From: earthaware2012 on
On Nov 23, 9:23 pm, premy2u <prem...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 3:44 pm, Ja...(a)nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > In article <FaCdndKRR8KyHXHXnZ2dnUVZ8oedn...(a)bt.com>, "john"
>
> > <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
> ...
> > The reality is that some vaccines have prevented millions of people from
> > developing terrible diseases such as polio (poliomyelitis). Polio went
> > from MAJOR public health problem to a minor one in very short time. The
> > reason is because of the Salk Vaccine. Smallpox is another example of a
> > disease that has almost been eradicated through vaccination.
>
> ...
> Regarding Polio:
>
> 1997: Polio is not eradicated by vaccination, but likely lurks behind
> a disease redefinition
> and new diagnostic names like viral or aseptic
> meningitis.......According to one of the
> 1997 issues of the MMWR, there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of
> viral meningitis per
> year in the United States alone.! That's where it is thought that
> 30,000 - 50,000 cases of
> polio disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination.
> "Today, various other forms of the word "polio" are still used to
> describe the effects of
> poisoning, though usually with regard to paralysis in animals. A
> search of Medline
> ("polio" and "poison") finds about 45 contemporary articles where
> poisoning causality is
> attributed to polio. The terminology found was:
> "polioencephalomalacia",
> 27
> "poliomyelomalacia", "polyradiculoneuritis", "neurological picture
> similar to that of
> poliomyelitis", "polioencephalomyelomalacia", "lumbal
> poliomyelomalacia",
> "cerebrocortical necrosis (polioencephalomalacia)", "Lead poisoning in
> grey-headed
> fruit bats (Pteropus poliocephalus)", "multifocal-poliomyelomalacia",
> "spinal
> poliomalacia", "Polio and high-sulfate diets", "atypical porcine
> enterovirus
> encephalomyelitis: possible interraction between enteroviruses and
> arsenicals",
> "polioencephalomalacia and photosensitization associated with kochia
> scoparia
> consumption in range cattle", "bovine polioencephalomalacia." Viral or
> aseptic
> meningitis, Guillaine Barre Syndrome (GBS), Chinese paralytic
> syndrome, chronic
> fatigue syndrome, epidemic cholera, cholera morbus, spinal meningitis,
> spinal apoplexy,
> inhibitory palsy, intermittent fever, famine fever, worm fever,
> bilious remittent fever,
> ergotism, ME, post-polio syndrome, acute flaccid paralysis! (Jim West,
> Health and
> Research Publications,http://www.geocities.com/harpub/).
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> taken from:
> "How to Predict Epidemics"
> Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D.
> Program Director in the Cell and Developmental Biology of Cancer
> Department of Pathology, Anatomy and Cell Biology, and Bioengineering,
> University of Illinois at Chicago
> Chicago, IL 60607
> Email: amani...(a)uic.edu

This points to a nifty trick used by "health" authorities on behalf of
the drug makers: Redefinition.
From: PeterB - Original on
On Nov 27, 11:23 am, AusShane <quar...(a)live.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2:11 am, AusShane <quar...(a)live.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 1, 6:15 am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
> > > "dr_jeff" <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote in message
>
> > > No proper controlhttp://www.whale.to/vaccines/never_unvaccinated_controls.html
> > > Efficacy based on antibody fraudhttp://www.whale.to/vaccines/antibody..html
>
> > "Whale's Law: If you reference whale.to in any argument - you
> > have just lost. "

Meaning you cannot cite published science addressing vaccine safety
and resort to attacking those who do.

> Sorry a better reference -if you wish to cite the opinions of a pig
> farmer as scientific evidence.

John is not a pig farmer and his website presents a wide range of
scientific evidence and dialogue by real scientists on the hazards of
vaccine. If you have a different opinion, that's fine, but attacking
those of us who do what you cannot do (i.e, citing published
evidence), only proves how desperate you are.

> Scopie's Law states:
> “     In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale..to as
> a credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you
> laughed out of the room.

