Lets talk about vaccines.

t-dub

Vapor Sloth
Why is it so crazy to believe that an injection of antibodies could help some patients with heart disease? Unless you're biased? I think it's ridiculous to dismiss such claims out of hand- instead look at the evidence.
Absolutely, or even Psoriatic Arthritis patients like myself. I absolutely MUST alter my immune system chemically (with human monoclonal antibodies) or my disease and inflammation will rage out of control and cause much pain and damage. Yes the doctors don't understand exactly what they are doing, and yes there are unintended consequences for taking these therapies. But as a patient I informed myself to the risks/rewards and made a decision with my eyes wide open. It wasn't that difficult considering the severity of my condition. Hopefully my aggregate data will help make a better future for someone else, just like people who pioneered new therapies before I came along. Here is what they look like fighting cancer:

427px-Monoclonal_antibodies.svg.png
 
t-dub,

sublimationpurist

formerly stephenking
t-dub If I was in your situation I would have done the same thing. There's a big difference between issues like that and mass drugging entire populations like with fluoride and vaccines.

I don't believe anyone responsible has claimed that vaccination is a panacea. It's a vital tool in the continual battle with disease. Why has it got to be all or nothing? How is relinquishing vaccination altogether going to provide any kind of a solution? How is that an intelligent approach? It's based on nothing but fear. What's your alternative? Ride it out?
I have some difficulty properly communicating my original thoughts after receiving vaccines (mild aspergers/autism, I've had most vaccines), so I probably came across wrong. I merely want to point out the negative effects to get people asking these questions. I don't necessarily think all vaccines or bad or people shouldn't get any of them. I'm not claiming to be a doctor. I just want people to see the other side so they can make decisions from uncensored information.

I also am not one of those people who talks about master plans or anything like that. I think the most likely current reality is that Big Pharma, Big Farm (commercial foods), and all the other corporations are just driven by money and pushing as many products as possible, as cheaply as they can make them.

Capitalism may drive people to innovate things, but it sure takes a long time! The Earth can't take all this abuse.

It's impossible to account for the thousands of chemical variables people/the earth are now exposed to, in predictions or studies. I think the best bet is eating organic whole foods and reducing chemical exposure.
It seems the immune system plays a strong role in how the body reacts to arterial inflammation and build up. Why is it so crazy to believe that an injection of antibodies could help some patients with heart disease? Unless you're biased? I think it's ridiculous to dismiss such claims out of hand- instead look at the evidence.
It's crazy to research shots for heart disease when you look at what most people eat and all the drugs they take. But I know, doctors don't know anything about nutrition, and medical science is about pills and shots.

It's not offered to males here and I'm in a committed relationship, but I consider it my social responsibility to practise safe sex. If I can protect myself against HPV and instead I act a vector, well I think that just makes me a total arsehole. No question. It's a selfish thing to do.
But you don't even get pap smears. Here, the maker of Gardasil explains her vaccine:
In this segment she states that the HPV vaccines prevent abnormal pap tests, NOT cervical cancer.

http://www.free-press-release.com/n...pap-tests-not-cervical-cancer-1297697975.html

Read her statement about how she feels the FDA has given merck a ” blanket approval to use Gardasil® in males and females 9-26 years old without making it clear to parents or males/females that the only data for male cancer preventions is in MSM (gay men) NOT in heterosexual men”.
http://www.free-press-release.com/n...e-truth-about-gardasil-part-i-1297090964.html
 
sublimationpurist,

Frederick McGuire

Aggressively Loungey
Just a quick one (posting from my phone)
No, I don't think injecting mercury etc will help immunity, i think the active ingredients in the vaccine will help with immunity...
I have yet to see you post a study showing that the mercury in vaccines is actually doing more harm than good...

And that 100,000 vaccines figure was hyperbole from someone who was trying to relay the safety of vaccines, they weren't suggesting an actual 100,000 vaccination regime...
 
