vaccines

Mystery Illness Paralyses Girl Given Cervical Cancer Jab

'A 12-year-old schoolgirl has been left paralysed from the waist down by a mystery illness that came on 30 minutes after she was given the new anticervical cancer jab. Ashleigh Cave suffered dizziness and headaches soon after the vaccination at her school and then deteriorated rapidly, collapsing several times over the following days. A week later she was admitted to hospital after losing all strength in her legs and, two months on, there has been no improvement.

Her mother Cheryl, 37, from Aintree, Merseyside, is blaming her daughter’s condition on the human papillomavirus (HPV) jab, which was introduced in Britain in September as part of a government-funded vaccination programme.'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle5337885.ece

I don't mean to hold anything against those parents but ... she collapses a couple of times over a week's time and only after a week do you go to the hospital?

Anyway I hope the girl gets well!

HPV Vaccine Causes 500 Percent Increase in Allergic Reactions Compared to Other Vaccines

'The "cervical cancer" vaccine against the human papillomavirus (HPV) is between 5 and 26 times more likely to cause severe, potentially fatal allergic reactions in young women than other vaccines, according to a study conducted by researchers from the Children's Hospital at Westmead in Sydney, Australia, and published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.'

http://www.naturalnews.com/025411.html

Mercury In Vaccines Was Replaced With Something Even MORE Toxic

'When mercury was removed from many vaccines (except the flu vaccine) years ago, it was under the false guise that finally vaccines were now safe. What health agencies did not want you to know is that there are many other toxic additives still in vaccines, and one of them is aluminum.

Aluminum has not received the widespread media attention that mercury has, therefore many people don't realize it's a health risk.

"Aluminum is not perceived, I believe, by the public as a dangerous metal. Therefore, we are in a much more comfortable wicket in terms of defending its presence in vaccines," said Dr. John Clements, WHO vaccine advisor.

Notice he said that aluminum is "not perceived" by the public as a dangerous metal ... he couldn't say simply that aluminum is safe, because this would be a lie.'

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles...more-toxic.aspx

I just read that HPV vaccines not only cause 500% toxic reactions (from 2 people, now 10 people have side effects) but THEY push those vaccines on people to make money! HPV may very well have been invented by the pharma (gov?) industry to push new drugs on people and make money!

Let's put science into a vote. Let's decide everything based on what people think, believe, or feel. How can you really go against public wisdom.

I love Jenny McCarthy when she wears no clothes, but when she's dressed and speaks, she's really an ignorant person.

Sure, vaccines are bad for you!!..... Geesh. Human lifespan has increased and fewer deaths are the result of vaccines (among other stuff science provides). Mistakes do happen in the process, and/or some people suffer bad effects, but you have to weigh the benefit versus the cost. The alternative, however, is voodoo. Yeah, I know, the wisdom of the ancients.....

Many elements are toxic, depending on their strength and composition. Vaccines do have elements of the disease in them; that's how they work! Saying an element is present doesn't mean much. Too much iron can kill you. (same with Zinc, magnesium, all sorts of acids and even vitamins)

Choride is toxic. Calcium cloride, well, I like it on my fries!

Say, I want to ban this CHEMICAL substance: DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE . It's a solvent, it's extremely corrosive, and if inhaled it can cause death!

It's used in nuclear industry, pharma, pesticide companies, you name it. It often covers the food we eat (very hard to get it off), can cause excessive sweating, and even excessive urination.

Please support my petition to ban this chemical substance. Thank you.




PS> Riding on an ambulance increases your chances of being injured in an accident by 500%. How'd respond to such a statement (assuming the figure is true). Seriously, what would you say to this?

it is lucrative for doctors to pressure their patients to have their immune defences, and those of their children, hammered by the cocktail concoctions from corporations like Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi-Aventis. The nine largest pharma giants made profits of $30.6 billion in 2001 alone, so for sure vaccinations are good for the medical profession, if not for the people they treat.
The British government offers financial incentives to doctors, known as the Target Payments System, to meet their vaccination quotas and the goal of the government-Big Pharma cartel is compulsory vaccinations.
Dr rashid Buttar told the Congressional Reform and Oversight Hearing Subcommittee on Wellness & Human Rights, about his remarkable success in treating autism simply by removing mercury from the children's bodies. His own son, Abi, made a full recovery from autism after mercury detoxification. As Dr. Bob Nash, chairman of the American Board of Clinical Metal Toxicology, said: 'When 31 children recover from a devastating disease by a simple transdermal treatment that detoxifies metals, then common sense dictates that perhaps metals are involved'.

