Vaccination and Religious Beliefs

[Shadow Wolf]

Shadow, are you aware that the neurology, immunology of the adult, let alone developing children, the short-mid-long term effects of vaccines are unknown

We've had a number of vaccines for well over 100 years now. We have data on a the entire lifespans of entire generations.

How is this possible, to know the yet unknown?

It's not unkown when you have thousands of research articles spanning over century and all except a few make the same conclusions.

 

[Sapiens]

The aggression is yours, the condenscensing is yours, the name calling is yours. The paranoid delusion of others being dangerous and a threat is yours. Calling someone unhealthy, ineffective and defective is yours.

The simple explanation are that vaccines are ineffective and that the natural immune system rejected such toxins.

You are a troubled man that needs to point the finger at himself. Thanks for your time. Your arrogance is overflowing and there is no reasonable discussion with such a mind. Take care bud.

I will ignore your Donald Trump impersonation for the moment.

How is it that vaccines work well for almost everyone yet do not work for you?

If that is the case, there must be something idiomatic about your immune system that prevents your producing a correct response.

That something would be referred to as an immunological defect, just as my wearing reading glasses is a visual defect.

It that so hard to understand?

 

[Lighthouse]

I will ignore your Donald Trump impersonation for the moment.

How is it that vaccines work well for almost everyone yet do not work for you?

If that is the case, there must be something idiomatic about your immune system that prevents your producing a correct response.

That something would be referred to as an immunological defect, just as my wearing reading glasses is a visual defect.

It that so hard to understand?

I will say this one last time before we stop wasting each other's time:
1. Natural antibodies. I have never been sick one time in my entire life. Sure, that's not normal.
2 I donate blood regularly, my serum is as healthy as can be. Sure, being healthy is not normal anymore.
3. Ineffective vaccinations does not mean someone is unhealthy, someone's immune system is defective. You have gotten very desperate.
4. Vaccines are ineffective in many.
5. Vaccines produce different levels/amounts of antibodies in each individual.
6. The vaccinated can be protected for a short period of time, before waning, and become unprotected.
7. Unless you've had your titers test, you are likely negative for many if not all also as they've waned off.
8. There are likely millions of people in the world thinking they are positive for immunity and are negative due to waning and thinking they are lifelong immune. Then there are millions who think their vaccines will protect them from disease.
9. The vaccines could have worked and waned off.
10. Being positive and immune does mean someone is protected.
11. Being positive and immune does not indicate much. There are various strains for each disease, mutated and virulent strains derived from vaccines.
12. This is why there are booster shots. Antibody levels have waned significantly or are completely gone.
13. Every vaccination of the same kind is not identically the same.
14. Results vary in each individual. Each human has a unique set of genetics. Very little is known about genetics.
15. Antibody levels do not equate to immunity.
16. Immunology, the immune system, and pathology... there is little known still.
17. Perhaps my natural antibodies easily fought off the foreign invading toxins.

The last word is yours. Again, take care and I wish you and yours the continuation of well-health. You can wish me the continuation of being dangerous, unhealthy, defective, and a threat as it does not offend.

 

[Lighthouse]

We've had a number of vaccines for well over 100 years now. We have data on a the entire lifespans of entire generations.

It's not unkown when you have thousands of research articles spanning over century and all except a few make the same conclusions.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Redundantly saying vaccines did it doesn't make it so.

Perhaps you could look into the disasters over the century with vaccinations if your mind allows you not to bypass.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is inaccurate and heavily biased through conflict of interest yet again. Relaying the CDC and governments results that have not been replicated anywhere else is, is not sound science.
I'm not sure how you bypassed all of the science and research that disagrees with those percentages. One again, you failed to address waning, how long they are effective, how virus's mutate and change, how vaccines attenuate.
A fully vaccinated and boostered adult can get their titer test and result in negative. A boostered adult can get their titer test and be positive for 6 months, get another titer test and be negative. An unvaccinated child and adult can get a titer test and be positive for immunity. Being vaccinated and being immune are separate. Being immune by vaccination also is skeptical as to what someone is actually immune to and if they are immune. As positive results of immunity still yield one becoming infected.