Frederick McGuire,

sublimationpurist

formerly stephenking
Just a quick one (posting from my phone)
No, I don't think injecting mercury etc will help immunity, i think the active ingredients in the vaccine will help with immunity...
I have yet to see you post a study showing that the mercury in vaccines is actually doing more harm than good...
And that 100,000 vaccines figure was hyperbole from someone who was trying to relay the safety of vaccines, they weren't suggesting an actual 100,000 vaccination regime...
The mercury is actually part of how the vaccine works. It's intended to suppress the immune system, as is the aluminum, with the idea that makes the antibodies more effective. Seems kind of like not breast feeding to boost efficacy of vaccines. I don't think they claim to know how that works, just observed it working I guess.

I've already explained a couple times now how the detrimental effects of the mercury are covered up in their studies: They are a week long with no unvaccinated child as a control.

The exact amounts that are dangerous are increased by the presence of aluminum, which they don't account for.

Mercury seems similar to radiation in regards to safe amounts. Some scientists pretend to know how much radiation is dangerous, but honest ones will tell you they have no idea. These are things you want to reduce your exposure too. There's lots of factors that can't be accounted for, and you can't account for all sources of mercury or radiation anyway.

The FDA now says cosmetics and silver amalgam fillings (after claiming them "safe") are highly toxic.
 
sublimationpurist,

WatTyler

Revolting Peasant
I should think it's considered bad form to add significantly points to posts after they've been answered- i nearly missed them.

We already have these things that defend us from the bad stuff, called immune systems. The immune system isn't understood by modern science, and you shouldn't go messing with it chemically.
But we have some understanding and do the best we can with that understanding. What you say is a philosophical position- "you shouldn't go messing with it chemically". Who says? Fuck them. If I need to save my childs life and I need to 'mess with their immune system chemically' then I will.
There are plenty of ways to boost your immune system but Americans just want to buy a pill or a shot for a quick fix.
Something of a contradiction with your last statement? If the immune system is as poorly understood as you suggest.....

But I won't disagree about the attitude of the general American population, from what I know. Though that's a very separate issue to the proven efficacy of the pill or vaccination. Just because something is proven to work doesn't mean that it will be suitable for all situations- I do believe there are times people seek medication when it's not really necessary and accept side affects that are not warranted, and for many minor ailments a more mild or natural treatment could suffice. But it doesn't result with me losing my faith in modern medicine. It's not all just a lie spread by 'big pharma'

But you don't even get pap smears. Here, the maker of Gardasil explains her vaccine
I explained that my motivation would have been to prevent my being a vector- which would see as my social responsibility if there were a programme to eradicate HPV and I were sexually active with multiple partners- rather than due to any fear of penile warts or cancer.

Hitler used Fluoride to keep his people docile and controllable. I doubt he drank any of that water. We do know Hitler took probiotic supplements, but they were pharmaceutical probiotics so he probably did take pharmaceuticals himself.
lol, I'd love to see your source for that (wait, don't tell me.... natural news?). Hitler was most interested in eugenics and the glory and superiority of the German nation, rather than as the leader of a drugged up nation of zombies.

You'd get better immunity just from eating organic whole foods and getting enough vitamin D.
Utter bullshit. Think about what you're claiming- you're citing individual studies and skewing emerging theory as fact. That's not right and it is just as bad as what 'big pharma' does. Natural News propaganda again. I'm not doubting there are many benefits to improving natural vitamin intake, and we need more research, but to claim vitamin D is a panacea is jumping the gun.

It's crazy to research shots for heart disease when you look at what most people eat and all the drugs they take. But I know, doctors don't know anything about nutrition, and medical science is about pills and shots.
Agreed that lifestyle should change first, but it doesn't make the vaccination 'crazy' or any less valid. What about the people who are sick and will benefit from the vaccine and the research into it? Not to mention our improved understanding of heart disease and immunity in a non applied sense. But because it doesn't fit with your personal values, you're prepared dismiss it?