But although there may be dangers, some people say, at least vaccines prevent diseases and have irradiated so many that children used to get.
This is pure repeating. There is nothing more effective in shaping opinions than repetition, especially if it comes from a guy in a suit with letters after his name. But repetition does not mean fact.
They tell you that cases of childhood diseases fell rapidly after vaccines were introduced. But, in truth this was happening before anyone was vaccinated. It was brought about by better nutrition, sanitation, living conditions and cleaner water. Figures from the Vital Statistics of the United States show that deaths from typhoid fell by 91 percent from 1910 to 1937 and death from diphtheria declined by 90.5 percent in the same period. All this was well before vaccination was introduced. The Journal of Pediatrics could not be clearer:
' ... The largest historical decrease in morbidity and mortality caused by infectious disease was experienced not with the modern antibiotic and vaccine era, but after the introduction of clean water and effective sewer systems.'
A Department of Community Medicine paper published in the UK medical journal, The Lancet, in 1977 confirms the same theme. It says of deaths from whooping cough:

'There was a continuous decline equal in each sex, from 1937 onward. Vaccination, beginning on small scale in some places around 1948 and on a national scale in 1957, did not affect the rate of decline if it be assumed that one attack usually confers immunity, as in most major communicable diseases of childhood ...

... The steady decline of whooping cough between 1930 and 1957 is predictive of a linear exponential decay characteristic of a general and progressive lessening in the volume and spread of infection among the susceptible population. With this pattern well established before 1957, there is no evidence that vaccination played a major role in the decline in incidence and mortality in the trend of events.'

Wrong about the facts. Human mortality fell dramatically waaaaaaaay BEFORE any vaccines were introduced. It was when humans left their caves and put some distance between themselves and the wild carnivorous animals.

What more do you need than that? Keep the beasts away and you immediately prolong your life. Ingenious!

The story that vaccines are essential to immunity is just that, a story repeated until it became accepted 'fact'. One of America's top pediatricians the late Robert Mendelsohn MD said

'There has never been a single vaccine in this country that has ever been submitted to a controlled scientific study. They never took a group of 100 people who were candidates for a vaccine, gave 50 of them a vaccine and left the other 50 alone to measure the outcome. And since that hasn't been done, that means if you want to be kind, you will call vaccines an unproven remedy. If you want to be accurate, you'll call people who give vaccines "quacks".'

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/mendelsohn.html

There are sound reasons for why the whole concept of vaccines is flawed. This explanation, for instance, comes from Russell L. Blaylock M.D at www.russellblaylockmd.com

'Basically, vaccines contain either killed viruses or bacteria, germ components, toxic extracts or live organisms that have been made less virulent--a process called attenuation. To stimulate an enhanced immune reaction against these organisms, manufacturers added powerful immune-stimulating substances such as squalene, aluminum, lipopolysacchride, etc. These are called immune adjuvants.

The process of vaccination usually required repeated injections of the vaccine over a set period of time. The combination of adjuvants plus the intended organism triggers an immune response by the body, similar to that occurring with natural infections, except for one major difference. Almost none of these diseases enter the body by injection. Most enter by way of the mucous membranes of the nose, mouth, pulmonary passages or GI tract. For example, polio is known to enter via the GI tract. The membranes lining these passages contain a different immune system than activated by direct injection. This system is called the IgA immune system.

It is the first line of defense and helps reduce the need for intense activation of the body's immune system. Often, the IgA system can completely head off an attack. The point being that injecting organisms to induce immunity is abnormal.

Because more and more reports are appearing citing vaccine failure, their manufacturers' answer is to make the vaccines more potent. They do this by making the immune adjuvants more powerful or adding more of them. The problem with this approach is that in the very young, the nutritionally deficient and the aged, over-stimulating the immune system can have an opposite effect--it can paralyze the immune system.'

That's interesting.

As for the controlled study of vaccines, I'm almost certain that it has been done. Assuming that there was no controlled study, the effects of immunization are measurable.

You're probably younger, but when I was growing up I saw many crippled people. It was polio. Now this disease has been wiped out because of the vaccine.