What conflict of interest? Please elaborate.

I addressed exactly what you asked for. I'm verry sorry I didn't list and discuss every single vaccine in existence.

What sources disagree with those percentages? I gave you three entirely separate sources that all cite similar numbers. Does Natural News disagree?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Correlation does not imply causation.

And the correlation to be proven is that vaccines can cause autism. It has never been proven or properly demonstrated. The one who needed to learn "correlation does not necessarily mean causation" was the first guy to ever suggest such a thing, because he didn't even actually do any research or experimentation, did not properly consider a control group, and he lost his license to practice because of it. The evidence that demonstrates they are safe and effective is piled so high that it's pretty much on par with denying evolution.

 

[Lighthouse]

And the correlation to be proven is that vaccines can cause autism. It has never been proven or properly demonstrated. The one who needed to learn "correlation does not necessarily mean causation" was the first guy to ever suggest such a thing, because he didn't even actually do any research or experimentation, did not properly consider a control group, and he lost his license to practice because of it. The evidence that demonstrates they are safe and effective is piled so high that it's pretty much on par with denying evolution.

Why do you keep bringing up autism? You've already said you know it doesn't yet you do not know. Too little is known.
Shadow Wolf: "Vaccines do not cause autism. I know this. Wakefield is the reason why. There is no evidence due to the infinite unknowns of the human being so the case is completely closed."

Why do you keep bringing up one guy as if it proves anything? I know one thing the herd loves to do is make fun of and defame anyone they can as if it means anything other then them "thinking they are cool and a need to socially fit in with others of like mind." I know someone isn't cool usually these days if they aren't making fun of someone with a group they are trying to fit in with. It really expresses immaturity. That would be the equivalent of people using Poul Thorsen as if that means anything. I really didn't know defaming or making fun of anyone proved or disproved anything.
I'd imagine likely half the pharmaceutical industry folks would lose their licenses for the very same stuff you list.
If your mind allows you, perhaps you should think about the unsafety and ineffectiveness of them also. You're not any smarter linking something very skeptical and little known with the more sound science of evolution. It is a disgrace to actual sound science.

 

[Sapiens]

I will say this one last time before we stop wasting each other's time:
1. Natural antibodies. I have never been sick one time in my entire life. Sure, that's not normal.

Except in the rather special case of antibody-drug conjugates that allow selective targeting of cytotoxic drugs to cancer cells presenting tumor-associated surface markers, thereby minimizing systemic toxicity, there is no such thing as an "unnatural" antibody.

2 I donate blood regularly, my serum is as healthy as can be. Sure, being healthy is not normal anymore.

While blood donation is an altruistic thing, excessive donation that resulted in the removal of a critical T-cell might be your issue. I'm O-neg an confine my donations to directed donation on request.

3. Ineffective vaccinations does not mean someone is unhealthy, someone's immune system is defective. You have gotten very desperate.

Au contraire, it is symptomatic of an idiomatic condition that is properly referred to as a defect.

4. Vaccines are ineffective in many.

No, some vaccines are ineffective in some people, that's a very different thing.

5. Vaccines produce different levels/amounts of antibodies in each individual.

Again, not. SOME vaccines produce idiomatic responses in SOME people.

6. The vaccinated can be protected for a short period of time, before waning, and become unprotected.

There's that weasel word "can" again.. It renders your statement meaningless.

7. Unless you've had your titers test, you are likely negative for many if not all also as they've waned off.

Provide a creditable reference please. You "may" be, but if you are within guidelines it is unlikely.

8. There are likely millions of people in the world thinking they are positive for immunity and are negative due to waning and thinking they are lifelong immune. Then there are millions who think their vaccines will protect them from disease.

Provide a creditable reference please.