I just want people to see the other side so they can make decisions from uncensored information.
No, you're fear mongering.

There's no 'censorship' of valid findings in western scientific research. It's against it's very principles and there are lots of mechanisms in place to try to prevent this, though business interests do continually try. Natural News otoh is highly 'censored'- more so and more arbitrarily than any scientific journal. It's sources for some of it's articles are highly questionable, and others highly spun and a misleading representation of the original research. It's not the objective 'truth' that you believe it to be IMO, though I suppose it is the extreme 'other side' of the argument designed to catch attention. It's important not to over egg the 'other side' as well. If you want an objective interpretation of the facts you need to read a little more widely IMO.
 

sublimationpurist

formerly stephenking
WatTyler I never said science journals are censored, I meant what the mainstream hears. The mainstream doesn't read medical journals, they watch the news which ignores Fukushima and talks about how successful the Polio vaccination program in India is going while the Indian people are suffering from a much worse disease caused by the vaccine. Just look at the name naturalnews and it should be obvious they are only covering one side of the story. But news on TV pretends to cover everything when they don't, that's what censored news is.

If you want an objective interpretation of the facts you need to read a little more widely IMO.
Only Big Pharma's solutions are accepted by the general public, and when have they taken a wide view of natural solutions? When they are trying to figure out how they can isolate something and patent it. Already said this, but doctors know nothing about nutrition, and neither does the news. Where does the mainstream get a wide view?

The reality, as documented by the American Medical Association's own journal (JAMA) in the January 1999 issue, is that there is no connection between death from infectious diseases and vaccinations; that's right, "none".

Since it's obvious from the AMA's own documentation that vaccinations have little or no effect on the outcome of infectious disease deaths, then there must be other issues at play. If one looks at the history of the 20th century in the U.S. then it isn't too difficult to see what has changed. This was the era of improved overall hygiene and adequate food.

It was when clean and abundant water became the norm. It was when systems to clean wastes from public water supplies became standard. It was when septic and sewer systems to separate people from disease-producing wastes were introduced. It was a time of relative plenty, when people grew larger because of adequate food. In other words, it was a time of relative wealth and public works for good water and sewage treatment.

This is the most likely reason behind the decrease in infectious diseases, not the medical system's vaunted vaccinations.
With the exception of 1918, when the influenza epidemic struck, the rate of deaths from infectious diseases show a fairly smooth rate of decrease from 1900 through 1980, at which point a slight rate of increase develops. This link shows the associated JAMA graph: (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/281/1/61/FIGJOC80862F1) .

Deaths graphed by groups of diseases show some variations, but interestingly, the most significant improvements are in typhus and dysentery (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/281/1/61/FIGJOC80862F4) . Both of these diseases show almost no deaths after 1960. Interestingly, there is no vaccination for dysentery and most people are not vaccinated for typhus.

Tuberculosis rates show a curve similar to the overall infectious disease rate. The death rate from pneumonia and influenza from 1970 through 1996 shows a general increase, in spite of the ongoing vaccinations for influenza and the introduction of pneumonia vaccines in 1977 and 1983.

Diphtheria shows its greatest decrease of deaths prior to 1920. There was a spike in diphtheria deaths during the early 1920's, shortly after the vaccination was introduced, and then the rate of decrease continued as before the vaccination's introduction. Whooping cough (pertussis) and measles showed the same general trend of decrease during the 20th century.

Finally, take a look at the chart for death rates from all disease causes (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/281/1/61/FIGJOC80862F2) . From 1900 through the 1920's, the infectious disease rate goes down at an impressive pace. This is a time during which there were no vaccinations against childhood diseases. The rate of decrease of deaths from 1940 through 1960 continues at about the same pace. Then, it starts to level out, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of children are vaccinated during this time.

Now, take a look at the same graph showing the death rates from all causes. This should make you nervous. The rate of death from all disease decreases slightly from 1900 through 1920. However, after this, when vaccinations start to be introduced, the death rate from noninfectious causes starts to increase. It isn't a huge amount, but it's definitely there. Most significantly, the increase in death rate from noninfectious causes starts when vaccinations are introduced.


