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) or "cot death" as its often referred.
http://www.thinktwice.com/sids.htm

Another article along similar lines:
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS / cot death ) and Childhood Vaccines: Is There a Connection?
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/vaccine_sids.htm

And a 3rd:
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Rally/Sids&VaxCoult.htm

For those who say - " their are studies that show no link between immunization and SIDS " bear in mind that SIDS remains an unknown cause of death, so how can those studies claim what they do?

You refer to a link between cot deaths and vaccines, yet we are discussing the period of exceedingly high infant mortality, being the Middle Ages, where there were no vaccinations. You argument has no bearing.

What we do know is that thanks to modern medicine and immunizations the infant mortality rate is a mere 0.5% of what it was a few hundred years ago.

Millions of children have been saved from the agony of smallpox; how can you now claim that immunizations are of little to no use?

 

[Aeron]

"Once again you fail to provide all the facts, merely those that suit your argument"

Look who's talking timgual. God facepalmzor. Are you going to give some facts AGAINST your own argument? Or 'couldn't you find any'?

And of course cot-death is relevant. It's the "mysterious" death that has been speculated to be related to vaccines. But of course, that's not in favour of your argument so you will vehemently deny that. But alas, that's you.

""Of all those infected, 20–60%—and over 80% of infected children—died from the disease.""

And thanks to that, today many people have natural resistance to the disease. Because of natural selection. But of course, you prefer turning a blind eye to anything different from what your doctor says, and you enjoy the feeling of safety you get from paying exorbitant fees for medicine and treatments. You enjoy your "daily pills"? You don't complain...it's too comfortable.

Again, the Wizard's Rule applies here. People will believe what they want to believe. Especially if the truth was not as comfortable as the lie.

 

[undesign]

"Once again you fail to provide all the facts, merely those that suit your argument"

Look who's talking timgual. God facepalmzor. Are you going to give some facts AGAINST your own argument? Or 'couldn't you find any'?

And of course cot-death is relevant. It's the "mysterious" death that has been speculated to be related to vaccines. But of course, that's not in favour of your argument so you will vehemently deny that. But alas, that's you.

""Of all those infected, 20–60%—and over 80% of infected children—died from the disease.""

And thanks to that, today many people have natural resistance to the disease. Because of natural selection. But of course, you prefer turning a blind eye to anything different from what your doctor says, and you enjoy the feeling of safety you get from paying exorbitant fees for medicine and treatments. You enjoy your "daily pills"? You don't complain...it's too comfortable.

Again, the Wizard's Rule applies here. People will believe what they want to believe. Especially if the truth was not as comfortable as the lie.

Maybe you are adhering to Wizard's Third Rule? Maybe the Eleventh, Unspoken Rule applies?

And jeez, you're quick on condescending remarks, but slow on offering any credible facts/links to back up your conspiracy theories.

And FFS learn to use the quote function

MyBB FAQ

 

[semiautomatix]

God facepalmzor.

Sorry, I didn't realise I was debating with a teenager. Nanfeishen and I might disagree but at least he is mature about his argument and presents it in a credible manner. That I can at least respect.

And thanks to that, today many people have natural resistance to the disease. Because of natural selection.

Most people alive today have absolutely no natural immunity to smallpox, especially since the disease no longer exists. In 1980, thanks to massive efforts by WHO to vaccinate most of the population of the world, smallpox was declared eradicated.

Now Aeron, go read up on the Interwebz about a Dr Edward Jenner, then you can apologise later for being so wrong.

 

[Dude111]

But of course, you prefer turning a blind eye to anything different from what your doctor says, and you enjoy the feeling of safety you get from paying exorbitant fees for medicine and treatments.

Yes and sometimes trusting a doctor can be a fatal choice!!

Trust yourselves,trust your body (Trust nature)

 

[semiautomatix]

Yes and sometimes trusting a doctor can be a fatal choice!!

Trust yourselves,trust your body (Trust nature)

Tell that to millions of cancer sufferers. Or how about those millions that died during the 1918 flu epidemic? How about those millions of lives saved thanks to Dr Edward Jenner?

You can either trust modern medicine, within reason, or return to an average life expectancy of 30 years.

 

[Anony-mousse]

Tell that to millions of cancer sufferers. Or how about those millions that died during the 1918 flu epidemic? How about those millions of lives saved thanks to Dr Edward Jenner?

You can either trust modern medicine, within reason, or return to an average life expectancy of 30 years.

Wouldn't be that bad, maybe the average IQ would increase if those people don't reproduce any further. That's what I call natural selection. Otherwise we end up having that idiocracy for real.

 

[semiautomatix]

Wouldn't be that bad, maybe the average IQ would increase if those people don't reproduce any further. That's what I call natural selection. Otherwise we end up having that idiocracy for real.

Viruses don't discriminate. We could be killing off the next Einstein, I'm afraid.

