Truth about vaccinations quotes

[alwayssaythanku]

These are quoted from www.vaccinetruth.org

"Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world, indeed its the only thing that ever does." Margaret Mead

For us to bombard a newborn baby with a whole battery of vaccines as, in effect, their very first immunologic experience I think is reckless beyond measure. I would say it borders on the criminal.
Dr. Moscowitz

Cost for vaccinations: $10.00
Cost of trip to McDonalds after vaxing: $10.00
Cost of hospitalization after reacting to vax: $300,000.00*
Cost of avoiding vaxes and knowing your child never reacts: PRICELESS

• Actual bill United States

What is the name of the test that can be given to determine if a child can safely receive a vaccine?

It's called a breath test. You hold a mirror in front of the child and if condensation appears, they are still alive and cannot "safely" receive a vaccine.

Steve

Vaccination is a medical procedure that causes permanent and irreversible modification of the immune system

"The only shot my son needs is a shot at the future."

......Lori Mcilwain

Modern medicine" may well be defined as "the experimental study of what
happens when poisonous chemicals are placed into malnourished human
bodies." A. Saul Contributing Editor,
Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (www.orthomed.org)

You can always put the vaccines in... but you can never take them out.

But always - YOU haven't really said much, apart from trying to rubbish what happy has said "Nuff said" etc etc - all you've done is copied and pasted from websites!

pinkdiamond, oops was talking to astu when she made her last 2 posts, not to hmb.

Socci - I'd say her posts where very trollish - classic troll behaviour - posting something to DELIBERATELY cause an argument - she didn't even put any comments of her (I pressume it's a 'her') own onto her first post - just posted someone elses very outspoken comments on it.

I'd like to see the rest of the comments on the pages she's take some of her 'opinions' from - it's a bit like when you read stuff in the media - often they'll only quote the bits that have a real impact - anything that 'balances' out the arguments/points in question are usually ommitted

Message withdrawn

The Lancet is on the net as well. Does that mean its not worth reading? I have posted loads of information and perhaps I should have paraphrased it in my own words. But why bother. It was much better written in its own form. We have a tendency to believe only what the "experts" say. What makes an expert? Is an expert someone who works for a drug company? Is an expert someone who is being funded to do targeted research in a university? You arent going to get the kind of information I have posted from mainstream media and libraries. It offers an alternative view and is in my opinion completely plausible. Cases of parents whose children were irreparably damaged are on the net. Are they experts? Or should we take what happened to their kids with a grain of salt. I dont have their personal phone numbers to contact them to come onto mumsnet and talk to us. Though I saw a thread in the health section a few days back of a woman whose child did suffer after jabs. The vaccination question comes down to your belief system in a big way. I dont believe drug companies are there for OUR benefit. I dont believe doctors always give us what is correct for our ailments. I dont believe there is anything that me as a non-clinically trained person, cannot figure out. The net provides masses of information we didnt have 20 years ago. Its not all false and with common sense the wheat can be separated from the chaff

The trouble is ast is that you need to be able to argue your points with backing and well reasoned arguements rather thatn posting a whole lot of stuff that I for one couldnt face reading.

always - why not just post your OWN opinion - with links to the websites that 'agree' with your opinion rather than just copy and pasting someone' elses words.

For starters you're breaking copyright by not acknowledging/linking to where most of the stuff came from - and put into your own words it's MUCH easier to express what you really think.

I've been using the internet since 1994 - so over 10yrs now - and even I can't always distinguish the 'wheat from the chaff' as you so put it.

I can with some things as I have my own experiences and knowledge of them, but for things that I'm merely interested in, and not actually 'experienced' in makes it much harder.

True, people can always mislead, but it helps if you understand the basics of biology when you analyse information. There are credible refernces on the net and also a load of cobblers. You seem incapable of telling one from the other. I have asked for peer reviewd refernces and you are unable to presnt them. So you choose to attack me personally. You will never change peoples views if you act like an arse and quote things thatyou don't understand.

Tell me, out of interst, what is the Th1 side of the immune system, and what does it do? How do T killer cells differ from B cells? What is the difference between a phagocyte and a lymphocyte (and the latter is just A level) Do it now, quickly, without cut and pasting....amaze me with your understanding, impress me!

i agree, i gave up on this thread ages ago because I couldn't be bothered to wade through the books.

That's why God invented links - then people have the choice to pursue it if they're interested.

Sorry,was agreeing with Hercules if that wasn't very clear (feeling particularly inchoherent atm!)

I hate arguments, so I usually stay away from stuff like this, but I just have to say that I think hmb is being amazingly patient in the face of spectacular ignorance. How can we be expected to take quotations from the Idaho Gazette from 2002 seriously? I can't possibly bring myself to listen to theories on immunology seriously when they are being posted by someone who is clearly absolutely clueless about even the most basic biology. As Gwenick says, you can find anything on the web if you look; that doesn't mean it's right.

AnnieQ: you could be right, but it's not unheard of. One of my very early threads (under the name of GeorginaA) was diving straight into a Nstl thread

And yes, I got slaughtered....

Message withdrawn

Oops... I was starring out the 'e'

{whisper} Nestle {whisper}

Actually, scratch that... it was actually quite a tame thread on rereading - obviously the memory of it was more heated than the actuality!!

hmb - I like your style!

I've tried to make that point before - I'm not saying everyone is clueless and couldn't possibly understand what they read in research papers but there is a skill to reading such things and it does require some knowledge of the subject and of what constitutes a good RCT in order to be able to pick out 'the wheat from the chaff'.

I find some research papers incredibly hard going and I've got a physiology/pharmacology degree so I find it hard to believe that the average lay person fully understands everything they read. What's the point in having 'experts' if we all think we can understand absolutely everything ourselves? I don't pretend to know everything about vaccines despite my medical background so would therefore never insult someone, say like jimjams or hmb, by trying to argue with them!

Message withdrawn

well this thread has gone a bit barking, but i am interested in anything (reliable) that anyone has on th1, th2 cells, vaccination and autism, and diabetes in particular. so if anytone has access to anything interesting please can they post a link or email it to me- cheers. hmb you don't want me to tell you about B and T cells do you (actually used to hate teaching all that as I only ever did it for easter revision - and edexcel - which I taught 99% of the time had dumped it).

astu - your alter ego isn't Steve Schindler is it?

Amanda

IMHO it/he/she is a troll

ooh jimjams you don't want to teach it for me do you? I'm doing that after half term.....sooooooo dull!

I'm no scientist and I admit a great many of these posts are beyond ne! but I do know that my dd's reaction to her 1st jabs at 2/3/4 months were bad and that the single measles mumps and rubella worked for her. I also know, as alwayssaythankyou has pointed put, that governments across the worls are developing as we speak all manner of strains of smallpox and other vile diseases as ' preventative measures against terrorist attacks' - well what fucking hypocrite bastards they are. Witholding separate vaccines for rubella etc with one hand and pouring millions into these despicable projects with the other. And as for the pharmaceutical companies, don't even get me started on their lying corrupt murderous methods. They are utterly indefensible. And before anyone shouts ' where's your evidence', just look on the internet and you'll find loads. BTW I hear Michael Moore's next film project is an expose of these very companies and they are , apparently, already quaking in their boots and lawyered up to their eyeballs.....can't wait....

LMAO@Donnie