A statement like that deserves some references- got any?
Ya, I've posted them at least twice already. My reference is the FDA website, but I'm too lazy to find the links again.
 
sublimationpurist,

Frederick McGuire

Aggressively Loungey
No, you keep claiming that the FDA have changed their mind, and that these things are now declared as super dangerous when they were called completely safe before, and all I've seen is the FDA saying its only safe up to a certain level, and laying the smackdown on cosmetics which were not within those safety levels.
And I haven't seen any links re silver amalgam filling so far as I can remember.
As far as I can remember, you made some claim about mercury in cosmetics,
I said they have different safety levels for different applications (cosmetics vs vaccines) and that I didn't see the hypocrisy,
And I don't remember you having a reply to that?

I kinda just need to vent here, I may offend you, so I'll apologize in advance, I don't mean to offend, I just want to unload this off my chest.
You are a perfect example of what really pisses me off about anti-vaxxers and CAM advocates/practitioners.
Everything just seems to be one big conspiracy designed to nullify any evidence I can provide (since science is so corrupt most studies can just be ignored)
You don't post your own evidence of medical studies regarding to what you claim, (I.e. mercury toxicity) and when evidence is posted to the contrary, it's just blown off as more corrupt science. No looking into the methodology of the study, no looking for strength and weaknesses of the evidence, just reject it because it doesn't fit within what you believe...
You talk about the evil FDA defaming good honest people, then you give the example of Wakefield... One of the worst possible examples you could give - a sign you didn't give very much of a look into his history, and were probably just parroting back something from natural news.

It frustrates me, because to me, heres what it looks like you are doing for a decent majority of this siscussion:
"no, I'll ignore that evidence... Because... Scientists are bad... Here's what natural news has to say on the matter."

Also, I call bullshit on what they are saying about those graphs.
The non infectious disease line is steady... Fuck off saying that that is a rise...(if anything, the rate today is slightly lower than the start of the graph)
And the infectious diseases are all going DOWN. It's funny how a graph showing infectious diseases going down is proof that vaccines are evil?
They are also saying that since infectious diseases were dropping before 1920 (and therefore the rate of death from "all disease") that an ants dick of a rise for non infectious diseases after that is EVIL.
Let's have a fairer comparison:
The rate of death for non infectious diseases was relatively stable up to 1920 when vaccines were introduced, after this, the rate of deaths for non infectious diseases was still relatively stable.

Basically, what I'm saying, is that all that analysis of those graphs is spun to buggery.
 

zymos

Well-Known Member
Ya, I've posted them at least twice already. My reference is the FDA website, but I'm too lazy to find the links again.

This is straight from the FDA's website. I'm not saying I agree with everything the FDA says, but YOU are the one saying THEY say mercury fillings are dangerous.

Based on this evidence, FDA considers dental amalgam fillings safe for adults and children ages 6 and above. The amount of mercury measured in the bodies of people with dental amalgam fillings is well below levels associated with adverse health effects. Even in adults and children ages 6 and above who have fifteen or more amalgam surfaces, mercury exposure due to dental amalgam fillings has been found to be far below the lowest levels associated with harm. Clinical studies in adults and children ages 6 and above have also found no link between dental amalgam fillings and health problems.
 

sublimationpurist

formerly stephenking
zymos I apologize it was actually the ADA that now recommends against using "silver" amalgam fillings.

Frederick Any improvements you see in the graphs are explained by the availability of clean food and water, which came in the 1920s too. I really don't believe in conspiracy theories, just have heard of the possibility of some. Look at this, the antibiotic resistance issue I explained earlier is now getting mainstream attention.

