The following are a series of questions and statement often made by those in favor of vaccinating: 1) If it werent for vaccines, then diseases like polio would still be running rampant to this day. The diseases for which vaccines were developed had declined by 70-90+% from the 1800s PRIOR to the introduction of the vaccines (See the US Department of the Census vital statistics, and the British Commonwealth Yearbook, and the Vital Statistics of England and Wales). For instance, we are told that children died from measles before the vaccine, but look at the statistics from the US Bureau of the Census: Deaths from measles per 100,000 of US population 1900: 14 1910: 10 1920: 1930: 3 1940: 1950: 1960: 1970: 1980: etc. And yet the vaccine did not become available until 1963. The declining of the diseases were a result of superior living conditions, such as cleaner water supplies, cleaner sewage and drainage, and an overall superior availability of nutrient dense food. 2) Youre at fault for not vaccinating your child. It is causing all of the measles and pertussis outbreaks! According to statistics, the majority of outbreaks occur in populations where the majority of individuals were previously vaccinated. . There are outbreaks in vaccinated populations. Vaccinated individuals dont do any better in an outbreak than unvaccinated. The largest clinical trial ever done on any medicine proves this. The University of Michigan, 1955, Francis, etals study on the Salk polio vaccine. It was done on over 1,000,000 children, with 750,000 children used as placebo. During the 6 months of the study, an average of 57 of every 100,000 vaccinated children got polio, and 54 of every 100,000 children in the placebo group got polio. A recent study published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences for instance, found that, despite more than 50 years of population-wide vaccination, cases of whooping cough are on the rise. The culprit? Antigens of Bordetella pertussis that not only are completely ineffective at preventing infection with Bordetella parapertussis, a whooping cough bacterium similar to B. pertussis, but actually promote it by interfering with the bodys natural infection clearance protocols. nbcnews/health/cold-flu/whooping-cough-vaccine-may-not-halt-spread-illness-f2D11655363 ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20200027 wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article.htm politicalblindspot/data-reveals-measles-outbreaks-have-nothing-to-do-with-non-vaccination-trends/ greenmedinfo/blog/2013-measles-outbreak-failing-vaccine-not-failure-vaccinate1 activistpost/2014/03/new-york-measles-outbreak-90-vaccinated.html 3) By me vaccinating my children, I am providing your children with herd immunity Herd immunity via vaccine is a myth. To support the idea of herd immunity, you must also believe that those who are vaccinate cannot contract the disease in which they have been vaccinated for; those who have been vaccinated cannot carry the disease in which they have been vaccinated for; and cannot spread the disease in which they have been vaccinated for. There was a study conducted on baboons last year. The baboons were given the pertussis vaccine, and then exposed to pertussis. The baboons carried the virus in their lungs for several weeks after exposure. pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/20/1314688110 3) The levels of formaldehyde in a vaccine are lower than what we produce in our body on a regular basis. You cannot inject substances that already exist in the body, as it most often creates an imbalance. Just as in the false claim that eating tuna with mercury contamination s the same as injecting Thimerosal, and just as they claim eating a muffin with baking powder is the same as injecting aluminum adjuvants. It is physiologically and biologically not the same thing. There are no actual safety studies This claim stands on such unscientific and irresponsible lunacy. Formaldehyde of the chemically manufactured version is obviously not the same exact chemical as is the type produced in the body through metabolism, and that would be impossible. 4) The amount of mercury in a vaccine is less than what we eat in a can of tuna! The amount of mercury varies, depending on the vaccine. However, there are multiple differences between the two forms of mercury, and how its absorbed. When we ingest food that contains mercury, it travels and is filtered through our bodys natural filtration system. When its injected, it bypasses our natural filtration system, and finds a home in our fat and muscle tissues; including our brain. A review by Dr. Paul G. King has proven otherwise, showing that ethylmercury is first metabolized by the body into toxic methylmercury, which is then metabolized into inorganic mercury. The abstract from that study states the following: In the rat study, which Dr. King cites, the lab rats were raised for the purpose of this study and had no reported mercury levels in their blood before the experiment. There were three groups in the study: 1. A test group of Thimerosal-(ethylymercury)-treated rats; 2. A test group of methylmercury-chloride-treated rats; and 3. A control group of rats treated with a water placebo. At the end of the experiment, as expected, the water-treated control group had no reported levels of mercury in their blood or organs. The group treated with methylmercury chloride (which vaccine purveyors routinely sound bite as the harmful organic mercury as compared to the safe Thimerosal, ethylmercury), as expected, had both methylmercury and inorganic mercury in their blood and organs. And goes on to conclude: In laymans terms, these studies, as brought to light by Dr. King, establish that ethylmercury (Thimerosal), a supposedly harmless compound of mercury according to the vaccine establishment, is converted in the rat and apparently in the human infant into methylmercury which, the establishment admits is a harmful form of mercury. It is then further reduced to the long-term most harmful, inorganic mercury that bioaccumulates in the tissues and organs. Based on these findings, we can conclude that injecting the Thimerosal (ethylmercury), found in flu shots, into pregnant women (exposing the in utero fetus to mercury [see Table I on page 15 of Dr. Kings posting (dr-king/docs/110915_PGKReviewOfUSSubmissionToUNEP_b.pdf)] 5) There is no mercury in vaccines. It has all been phased out. Oh, but it hasnt! In fact, its still regularly added to the influenza vaccine, and is active in other vaccines, hidden under other titles. The FDA themselves have gone on to say the following: While the use of mercury-containing preservatives has declined in recent years with the development of new products formulated with alternative or no preservatives, thimerosal has been used in some immune globulin preparations, anti-venins, skin test antigens, and ophthalmic and nasal products, in addition to certain vaccines, right on its Thimerosal in Vaccines page which can be found here: fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228 pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/121/2/e208.full?sid=9a37d1db-5082-4a07-abdb-4807dd9e61d0 6) The mercury in vaccines is good for you, since it produces an immune response. There are absolutely no studies that show that mercury, a toxic substance, is good for you. In fact, just the opposite is true. The study cited in the post above goes on to say: The antibacterial activity of thimerosal (sodium ethyl mercury thiosalicylate) is attributed to the ethyl mercury cation that dissociates from the thimerosal molecule. By 1999, expanding recommendations for infant vaccination meant that US children who received a complete series of vaccines that contained thimerosal potentially received up to 187.5 μg of ethyl mercury during the first 6 months of life.1-3 This cumulative exposure could exceed the US Environmental Protection Agencys recommended safe intake level, estimated in 1997 to be no more than 0.1 μg of mercury per kg of body weight per day.4 This observation led to a recommendation by the American Academy of Pediatrics that thimerosal be removed from all vaccines that are administered to infants in the United States. Yet, it has not been removed. The EPA themselves acknowledge the toxic effects of mercury: epa.gov/hg/effects.htm -A Braun
Posted on: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:45:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015