9. The vaccines could have worked and waned off.

Weasel word: "could have."

10. Being positive and immune does mean someone is protected.

Provide a creditable reference please.

11. Being positive and immune does not indicate much. There are various strains for each disease, mutated and virulent strains derived from vaccines.

Provide a creditable reference please.

12. This is why there are booster shots. Antibody levels have waned significantly or are completely gone.
That's what booster shots are for ... get yours!
13. Every vaccination of the same kind is not identically the same.

Provide a creditable reference please.

14. Results vary in each individual. Each human has a unique set of genetics. Very little is known about genetics.

True, except a great deal is knows (perhaps not by you) about genetics..

15. Antibody levels do not equate to immunity.

True, but you draw an erroneous conclusion. As Dr. Plotkin wrote (Clinical Infectious Diseases Volume 47, Issue 3 Pp. 401-409): "The immune system is redundant, and B and T cells collaborate. However, almost all current vaccines work through induction of antibodies in serum or on mucosa that block infection or interfere with microbial invasion of the bloodstream. To protect, antibodies must be functional in the sense of neutralization or opsonophagocytosis. Correlates of protection after vaccination are sometimes absolute quantities but often are relative, such that most infections are prevented at a particular level of response but some will occur above that level because of a large challenge dose or deficient host factors."

16. Immunology, the immune system, and pathology... there is little known still.

A great deal is knows (perhaps not by you) about Immunology, the immune system, and pathology. We don't know everything, but we know enough to dismiss your claims as paranoia.

17. Perhaps my natural antibodies easily fought off the foreign invading toxins.

Then either you are a mutant, the next step in human evolution or you are exhibiting a woeful lack of knowledge concerning how antibodies work. I suspect the latter.

The last word is yours. Again, take care and I wish you and yours the continuation of well-health. You can wish me the continuation of being dangerous, unhealthy, defective, and a threat as it does not offend.

I have no ill-wish toward you, just a rational assessment of the situation as described and a desire to protect society from you dangers of your ignorance. If you could, with full foreknowledge, go to hell in the hand basket of your choice and not take anyone else along for the ride, that would be different.

In any case, in the near future both antibiotics and vaccines will be replaced by the direct programming of your immune system using synthesized RNA that will permit your body to be well armed for it's battle with micro-organisms, viruses and perhaps even prions and plaques.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I said I would come back to this, so here I am.

The FDA recommends a maximum of 4.225 mg of aluminum the first "1 YEAR" of life. Currently, the vaccination schedule offers 4.4 mg of aluminum the first "6 MONTHS" of life.

If you want to use the FDA as a source, then let’s see what they have to say about vaccines and aluminum levels:

“The risk to infants posed by the total aluminum exposure received from the entire recommended series of childhood vaccines over the first year of life is extremely low, according to a study by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This study is important because it provides additional scientific information confirming that the benefits of aluminum-containing vaccines administered during the first year of life outweigh any theoretical concerns about the potential effect of aluminum on infants.

A previous study done by others also concluded that the risk to infants of aluminum in vaccines is not significant.

….Vaccines containing an aluminum adjuvant have a demonstrated safety profile of over six decades of use and have only uncommonly been associated with severe local reactions. But because the public has expressed concerns that aluminum in vaccines might pose a risk to infants, FDA performed an updated analysis of the safety of aluminum adjuvants.

The authors of the paper based their calculations of infant exposure to aluminum on the following updated parameters:

… The FDA study found that the maximum amount of aluminum an infant could be exposed to over the first year of life would be 4.225 milligrams (mg), based on the recommended schedule of vaccines. Federal Regulations for biological products (including vaccines) limit the amount of aluminum in the recommended individual dose of biological products, including vaccines, to not more than 0.85-1.25 mg. For example, the amount of aluminum in the hepatitis B vaccine given at birth is 0.25 mg.