Is the solution to vaccinate against everything known?
The Director-General of the World Health Organization made news headlines nationwide recently when she described antibiotic resistance as a "serious, growing and global threat to health." Will people finally take notice?
Thanks to antibiotics, we no longer worry that common infections will kill us—or our kids. But the overprescribing of antibiotics is causing our bodies to become immune to them, meaning when we really need them, they might not work. This condition, called antibiotic resistance, could bring us back to the dark ages of medicine. And a recent report by a leading voice of the World Health Organization (WHO) warns that the problem may be worse than we ever thought.
“Things as common as strep throat or a child’s scratched knee could once again kill,” warns WHO’s Director-General Margaret Chan, MD. Without antibiotics, she says, “some sophisticated interventions, like hip replacements, organ transplants, cancer chemotherapy and care of preterm infants, would become far more difficult or even too dangerous to undertake.” She says this could be the end of modern medicine as we know it.
“For those of us in the natural health field, we’ve been sounding an alarm about the dangers of antibiotic resistance for decades,” says holistic pharmacist and best-selling author Sherry Torkos. “Obviously it’s been a silent alarm, because it has not been heard by many pharmaceutical companies, prescribing physicians or patients.”
Twelve years ago Stuart B. Levy, MD, of Tufts University School of Medicine told CNN, “We have patients in the United States dying from infections that are untreatable. That is unthinkable.” And the problem has only gotten worse since then.


http://www.wellnesstimes.com/articles/alarming-truth-about-antibiotics
 
sublimationpurist,

Frederick McGuire

Aggressively Loungey
My entire point about that graph, is that it was spun to fukken buggery.
You have a line that for all intents and purposes is essentially straight, and they claim it's shooting up as soon as vaccines are introduced, when it was a tiny fluctuation within normal limits.
Basically, whomever it was that formulated that analysis of those graphs ,IMO had a vested interest in bad mouthing vaccines, and this was another thing for them to twist into being against vaccines.
At best, IMO you can look for other reasons that the disease rate is dropping, and call it a huge coincidence that all the death rate were going down as vaccines were introduced, but in no way does that graph show that vaccines are harmful.

You say you don't believe conspiracy theories, yet every time you've been provided with evidence it seems to be just swept aside as a study that's been corrupted.

And yes, overuse of anti-biotics is becoming more of a problem in recent times, that's why there are measures being taken to try to reduce this.
First, we aren't getting immune to the anti-biotics, the bacteria we are trying to kill is.
And we are nowhere near the point where a scratched knee could kill, that's alarmist BS. I'm not saying it can't happen, but it shouldn't be anything that anyone should be worried about ATM IMO.
 
Frederick McGuire,

WatTyler

Revolting Peasant
For those of us in the natural health field, we’ve been sounding an alarm about the dangers of antibiotic resistance for decades,” says holistic pharmacist and best-selling author Sherry Torkos. “Obviously it’s been a silent alarm, because it has not been heard by many pharmaceutical companies, prescribing physicians or patients.
It's not really much of a conspiracy as the problems with antibiotics have never been suppressed whilst I've been aware. It's been recognised as an issue for a while; I certainly heard about it at school. The problem is that it's the only affordable solution we have- people demand treatment- and until we either say 'no' (which American popular principles don't agree with- 'my choice' and all that- so why should the asian countries where they're massively over used as a cheap solution?) or come up with alternatives then we're stuck between a rock in hard place. The 'mainstream' are looking for a solution. I'd be interested in Sherry Torkos' simple answer. Maybe he/she could email it to the WHO? (or did they just ignore it? wonder why?) ;)

I dislike this derogative labelling of 'mainstream' by alternative movements. I think it's fundamentally driven by a conception that the minority are somehow more intelligent and enlightened (and less to blame)- it's this whole asshole 'sheeple' attitude towards ones fellow human beings. They're like the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm.

I consider myself pretty mainstream, medically and in many of my beliefs and much of my lifestyle, yet I am still a unique individual, with character, perfectly capable of thinking for myself.