As for making the vaccines more potent because they fail... well, I don't know about that, but I know that evolution happens. Bacteria, for example, evolve and develop their own immunity to antibacterial treatments. Heck, the cold virus does the same.

And you can't kill those cockroaches (or other bugs) completely because they're good at producing defenses agaisnt pesticides within a couple generations.


I'm not a parent, but those of you who are, have you vaccinated/immunized your children? Why? Was it mandatory or you agreed to do so believing it was beneficial?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=31Irc8CHK0c

cbs report (2 mins) regarding the HPV vaccine


not sure what the law is in the US but in the UK they are not mandatory, however pressure is put on parants to vaccinate their children as some schools are begining to reject those that are not immunized as they are said to pose a risk to the other children, i don't buy this argument because if your child IS immunized surely they're protected, no ?

MMR Vaccine: No Jab, No School
'As British health experts become increasingly anxious about declining rates of immunisation and the risk of a serious measles epidemic in the UK, the American authorities are convinced that their tougher rules are the answer.

Parents in the US are not simply advised by the health authorities to get their children vaccinated against measles - they are obliged to do it by law. Children who have not been immunised face a "no jab, no school" exclusion from daycare, nursery and school.

In extreme cases, their parents have been threatened with fines and jail.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/f...les-mmr-vaccine

also slightly off topic but this story illistrates why we should have an open mind regarding alternative treatments(btw i'm not suggesting we disregard conventional treatments/medicine)
Parents Find Cure For Son's 'Untreatable' Blood Disorder

'Reuben Grainger-Mead suffered a condition so rare that doctors did not even have a name for it. The schoolboy suffered from a low level of red blood cells, which left him with a weak immune system and needing blood transfusions once a month.

Doctors compared his condition to living with a permanent hangover. But after years of research his parents Michelle and Peter, discovered Reuben lacked vital amino acids and proteins and put him on a course of dietary supplements. Now his red blood cell count is above average and he is catching up to his school friends in height.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthne...d-disorder.html

THE doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR vaccine for children changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism, a Sunday Times investigation has found.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle5683671.ece

i remember when he first suggested the link, the medical establishment went for him because it caused a reduction in MMR jabs. he left the Royal Free Hospital in London 'by mutual consent' in the aftermath of his report and has since worked mostly in the United States, continuing his research at Thoughtful House, a centre for autistic children in Texas.the General Medical Council (GMC) in Britain is charging Dr. Wakefield with professional misconduct with a view to striking him off and destroying his medical career and livelihood. He is accused of 'inadequately founded research, failing to obtain ethical committee approval, obtaining funding "improperly" and subjecting children to 'unnecessary and invasive investigations'.
Given the extraordinary numbers of people killed or permanently damaged by doctors and drug company products every year, the charge of 'inadequately founded research' would be hilarious if it were not so serious for Dr. Wakefield and medical freedom. It is the same with 'unnecessary investigations', given the number of unnecessary drugs and 'tests' that doctors prescribe.

Mercury in vaccines has an impact on the development of autism in children. As the number of mercury-contaminated vaccines increased between 1989 and the late 1990s, so did the number of children becoming autistic. And figures from the U.S. government's own data bases, published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, reveals that since mercury was removed from most childhood vaccines after 1999 the reported rates of autism and other neurological disorders in children have plummeted by as much as 35 percent.
But the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREPA), signed by President Bush after massive lobbying and manipulation by(bill frist) the drug cartel, means that mercury can now be reintroduced to vaccines when used in immunity from prosecution situations and they can continue to send these mercury potions to the developing world.

In Britain btw, doctors are given bonuses for meeting government vaccination targets in other words financial incentives to increase the uptake of vaccines made by the drug corporations.

quite a huge conspiracy you're claiming... 'cause "they" must have also bought the judges and, horrors, the trial lawyers!

Sorry, mate, but the people who claim vaccines cause this and that (anything more than the natural adverse effects in small number of people any medicine may have) are exactly like those who oppose science and the scientific method.

I don't know in the UK, but here in the US those claims about thimerosal and autism, now mercury, etc, etc...all have been bogus. There's always something else.... I say, it must be the alignment of the planets (and go figure!). No evidence will ever be enough for the anti-vaccine crowd... Like those who (and won't be surprised if they're the same kind of people) who reject evolution because there are some gaps in the fossil record (but not in the theory of evolution).