Aluminum is found naturally in large quantities in the environment, often consumed through drinking water or ingesting certain foods, such as infant formula. Using the updated parameters, the authors found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant’s first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum, based on the minimal risk levels established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Furthermore, many infants might not receive the entire series of recommended vaccines or the particular combination of vaccines that delivers the maximum amount of aluminum. Therefore, it is likely that some infants will have even lower aluminum levels than calculated in this study and will be at even lower risk for exposure to aluminum through vaccination.”

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm


So while you are correct that the FDA recommends no more than 4.225 mg of aluminum in the first year of life, you are incorrect in the amount of aluminum that is allowed to be present in vaccines (< 0.85-1.25 mg). The FDA reports that the latest scientific information available indicates that there is no significant risk to infants from the aluminum content in currently used vaccines.

Fun fact: The Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry reports that an average adult American eats about 7-9 mg of aluminum per day in their food.


https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=1076&tid=34

They say that breastfed babies receive 7mg of aluminum, 38mg from formula, and 138mg from soy milk. What is misleading is the absorption rate which has been thoroughly researched and is about 0.3%. In reality, children are receiving 0.021 mg from breastfeeding, 0.114 mg from formula, and 0.351 mg from soy milk. So my question is, why vaccinate more than the max amount of 1 year allowed, alone in 6 months on top of the actual needed absorption rates and inevitable environmental factors? Needless to mention, this is the current. A few years ago, the aluminum rate was immensely higher from vaccines. To their credit, they have made the effort to reduce and remove some of the harmful poison. But nevertheless millions of children were already given the immense exceeding and exposed to currently unknown early neurological developments.

The amount of aluminum contained in vaccines is about equal to the amount found in 1 litre of formula. Apparently they ingest more than that from eating solid foods (see above).

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=1076&tid=34

This site has a list of aluminum content in each specific vaccine. They range from 0.17 – 0.625 mg/dose.

http://www.chop.edu/centers-program...ter/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum#.V_V3HzAVAic

The answer to your question is that your question is fallacious. We are not vaccinating infants with “more than the max amount of 1 year allowed, alone in 6 months.”

By the way, they put adjuvants like aluminum (in small amounts) in vaccines so they can use smaller quantities of vaccine , as well as fewer doses. Adjuvants boost the body’s immune response to the vaccine.

If you want to talk about mercuries, the unknowns about all of the other substances... let's do it.

I don’t have much of an interest in talking about something that was removed from the vast majority of vaccines a couple of decades ago.

You keep bringing up science this science that, science research yet have failed to provide the research that the immunology of the human is complete, the biology of the human is complete, that neurology is all known, that neurology of developing children is all known, all the near-mid-long term effects of vaccinations are completely known.

Why on earth would I need to do this? All that needs to be demonstrated is that vaccines do what they’re supposed to do.

You can provide biased charts with no sources all you want and if you think that is scientific research, so be it. You have also failed to provide research that neurological development in children is complete, that pumping all of these:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

Into the developing bodies and brains of children is safe. Any research you provide is pseudoscience on terms of immense conflict of interest. Please provide sound science that is available and allowed to be researched by the entire scientific community.

You’re confusing me with you. You’re the one who provided biased charts. I provided charts from scientific publications and organizations who employ methods designed to remove bias from research.

I have provided a great deal of sound science that is available to anyone with the curiosity to look for it.

Please elaborate on this conflict of interest claim you keep wanting to make. Please complete your thought.

You have failed to address all the cancers and diseases caused to test animals, why they are given to humans, and why you believe the human isn't an animal. Please provide sound research that we aren't evolved animals.

I directly addressed this when I talked about how oftentimes testing on lab animals doesn’t translate well to humans and that is why further testing is required after preclinical trials on lab animals. Lab tests on lab animals are a jumping off point to further inquiry.

You have failed to provide research on how the natural immune system is incapable of easily fighting off these diseases, how the vast majority who developed diseases survived them easily and became life-long immune to the real thing, how this translates to passing down genetically.