Mainstream in this context to me means rational, evidence based, supported and accountable. It does not mean blindly buying into everything that a corporately influenced government department or pharmaceutical industry (or CAM website) tells you- the 'mainstream' are trying to see through all of that.
 

zymos

Well-Known Member
zymos I apologize it was actually the ADA that now recommends against using "silver" amalgam fillings.

OK, then how about references for that statement?
Because here is the ADA's official position form their site:

Dental amalgam is considered a safe, affordable and durable material that has been used to restore the teeth of more than 100 million Americans. It contains a mixture of metals such as silver, copper and tin, in addition to mercury, which binds these components into a hard, stable and safe substance. Dental amalgam has been studied and reviewed extensively, and has established a record of safety and effectiveness.


http://www.ada.org/1741.aspx
 

crawdad

floatin
i did quite a bit of research into vaccines years ago when i first had kids, it mattered to me that i made the best decision since its *their* life and they trust me to make the *right* decision for them, time will tell. i had so many documents downloaded, some directly from the manufacture of the vaccines such as merck. the amount of misinformation and speculation (on all sides of the "debate") is massive, mostly fueled by our own incessant desire to be "right" about our instinct of what makes sense to each of us, and i think some of the "authoritative" quotes are subject to this as well.

many diseases were on a significant decline in our population *before* vaccines, it was likely due to improved living conditions, the information is out there and much was published in medical journals.

my kids (and about 15-20 of their friends of varying ages) are not vaccinated and in many cases never have been, very healthy children but its not due to vaccines only imho, its due to healthy diet (go figure!) so not having vaccines may not make you healthier or "purer" (as some might argue), its a lifestyle. i totally see the direct benefits of immunization in the general public but i dont agree with how its administered, both in delivery and medium. id be for vaccines if i was convinced that it was safe, not because people are not dying from them but due to common sense, i dont need fda to tell me that the amount of mercury in my fillings is "ok", eh.

mmr-ii contains plasma of coagulated blood from a calf fetus (info from dec 2010), does this makes sense for 1 year old humans? not to me, but perhaps im weird. for those who need it due to some condition, i have no comment as i only looked into the benefits of an already healthy individual. some of the inactive ingredients in some vaccines remain in the body for 14 yrs or longer, give the variance of one individual to another i just dont understand why we would take such risks given our current living conditions.

best to anyone trying to sift through the information out there to make a decision. i dont debate it, just my view on it. :peace:
 
crawdad,

sublimationpurist

formerly stephenking
I feel the same way Crawdad.

Here's one of the rare doctors who actually reads the literature on vaccines, explains all the issues I've brought up more clearly. I don't want to debate anymore because I already know where I stand on the issue, and I don't care to spend a lifetime picking through all the deception that I can see right through.

The Health Ranger interviews neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock on mandatory vaccine trials, fraudulent vaccine science and vaccine ethics

OK, then how about references for that statement?
Because here is the ADA's official position form their site:

Dental amalgam is considered a safe, affordable and durable material that has been used to restore the teeth of more than 100 million Americans. It contains a mixture of metals such as silver, copper and tin, in addition to mercury, which binds these components into a hard, stable and safe substance. Dental amalgam has been studied and reviewed extensively, and has established a record of safety and effectiveness.

http://www.ada.org/1741.aspx
Sorry, read this a long time ago and didn't remember quite correctly.

Submission by the United States Mercury Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee: http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances/Portals/9/Mercury/Documents/I...

Smoking Teeth = Poison Gas - IAOMT:

Health Supreme by Sepp Hasslberger: Mercury: Toxic Amalgam "Unsuitable for Dental Restoration": http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/05/11/mercury_toxic_amalgam...

Open letter to the EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection from Poul Moller:
http://www.laleva.cc/supplements/tobyrne_frommoller.html
After decades of denial about the toxicity of amalgam fillings, the United States government has announced its support of a phase down of mercury amalgam fillings. In addition to support for the immediate phase out, the U.S. spoke up for protecting children and the unborn from amalgam and recommended that nations educate patients and parents in order to protect children and fetuses. The U.S. also defends the human right of every patient and parent to make educated decisions about amalgam.