Let us know when you can cite ANY source that rebuts all the points
made there, or will you ask that we simply take your word that
vaccines are not dangerous and unpredictable?


From: Mark Probert on
On Nov 27, 6:53 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 11:23 am, AusShane <quar...(a)live.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 2:11 am, AusShane <quar...(a)live.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 1, 6:15 am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "dr_jeff" <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote in message
>
> > > > No proper controlhttp://www.whale.to/vaccines/never_unvaccinated_controls.html
> > > > Efficacy based on antibody fraudhttp://www.whale.to/vaccines/antibody.html
>
> > > "Whale's Law: If you reference whale.to in any argument - you
> > > have just lost. "
>
> Meaning you cannot cite published science addressing vaccine safety
> and resort to attacking those who do.
>
> > Sorry a better reference -if you wish to cite the opinions of a pig
> > farmer as scientific evidence.
>
> John is not a pig farmer and his website presents a wide range of
> scientific evidence and dialogue by real scientists on the hazards of
> vaccine.  If you have a different opinion, that's fine, but attacking
> those of us who do what you cannot do (i.e, citing published
> evidence), only proves how desperate you are.
>
> > Scopie's Law states:
> > “     In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as
> > a credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you
> > laughed out of the room.
>
> Let us know when you can cite ANY source that rebuts all the points
> made there, or will you ask that we simply take your word that
> vaccines are not dangerous and unpredictable?

Why should anyone take your word that vaccines are dangerous and
unpredictable? You accept the cesspool known as Whale.to as factual,
when it is commonly accepted that the owner is a loon.

I guess you also accept the whale on the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion as being factual.
From: PeterB - Original on
On Nov 27, 8:13 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 6:53 pm, PeterB - Original <p...(a)mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 11:23 am, AusShane <quar...(a)live.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 2:11 am, AusShane <quar...(a)live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 1, 6:15 am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "dr_jeff" <u...(a)msu.edu> wrote in message
>
> > > > > No proper controlhttp://www.whale.to/vaccines/never_unvaccinated_controls.html
> > > > > Efficacy based on antibody fraudhttp://www.whale.to/vaccines/antibody.html
>
> > > > "Whale's Law: If you reference whale.to in any argument - you
> > > > have just lost. "
>
> > Meaning you cannot cite published science addressing vaccine safety
> > and resort to attacking those who do.
>
> > > Sorry a better reference -if you wish to cite the opinions of a pig
> > > farmer as scientific evidence.
>
> > John is not a pig farmer and his website presents a wide range of
> > scientific evidence and dialogue by real scientists on the hazards of
> > vaccine.  If you have a different opinion, that's fine, but attacking
> > those of us who do what you cannot do (i.e, citing published
> > evidence), only proves how desperate you are.
>
> > > Scopie's Law states:
> > > “     In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as
> > > a credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you
> > > laughed out of the room.
>
> > Let us know when you can cite ANY source that rebuts all the points
> > made there, or will you ask that we simply take your word that
> > vaccines are not dangerous and unpredictable?
>
> Why should anyone take your word that vaccines are dangerous
> and unpredictable?

They shouldn't. I cite my articles with published science because
that is what credible people do. You are not credible and so you do
not.

> You accept the cesspool known as Whale.to as factual,
> when it is commonly accepted that the owner is a loon.

Your poison the well tactics are well known here. When you say
something is commonly accepted, I fear the sky must no longer be
blue.

> I guess you also accept the whale on the Protocols of the Elders of
> Zion as being factual.

Sorry, never heard of it.
From: Jan Drew on

http://preventdisease.com/news/09/102809_9_arguments_to_win_any_vacci...

9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims


Since the flu pandemic was declared, there have been several so-
called
"vaccine experts" coming out of the wood work attempting to justify
the
effectiveness of vaccines. All of them parrot the same ridiculous
historical
and pseudoscientific perspectives of vaccinations which are easily
squelched
with the following 9 questions.


Claim: The study of vaccines, their historical record of
achievements,
effectiveness, safety and mechanism in humans are well understood and
proven
in scientific and medical circles.