Invariably the question comes down to this: how do we know stuff?

From tadition, authority figures, culture, and divine revelation.

Of course there is another way: the scientific method. Are the sources reliable and reputable? Can they stand up to review by the experts? Is there testable evidence? Connecting the dots of relevant facts. Intellectual honesty, logic. etc, etc...

http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotio...thimerosal.html (an interesting site for those who'd like to think about this topic)

PS>I'm not claiming that mistakes don't happen or that (any) treatments don't have side effects on a few people. But, always denying and questioning without offering any proof--only guesses, inuendo, patching a quilt of irrelevant facts, causes and effects--is the trait of unreasonable people. I mean, how can you prove that my mystical crystal doesn't contain magical powers?...

Spain Recalls Batch of Gardasil Vaccine

'The country has withdrawn tens of thousands of doses of Gardasil after the hospitalization of two teenage girls, reinforcing doubts about the safety of the vaccine.'

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/health...-Reactions.html

still no 'scientific' evidence to suggest vaccines can cause harm.

btw merck is pushing for this jab to be mandatory and is also pushing for males between 9-26 to have it.

Look, there is a very specific scientific process that results in medicininal substances. You can't dismiss this or equate to any contrary claim. OBVIOUSLY people make mistakes and/or some unethical persons falsify data. Then drugs have to be withdrawn.

Do you know that the introduction of this Phantis website has resulted in deaths? Fortunately, I don't know anyone who's died, but I'm willing to bet that there have been people who visited here (even once) and then died! [estimating from the number of members & visitors]

It's been a fight between humans and all those myriad of causes that kill us. Science (and drugs, including vaccines, and understanding the world around us through the scientific method) has made our life longer and healthier.

I don't understand why keep placing more value in opinions by people who are not accountable, offer spurious evidence, and aren't qualified.

If there's scientific evidence that vaccines cause whatever, well, that IS THE STRONG SUIT OF SCIENCE: IT CONSTANTLY IMPROVES. It's not dogmatic, welcomes amendment.

Those who have "scientific evidence" they should present it and help all of us. But, 99% of the time, their objections are based on their poor understanding of correlating facts, and interpreting relations... Not to mention intellectual dishonesty, as in the case of thimerosal.

So, go ahead, acuse Phantis of causing people's death!

Hey, hey!!!!! Who's side are you one?????



CNN: Vaccines didn't cause autism, court rules

Hahhaa. Who knows? Everything is connected. Just think that we're breathing the same air as previous generations! Come to think about it, we are all made of star stuff! Every single atom in our bodies has been in an exploding star!

Why then sue Phantis, they should go for the Big Boss

...



Oh, and this decision came down today: Court Says Vaccine Not Responsible for Autism.. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/health/1...ccine.html?_r=1

I guess they couldn't prove their claim... Or, the judge must be on the take of big pharma.


PS>I know, I'm an alien agent...

The Flawed Theory Behind Vaccinations, and Why MMR Jabs Endanger Your Child's Health

'Conventional medical doctors around the world (and the drug companies that support them) want all children to be vaccinated against measles, mumps, HPV, chicken pox and literally over a hundred other diseases. Bill Gates even supports the effort to "eradicate" disease from our planet by vaccinating people in developing nations.

It all sounds like a noble goal, but like any such effort, it is based on an assumption. Upon closer inspection, that assumption turns out to be nothing more than blatant quacksterism hidden behind the technical jargon of modern medicine.'

http://www.naturalnews.com/025596.html

so dying or becoming seriously ill shortly after a vaccine and suspecting the vaccine of being the cause is as akin to blaming phantis for an illness that occoured shortly after visiting phantis, hmm you make a great comparison, particularly after the good guys won the court case.
regardless of how many people get ill shortly after a vaccine, proving the vaccine was the cause is 'scientifically' impossible
its rather like getting a headache shortly after being whacked in the head, you can't prove scientifically that the whack was the cause, you may have got the headache anyway

This post has been edited by js1000 on Feb 13 2009, 06:46 AM

Look, if you can't or don't want to connect the APPROPRIATE dots, what can I say...