I’ve addressed all of this as well. Are you sure you’re reading my posts?

In fact, I don’t ever recall you responding to my post where I talked about how shingles (which is caused by chicken pox) can cause lifelong risks to those who have contracted chicken pox earlier in life.

Millions of children are, and have been messed up all around the world for over a century now. That is a demonstrable fact.

What do you mean by “messed up” and how can you demonstrate this? Do you have some evidence that indicates that children all around the world were better off before vaccines were introduced? I seriously doubt it.

One disease is allegedly eradicated by vaccines, thousands of more diseases arrive.

The discovery of new diseases is nothing new. I don’t understand why you would blame them on vaccines. What evidence are you basing that on?

As they say: "a cure for cancer or many other diseases would never be allowed, it would crumble and cripple the financial healthcare, government, and pharmaceutical system."

A cure for cancer would make somebody very, very rich.

You keep saying "vaccines did it" to everything yet provide nothing. Saying so doesn't make it so. In fairness, you have replied to everything but with no sound research.

Actually I did provide evidence backing up my claims in the hopes that you will read it. It’s a shame that you didn’t.

I am also waiting on research from the amount of "cases" you have used for statistics. Cases and diagnoses are very different.

You should read the studies I posted. They provide this information.

A common rash is reported to the CDC as a "case" of measles yet never diagnosed as measles.

You know this how?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Once again, where are these vaccines replicated or tried to replicate? Where are the replicated results?

Indeed, that method is done by all of the great amounts of sound science while you are failing to admit that that method does not apply to the common vaccines.

It is deceitful to try and hide vaccines in with actual sound science and methodology.

Vaccines are tested over and over. They are tweaked. Ingredients are added or removed to increase safety. You've already acknowledged this. One of the articles you posted even talks about testing the effectiveness of the currently used pertussis vaccine for Pete’s sake!

Again, I believe you are told something is science and automatically assume it is. It is one of the greatest tricks on the herd's mind. "Who doesn't believe in science? People are crazy if they don't believe in science." And you fall for it, not knowing this junk is not credible science and it's methodology is not sound science and is heavily flawed. It is relying ultimately on blind faith and not science. So how do you know that stuff? 1. You do not know. 2. Blind faith.

You are wrong. Comments like this are unnecessary and contribute nothing to the discussion. I think our discussion speaks for itself to your above comment.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is inaccurate and heavily biased through conflict of interest yet again. Relaying the CDC and governments results that have not been replicated anywhere else is, is not sound science.
I'm not sure how you bypassed all of the science and research that disagrees with those percentages. One again, you failed to address waning, how long they are effective, how virus's mutate and change, how vaccines attenuate.
A fully vaccinated and boostered adult can get their titer test and result in negative. A boostered adult can get their titer test and be positive for 6 months, get another titer test and be negative. An unvaccinated child and adult can get a titer test and be positive for immunity. Being vaccinated and being immune are separate. Being immune by vaccination also is skeptical as to what someone is actually immune to and if they are immune. As positive results of immunity still yield one becoming infected.

No it isn't. You can't just yell "conflict of interest!" and think you've made some kind of argument. Please feel free to demonstrate this.

I provided several different sources, actually. It seems the results have been replicated.

 

[Lighthouse]

What conflict of interest? Please elaborate.

I addressed exactly what you asked for. I'm verry sorry I didn't list and discuss every single vaccine in existence.

What sources disagree with those percentages? I gave you three entirely separate sources that all cite similar numbers. Does Natural News disagree?

Conflict of interest:
http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_conflicts/foundation/

Merck is the last pharm I'd trust. They are self-destructing with tons of legal problems. They are linked to fraud in many ways and with different drugs. They are under investigation for fraud on their MMR vaccine you list for its effectiveness. One should note that words are easily deceptive. There is a difference between efficacy and effectiveness. Efficacy is really what we've been discussing.