Charles G. Brown, president of the World Alliance for Mercury-free Dentistry, applauds this move by the government. He plans to broadcast the U.S. position to other governments around the world and encourage them to support the phase downs - leading to phase-outs globally.

The controversy over amalgam fillings has been ongoing for a long time. In 1991 the World health Organization (WHO) acknowledged the predominant source of human exposure to mercury is fillings. Retired European scientist Poul Moller found that mercury poisoning was the cause of health problems in his own family. In a 2002 report to the EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection on the dangers of continued use of mercury in dental fillings he said, "mercury in vaccines and fillings has been linked to chronic diseases in the elderly and the young, such as autism and Alzheimer's. In fact, it has been shown to affect every organ in the body."

A Canadian dentist agreed to speak out only if his identity was kept secret. He was given the name, Dr. Deepthroat. He said, "Most dentists are in denial about the toxicity of amalgam in teeth. Their blood pressure really goes up when patients talk to them about it. The American Dental Association (ADA) put a gag order on dentists not to talk about the toxicity of mercury in amalgam - and this is an infringement on the First Amendment; Freedom of Speech."

Dr. Deepthroat continued: "The Canadian Dental Association is an offshoot of the ADA. It has the same practices and policies - though it doesn't wield the same power. The subject of amalgam in teeth is a huge issue. It's been whitewashed as much as possible by the ADA. It's not only the amalgam fillings, but other metals that they use in the mouth that are toxic."

The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) has produced a video, Smoking Teeth = Poison Gas, that shows mercury vapor coming off a tooth that was extracted 25 years before the making of the video. The voice-over intones, "Mercury vapor comes off fillings every time you stimulate them through chewing, brushing, grinding, and dental exams."
 
sublimationpurist,

sublimationpurist

formerly stephenking
3 strikes, you're out. That document had nothing whatsoever to do with the toxicity of mercury amalgams to dental patients.
Nope, never said it did. It says they are phasing down mercury amalgam fillings. Of course while pretending they are fine.
 
sublimationpurist,

zymos

Well-Known Member
Nope, it says they are phasing down mercury amalgam fillings. Of course while pretending they are fine.
Nope, it says this:
We are aware that several delegations at INC-2 suggested mercury amalgam should not be included in Annex C, noting a number of difficulties and complexities related to this issue. The United States supports further consideration of dental amalgam by the INC such that the agreement is able to achieve the phase down, with the goal of eventual phase out by all Parties, of mercury amalgam upon the development and availability of affordable, viable alternatives.

Keep trying, maybe you'll eventually come up with something to back up your assertions...
 
zymos,

jahi

http://globalcannabismarch.com/WE_CAN_DO_THIS_.htm
GRAPHICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS VACCINES DIDN'T SAVE US

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html

The above graphs, based on the official death numbers as recorded in the Official Year Books of the Commonwealth of Australia, are taken from Greg Beattie's excellent book "Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma" and represent the decline in death rates from infectious disease in Australia. They clearly show that vaccines had nothing to do with the decline in death rates. (Note: Graphical evidence on the decline in death rates from infectious disease for USA, England, New Zealand and many other countries shows the exact same scenario as above).

So what were the true reasons for this decline? From his book 'Health and Healing' Dr Andrew Weil best answers it with this statement;

"Scientific medicine has taken credit it does not deserve for some advances in health. Most people believe that victory over the infectious diseases of the last century came with the invention of immunisations. In fact, cholera, typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough, etc, were in decline before vaccines for them became available - the result of better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal, and distribution of food and water."