Fact: The claim is completely false.


1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind,
placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness
of
vaccines?


2. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY
study
which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?


3. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence which can
prove
that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in
history was
attributable to inoculation of populations?


4. What to ask: Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism
of
vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their
pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution,
metabolism
and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any
vaccine
study?


One of the most critical elements which defines the toxicity potential
of
any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic properties. Drug companies and
health
agencies refuse to consider the study, analysis or evaluation of the
pharmacokinetic properties of any vaccine.


There is not one double-blind, placebo-controlled study in the history
of
vaccine development that has ever proven their safety, effectiveness
or
achievements (unless those achievements have underlined their damage
to
human health).


There are also no controlled studies completed in any country which
have
objectively proven that vaccines have had any direct or consequential
effect
on the reduction of any type of disease in any part of the world.


Every single study that has ever attempted to validate the safety and
effectiveness of vaccines has conclusively established carcinogenic,
mutagenic, neurotoxic or fertility impairments, but they won't
address
those.


***************************************************************************�***


Claim: Preservatives and chemical additives used in the manufacture
of
vaccines are safe and no studies have been linked or proven them
unsafe for
use in humans.


Fact: The claim is completely false.


5. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as
to how
injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to
human
health and prevents disease?


6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the
benefits
of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for
the
intended goal of preventing disease?


This issue is no longer even open to debate. It is a scientifically
established fact in literally hundreds of studies that the
preservatives and
chemical additives in vaccines damage cells. Neurotoxicity, immune
suppression, immune-mediated chronic inflammation and carcinogenic
proliferation are just a few of several effects that have been
observed on
the human body. See a list of chemicals in vaccines


Fortunately, the drug companies still tell us the damage vaccines have
on
the human body. People just don't read them. All you have to do is
look at
the insert for any vaccine, and it will detail the exact ingredients,
alerts
and potentially lethal effects.


See my latest analysis of the Arepanrix H1N1 vaccine for an example.


Any medical professional who believes that it is justified to inject
any
type of neurotoxin into any person to prevent any disease is
completely
misguided, misinformed, deluded and ignorant of any logic regarding
human
health.


***************************************************************************�***


Claim: Once an individual is injected with the foreign antigen in the
vaccine, that individual becomes immune to future infections.


Fact: The claim is completely false.


7. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on
how
bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous
and how
directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune
functioning
and prevents future infections?


8. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification on
how a
vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?


9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as
to how
a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does
not have
the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed
for?


All promoters of vaccination fail to realize that the respiratory
tract of
humans (actually all mammals) contains antibodies which initiates
natural
immune responses within the respiratory tract mucosa. Bypassing this
mucosal
aspect of the immune system by directly injecting viruses into the
bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system itself. As a
result,
the pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated by the immune
system
and remain in the body, where they will further grow and/or mutate as
the
individual is exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the
environment
which continue to assault the immune system.


Despite the injection of any type of vaccine, viruses continue
circulating
through the body, mutating and transforming into other organisms. The
ability of a vaccine manufacturer to target the exact viral strain
without
knowing its mutagenic properties is equivalent to shooting a gun at a
fixed
target that has already been moved from its location. You would be
shooting
at what was, not what is!


Flu viruses, may mutate, change or adapt several times over a period
of one
flu season, making the seasonal influenza vaccine 100% redundant and
ineffective every single flu season. Ironically, the natural immune
defenses
of the human body can target these changes but the vaccines cannot.


I have never encountered one pro-vaccine advocate, whether medically
or
scientifically qualified, who could answer even 1 let alone all 9 of
these
questions. One or all of the following will happen when debating any
of the
above questions:


- They will concede defeat and admit they are stumped


- They will attempt to discredit unrelated issues that do not pertain
to the
question.


- They will formulate their response and rebuttal based on historical
arguments and scientific studies which have been disproved over and
over
again.


Not one pro-vaccine advocate will ever directly address these
questions in
an open mainstream venue.