Here's a disease. Here'a magic potion made of spider's web, a bats blod, and ground magic crystals. Someone claims that the latter is a cure. Much like homeopathy is sold today. Butl let's say this magic potion is pushed by someone with a couple letters after his name. However here are some important steps:

You do CONTROLLED studies (find out what this means). IF in the studies produce POSITIVE results, the potion is introduced to the general public where further tests & observations take place (especially with certain new cancer drugs).

THEN, you measure the following: How many people died before, without this magic potion and how many are dying after they take it. If you have a positive NET result, you use that friking potion.

I had a very good friend who died of breast cancer. She agreed to undergo new "experimental" treatments that, eventually, did not work for her. Tamoxifen, one of them, has saved many other lives. Is it perfect? No. But, like vaccines, they have saved many, many, many, many lives.



PS. To post below. No, those judges should be made an example of punishment. Yes, the pharma companies could try to do the same. As I suppose those who make dubious claims about holistic, new age "treatments", and or sue for "damages." Corruption and immoral people exist on both sides. I just think that for the most part we have derived great benefits from our scientific research and our system of testing & creating new drugs.

Who claims that no medicine has killed no person??? Is this what you're reading in my posts???

and slightly off topic but on the subject of court cases

Two judges pleaded guilty on Thursday to accepting more than $2.6 million from a private youth detention centre in Pennsylvania in return for giving hundreds of youths and teenagers long sentences.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090213/tod-o...es-b7e5c6f.html

i doubt the pharma companies would consider such a move

This post has been edited by js1000 on Feb 13 2009, 11:06 AM

that may well be the case i can't for sure say they havn't helpled some people, but to dismiss out of hand the possibility that they may have damaged others is wrong, those that choose not to vaccinate should be left alone and not pressurised into doing so by doctors trying to meet targets, and legislation attempting to make vaccinations mandatory

corruption and immoral people do exist on both sides but someone running a shop selling alternative treatments is unlikely to be financialy powerful enough to lean on a judge or influence policies/politicians. why do you refer to claims made by those promoting alternative medicine as dubious and why refer to it as new age, there's nothing new age about it as for dubious the same could be said of lots of accepted drugs that doctors push out. also you mention corrupt people on both sides, well why does there have to be sides, why can't people accept both are required its great to have more options. i feel big pharma tries to discredit alternatives in order sell more of their products(control, power, money). some herbal remedies don't work loads of conventional drugs don't work also, the difference is if i recomend a herbal remedy to you which you try and it doesn't work, you won't suffer any side effects and would have lost nothing trying, example if i say to you peppermint works for me when i'm bloated or have a stomach ache, i've no scientific evidence to back this up only my word, would you recomend i take motilium instead as it is scientifically proven?

How do you convince me and others to accept a treatment? If it involves a massage (aaaaaaaaaaah) that supposedly cures baldness, there's no harm trying it.

But if it involves risk, then I'd like to know: has there been a control group study? Have the experts who've spent 20 years being educated reviewed this?

Is there a placibo effect?

The big pharm co want to make lots of $$$. So is this crook on tv who peddles books, drugs, and magical ether as a cure-all. And, he doesn't have to come up with serious studies to provide proof of his claims????!!! Is this a better way??? Not for me.

I know that the medical system--how imperfect and flawed there is--has a proven results of longer life with less pain. 100 years ago (how old are you now?) you'd be in middle age! And, perhaps crippled by Polio.

Pepermint works for me too Yet, there's scientific evidence for it. Would you take another magic potion I'm selling? [please say, yes, I'm trying to launch a business... ]

Btw. I haven't forgotten that you're buying beers one of these days!

when ever i watch a documentary about bush/tribal people i'm always amazed at how none of them are obese or suffer from heart disease, cancer is none existent among them, no polio, yet none of them are vaccinated and to cure any illnesses among them they use herbs, how do they know what to use and what works ? there are no scientists among them to scientifically prove what they're using works.

i would trust someone offering alternative treatments(i know there are some charlatans among them) before i'd heed the advice of a doctor(target driven) having seen the amount of people damaged by doctors and an increasing number of people who are dependent on medication for the rest of their lives.

now regarding how do i convince you to accept a treatment, well how does big pharma ? if they are doing so via scientific evidence then they have no need to make things mandatory. if i recomend something that worked for me, it makes no difference to me if you try it or not(no incentive) however you're not likely to suffer long term side effects like you would from established conventional medicines