 

[Nanfeishen]

You refer to a link between cot deaths and vaccines, yet we are discussing the period of exceedingly high infant mortality, being the Middle Ages, where there were no vaccinations. You argument has no bearing.

Millions of children have been saved from the agony of smallpox; how can you now claim that immunizations are of little to no use?

I did actually mention infant mortalty in my post however i also admittedly jumped from one topic rather abruptly to another , my bad

The greatest link to infant mortality during the middle ages, was from lack of sanitry conditions, clean water, poor health of the mothers, premature births, and pneumonia.
Pretty much the same conditions that exist in most poor countries of today, and result in the same high infant mortality rates in those countries.

Those high infant mortality rates cannot be linked to lack of immunization.

WRT your mention of smallpox, the following is rather interesting:

in England and Wales there was a continuing decline in the annual death rate from smallpox, with a reduction in mortality of roughly 300 per million to virtually 0, taking place in the 60 year period following the middle of the last century. The progressive rate of decline was severely disrupted--with a roughly 275 percent increase in mortality from the disease--occurring immediately after smallpox vaccination laws were enforced.

4th graph down on following link:
Disease decline before introduction of immunisation
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/decline1.html

Infant Mortality Rates Fall Where 'Immunisation' Rates Are Low
http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Infant-Mortality-Rates-Fall-Where-Immunisation-Rates-Are-Low

DECLINE IN DEATH RATES FROM INFECTIOUS DISEASE---AUSTRALIA
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/graph.html

Its quite amazing , that in most cases, the diseases were actually in decline naturally, until the introduction of immunization, when they either spiked dramatically, or ceased to decline.

 

[Nanfeishen]

You can either trust modern medicine, within reason,

Trust "Within reason", that is the crux of the matter:

Take this article as example:
Bird Flu Accidentally Sent As Vaccine
http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/03/06/bird-flu-accidentally-sent-as-vaccine/

Mistakenly sent from the same company that was contracted to supply the vaccine for the very same virus?

Or how about this:
US20090060950A1 to Baxter International filed 28th August 2008
Baxter Vaccine Patent Application US 2009/0060950 A1

"In particular preferred embodiments the composition or
vaccine comprises more than one antigen.....such as
influenza A and influenza B in particular selected from of one
or more of the human H1N1, H2N2, H3N2, H5N1, H7N7, H1N2,
H9N2, H7N2, H7N3, H10N7 subtypes, of the pig flu H1N1,
H1N2, H3N1 and H3N2 subtypes, of the dog or horse flu H7N7,
H3N8 subtypes or of the avian H5N1, H7N2, H1N7, H7N3,
H13N6, H5N9, H11N6, H3N8, H9N2, H5N2, H4N8, H10N7, H2N2,
H8N4, H14N5, H6N5, H12N5 subtypes."

As the article says:

I'm feeling so much better now that I know we have such competent pharmaceutical companies, well prepared for viral outbreaks at least a year ahead of time..

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=2760&end=2780&view=yes&id=3581#newspost

 

[Anony-mousse]

Viruses don't discriminate. We could be killing off the next Einstein, I'm afraid.

But the next Einstein would be intelligent enough to make right decisions, so he wouldn't be in danger.

 

[semiautomatix]

Trust "Within reason", that is the crux of the matter:

Take this article as example:
Bird Flu Accidentally Sent As Vaccine
http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/03/06/bird-flu-accidentally-sent-as-vaccine/

Mistakenly sent from the same company that was contracted to supply the vaccine for the very same virus?

Or how about this:
US20090060950A1 to Baxter International filed 28th August 2008
Baxter Vaccine Patent Application US 2009/0060950 A1

"In particular preferred embodiments the composition or
vaccine comprises more than one antigen.....such as
influenza A and influenza B in particular selected from of one
or more of the human H1N1, H2N2, H3N2, H5N1, H7N7, H1N2,
H9N2, H7N2, H7N3, H10N7 subtypes, of the pig flu H1N1,
H1N2, H3N1 and H3N2 subtypes, of the dog or horse flu H7N7,
H3N8 subtypes or of the avian H5N1, H7N2, H1N7, H7N3,
H13N6, H5N9, H11N6, H3N8, H9N2, H5N2, H4N8, H10N7, H2N2,
H8N4, H14N5, H6N5, H12N5 subtypes."

As the article says:

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=2760&end=2780&view=yes&id=3581#newspost

I'm not going to even attempt to consider that completely unsubstantiated article.

 

[Necuno]

its been years since i took a flue vaccine; eating right and being healty minded over injecting youself with a virus seems more logical.

 

[arf9999]

If no one was ever vaccinated, then the entire world's population today would probably have immune systems capable of handling most diseases.

FFS are you misguided or just stupid? For the whole world to have immune systems capable of handing most diseases, every genetic line would have to be exposed to the virii concerned and the most affected by the virii would die, that's natural selection for you. In addition, immunity from infection is not hereditary. So diseases that don't kill, but merely maim will still exist in the same concentrations as before.