The 2nd link I didn't see any #'s. The third link was copied using the first link #'s it appears. The first link, well those numbers are under investigation of tampering so we'll have to wait the outcome.

Why do you keep bringing up natural news? I've posted one link about Bill Gates that was an intriguing read. I've used nothing from natural news.

 

[Lighthouse]

Vaccines are tested over and over. They are tweaked. Ingredients are added or removed to increase safety. You've already acknowledged this. One of the articles you posted even talks about testing the effectiveness of the currently used pertussis vaccine for Pete’s sake!



You are wrong. Comments like this are unnecessary and contribute nothing to the discussion. I think our discussion speaks for itself to your above comment.

Correct.

Tested over and over initially and presumed safe.
Found not safe.
Tweaked again.
Found not safe.
Tweaked again.
Found not safe.
Repeat repeat repeat.

I am not sure how they missed the original diagnosis of being safe and effective if they were tested over and over.
Is there a flaw in methodology? Did the science lie?

 

[Lighthouse]

I said I would come back to this, so here I am.



If you want to use the FDA as a source, then let’s see what they have to say about vaccines and aluminum levels:

“The risk to infants posed by the total aluminum exposure received from the entire recommended series of childhood vaccines over the first year of life is extremely low, according to a study by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This study is important because it provides additional scientific information confirming that the benefits of aluminum-containing vaccines administered during the first year of life outweigh any theoretical concerns about the potential effect of aluminum on infants.

A previous study done by others also concluded that the risk to infants of aluminum in vaccines is not significant.

….Vaccines containing an aluminum adjuvant have a demonstrated safety profile of over six decades of use and have only uncommonly been associated with severe local reactions. But because the public has expressed concerns that aluminum in vaccines might pose a risk to infants, FDA performed an updated analysis of the safety of aluminum adjuvants.

The authors of the paper based their calculations of infant exposure to aluminum on the following updated parameters:

… The FDA study found that the maximum amount of aluminum an infant could be exposed to over the first year of life would be 4.225 milligrams (mg), based on the recommended schedule of vaccines. Federal Regulations for biological products (including vaccines) limit the amount of aluminum in the recommended individual dose of biological products, including vaccines, to not more than 0.85-1.25 mg. For example, the amount of aluminum in the hepatitis B vaccine given at birth is 0.25 mg.

Aluminum is found naturally in large quantities in the environment, often consumed through drinking water or ingesting certain foods, such as infant formula. Using the updated parameters, the authors found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant’s first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum, based on the minimal risk levels established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Furthermore, many infants might not receive the entire series of recommended vaccines or the particular combination of vaccines that delivers the maximum amount of aluminum. Therefore, it is likely that some infants will have even lower aluminum levels than calculated in this study and will be at even lower risk for exposure to aluminum through vaccination.”

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm


So while you are correct that the FDA recommends no more than 4.225 mg of aluminum in the first year of life, you are incorrect in the amount of aluminum that is allowed to be present in vaccines (< 0.85-1.25 mg). The FDA reports that the latest scientific information available indicates that there is no significant risk to infants from the aluminum content in currently used vaccines.

Fun fact: The Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry reports that an average adult American eats about 7-9 mg of aluminum per day in their food.


https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=1076&tid=34



The amount of aluminum contained in vaccines is about equal to the amount found in 1 litre of formula. Apparently they ingest more than that from eating solid foods (see above).

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=1076&tid=34

This site has a list of aluminum content in each specific vaccine. They range from 0.17 – 0.625 mg/dose.

http://www.chop.edu/centers-program...ter/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum#.V_V3HzAVAic

The answer to your question is that your question is fallacious. We are not vaccinating infants with “more than the max amount of 1 year allowed, alone in 6 months.”

By the way, they put adjuvants like aluminum (in small amounts) in vaccines so they can use smaller quantities of vaccine , as well as fewer doses. Adjuvants boost the body’s immune response to the vaccine.



I don’t have much of an interest in talking about something that was removed from the vast majority of vaccines a couple of decades ago.