Further Reading
Vaccines and Disease
Vaccination - Assault on the Species
The Polio Vaccine Myth
I thought this may be a good place for this? & medicine pharma or emergency in a accident can save life & limb & yes lobbying is corrupt & lies fraud corruption is rife & risking life in all big $ industries http://nukefree.org/
http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/fukushima1.html
http://www.garynull.com/home/death-by-medicine-documentary-wins-best-of-fest-award.html & http://fukushimaupdate.com/
HISTORICAL FACTS EXPOSING THE DANGERS AND INEFFECTIVENESS OF VACCINES
- In 1871-2, England, with 98% of the population aged between 2 and 50 vaccinated against smallpox, it experienced its worst ever smallpox outbreak with 45,000 deaths. During the same period in Germany, with a vaccination rate of 96%, there were over 125,000 deaths from smallpox. ( The Hadwen Documents)

- In Germany, compulsory mass vaccination against diphtheria commenced in 1940 and by 1945 diphtheria cases were up from 40,000 to 250,000. (Don't Get Stuck, Hannah Allen)

- In the USA in 1960, two virologists discovered that both polio vaccines were contaminated with the SV 40 virus which causes cancer in animals as well as changes in human cell tissue cultures. Millions of children had been injected with these vaccines. (Med Jnl of Australia 17/3/1973 p555)

- In 1967, Ghana was declared measles free by the World Health Organisation after 96% of its population was vaccinated. In 1972, Ghana experienced one of its worst measles outbreaks with its highest ever mortality rate. (Dr H Albonico, MMR Vaccine Campaign in Switzerland, March 1990)

- In the UK between 1970 and 1990, over 200,000 cases of whooping cough occurred in fully vaccinated children. (Community Disease Surveillance Centre, UK)

- In the 1970's a tuberculosis vaccine trial in India involving 260,000 people revealed that more cases of TB occurred in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. (The Lancet 12/1/80 p73)

- In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists, that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961. (Science 4/4/77 "Abstracts" )

- In 1978, a survey of 30 States in the US revealed that more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated. (The People's Doctor, Dr R Mendelsohn)

- In 1979, Sweden abandoned the whooping cough vaccine due to its ineffectiveness. Out of 5,140 cases in 1978, it was found that 84% had been vaccinated three times! (BMJ 283:696-697, 1981)

-The February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 90% of obstetricians and 66% of pediatricians refused to take the rubella vaccine.

- In the USA, the cost of a single DPT shot had risen from 11 cents in 1982 to $11.40 in 1987. The manufacturers of the vaccine were putting aside $8 per shot to cover legal costs and damages they were paying out to parents of brain damaged children and children who died after vaccination. (The Vine, Issue 7, January 1994, Nambour, Qld)

- In Oman between 1988 and 1989, a polio outbreak occurred amongst thousands of fully vaccinated children. The region with the highest attack rate had the highest vaccine coverage. The region with the lowest attack rate had the lowest vaccine coverage. (The Lancet, 21/9/91)

- In 1990, a UK survey involving 598 doctors revealed that over 50% of them refused to have the Hepatitis B vaccine despite belonging to the high risk group urged to be vaccinated. (British Med Jnl, 27/1/1990)

- In 1990, the Journal of the American Medical Association had an article on measles which stated " Although more than 95% of school-aged children in the US are vaccinated against measles, large measles outbreaks continue to occur in schools and most cases in this setting occur among previously vaccinated children." (JAMA, 21/11/90)

- In the USA, from July 1990 to November 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration counted a total of 54,072 adverse reactions following vaccination. The FDA admitted that this number represented only 10% of the real total, because most doctors were refusing to report vaccine injuries. In other words, adverse reactions for this period exceeded half a million! (National Vaccine Information Centre, March 2, 1994)

- In the New England Journal of Medicine July 1994 issue a study found that over 80% of children under 5 years of age who had contracted whooping cough had been fully vaccinated.

- On November 2nd, 2000, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) announced that its members voted at their 57th annual meeting in St Louis to pass a resolution calling for an end to mandatory childhood vaccines. The resolution passed without a single "no" vote. (Report by Michael Devitt)
http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web2.html
 
Top Bottom