Read up on smallpox and polio, you misguided person. Why not go back to the dark ages with these idiots:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10275.php

Here's another fun one: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...arning-measles-endemic-in-britain-851584.html
Measles was all but eradicated in the UK, so much so that many doctors had never seen a case of it, but, thanks to the conspiracy theorists and the bullsh it MMR autism scare, plus the influx of people into the UK from countries where vaccination is not enforced, the disease is now "endemic" in the UK.

Measles causes fever, and can have serious complications including pneumonia and encephalitis (swelling of the brain). Fifty years ago the illness killed 500 children a year in the UK but vaccination almost eliminated the disease. Last month's death was only the second in more than a decade.

The HPA, which published the latest figures in its weekly report, said the rise in measles cases in London was linked to an outbreak at a secondary school which had spread to neighbouring schools and nurseries in the capital. It was also the source of clusters in Cornwall and South Yorkshire.

The report said: "Due to almost 10 years of sub-optimal MMR vaccination coverage across the UK, the number of children susceptible to measles is now sufficient to support the continuous spread of measles.

"Health services should exploit all possible opportunities to offer MMR vaccine to children of any age who have not received two doses. Greater awareness of the increasing measles incidence by health professionals and the public is essential to control the spread of infection."

Elizabeth Miller, head of immunisation at the HPA, said: "In 1994 we interrupted the spread of measles in the UK so that it ceased to be endemic. Since that time the only cases we have had have been as a result of importation and spread from those imported cases. Now we have reached a point where there are a sufficient number of susceptible [unvaccinated] children in the population to sustain spread of the disease. We are concerned there may be a return to pre-1994 levels where there was sustained spread. It is quite disturbing."

Vaccination rates against MMR vary widely across the country and are especially low in London. In the last quarter of 2007, the rate stood at 71 per cent for children at age two (first dose) and 50 per cent at age five (second dose) compared with the 95 per cent coverage needed to maintain herd immunity and prevent endemic spread.

Nationally, vaccination rates against MMR fell from 92 per cent a decade ago to 79 per cent in 2004, at the height of the scare over the vaccine's supposed link with autism. They have since recovered to 84 per cent at age two (75 per cent at age five) but are still well below the target level of 95 per cent.

 

[semiautomatix]

I did actually mention infant mortalty in my post however i also admittedly jumped from one topic rather abruptly to another , my bad



WRT your mention of smallpox, the following is rather interesting:


4th graph down on following link:
Disease decline before introduction of immunisation
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/decline1.html

Infant Mortality Rates Fall Where 'Immunisation' Rates Are Low
http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Infant-Mortality-Rates-Fall-Where-Immunisation-Rates-Are-Low

DECLINE IN DEATH RATES FROM INFECTIOUS DISEASE---AUSTRALIA
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/graph.html

Its quite amazing , that in most cases, the diseases were actually in decline naturally, until the introduction of immunization, when they either spiked dramatically, or ceased to decline.

With regarding the first graph, vaccinations were introduced in about 1800, a full 70 years before the noticeable spike in the graph. This is indicated by the decline in year-on-year during the 19th century.

Compulsory vaccinations for children were introduced in 1853, a full 15 years before the noticeable spike in the graph. As such during the smallpox outbreak during the 1860s these children would have survived; the unvaccinated adults would not have been so lucky.

A total population wide vaccination at birth can only really be realised after one or two generations. The graph indicates in about 1885 a massive reduction in smallpox infections occurred. This is a perfect timeline for all those children vaccinated from 1853 onwards.

Thanks for these graphs, it really goes to show how effective the smallpox vaccine was at eradicating the disease.

As for the other links: Australia and New Zealand are pretty much island nations, so they can be disregarded from any argument. This has been discussed before.

 

[semiautomatix]

its been years since i took a flue vaccine; eating right and being healty minded over injecting youself with a virus seems more logical.

A healthy adult does not need a flu vaccine, these are best left to younger children and the aged. Flu, unlike many other viruses (which you would have received immunisation at birth) mutates which is why there is a constant need as a child to receive flu shots.

 

[semiautomatix]

FFS are you misguided or just stupid? For the whole world to have immune systems capable of handing most diseases, every genetic line would have to be exposed to the virii concerned and the most affected by the virii would die, that's natural selection for you. In addition, immunity from infection is not hereditary. So diseases that don't kill, but merely maim will still exist in the same concentrations as before.

Read up on smallpox and polio, you misguided person. Why not go back to the dark ages with these idiots:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10275.php

Come on, until during the 18th century only 40m people died of smallpox. Why would you be worried?

These nutters don't understand that the human body needs to supplemented with vaccines to build a natural immunity to these viruses; this immunity is also not necessarily genetically inherited.