Why on earth would I need to do this? All that needs to be demonstrated is that vaccines do what they’re supposed to do.



You’re confusing me with you. You’re the one who provided biased charts. I provided charts from scientific publications and organizations who employ methods designed to remove bias from research.

I have provided a great deal of sound science that is available to anyone with the curiosity to look for it.

Please elaborate on this conflict of interest claim you keep wanting to make. Please complete your thought.



I directly addressed this when I talked about how oftentimes testing on lab animals doesn’t translate well to humans and that is why further testing is required after preclinical trials on lab animals. Lab tests on lab animals are a jumping off point to further inquiry.



I’ve addressed all of this as well. Are you sure you’re reading my posts?

In fact, I don’t ever recall you responding to my post where I talked about how shingles (which is caused by chicken pox) can cause lifelong risks to those who have contracted chicken pox earlier in life.



What do you mean by “messed up” and how can you demonstrate this? Do you have some evidence that indicates that children all around the world were better off before vaccines were introduced? I seriously doubt it.

The discovery of new diseases is nothing new. I don’t understand why you would blame them on vaccines. What evidence are you basing that on?



A cure for cancer would make somebody very, very rich.



Actually I did provide evidence backing up my claims in the hopes that you will read it. It’s a shame that you didn’t.

You should read the studies I posted. They provide this information.



You know this how?

Let's sum up what you've done here:

The recommended full vaccine schedule applies more aluminum than the max. You try to counter it by providing individual dose amounts and saying not everyone gets every vaccine. Well, you just proved that the vaccinated are still dangerous and a threat to particular diseases then according to you. Who fits in with the superior herd? Those fully vaccinated, those partially vaccinated? Those receiving full doses? Those receiving less/partial doses? What about the 10-30% who are vaccinated, think they are immune and are not? The who knows 80-85% of adults who had shots as children, have waned off completely, and never any follow ups? Who is in the superior and healthier herd?

You brought up an estimated fact of adults while we are discussing children 1 year and under all while bypassing the ingestion rate.

You have completely bypassed the ingestion rate as opposed to injection.

Most children are receiving the full doses and each recommended vac.

Shingles, chicken pox? Shall I fear those? Oh my!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23358727/

A cure for cancer will never be allowed.

I do thank you for your time in responding. It doesn't counter anything though. Add up each individual dose for the recommended full vaccine schedule in children by 6 months and let me know what it comes out to. I've already provided you with that #. Provide evidence that the majority of children aren't receiving the full recommended vaccination schedule also.

 

[Lighthouse]

I concede from further reasoning here. Thank you all for your time and dialogue.

 

[Unification]

It never ceases to amaze me how most still cannot see through the game that is being played. The mental slavery of the naive, guillable, conforming folks who are yet incapable to see. One day, one day.
A wise man once allegedly said, "I am awake."
Unfortunately, not many can say that quite yet.
The lost herd is heading straight into a ditch.

 

[Altfish]

Germany gets it right...

German parents face fine for refusing measles vaccination

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Hi everyone,
it's recently come to my attention that a number of common vaccinations contain cells from aborted fetuses. But I'm also aware that most people, including religious people, get vaccinated. I have a Christin friend who is a Pharmacist and who is anti-vax specifically because of this ingredient. But how common is it for religious people who are against abortion to get themselves and their children vaccinated?

I am only vaguely anti-vaccination. I would not see this as a factor, because it is using death to make people in theory healthier (they're not dying for nothing). Nor am I anti-vaccination because I believe vaccines cause autism. I think there is a rampant amount of dysfunctional parenting, and vaccines get used as an excuse, when actually the children of today are neurotic and spoiled by helicopter parents.

I am anti-vaccination, because I am anti-forced medicine. I don't believe anyone has business telling people they HAVE TO give some treatment approach to their kids. Child services in some cases tries to take kids from parents, because they are (rightly) concerned such drugs may have side effects.