Vaccines are ineffective and dangerous

Post Reply New Topic

Odin wrote:

They got lucky and the people we trusted to watch for this kind of crap got sloppy. That and our "elected" leaders were morons.

This is for another thread, folks. It's been argued here before, I wouldn't really mind a new argument about it, but let's not hijack this thread.

Lotus- I'm sorry to hear about all of your family's bad luck with vaccinations. As I said in a previous post, no medical procedure is fool-proof and mistakes happen. It would seem that some genetic tendency in your family causes adverse reactions to vaccines. The docs should have picked up on that before they did. However, you are a rare case indeed, as the vast majority of people suffer no harm from vaccination and it helps to guard against disease outbreak. I will concede the point that perhaps more caution needs to be taken, and maybe it would be best to wait for some vaccinations until later if they are not immediately necessary.

I think the scientific evidence definitely shows that some of the older vaccines are ineffective, especially the ones pulled from the market due to efficacy concerns.

It looks like the government forced millions to take this vaccine without first checking to see if it worked. That's disturbing. If vaccines aren't tested first then we have no way of knowing whether the current vaccines are going to be effective.

logitechdog and smelena, I checked out the links you posted. It seems the vaccines had some benefit because the rates of disease declined after the vaccine was introduced and increased after people stopped getting vaccinated. So some vaccines may have some benefits although it doesn't prove vaccines effective because rates of disease have increased sometimes or remained unchanged after vaccination. What I'd really like to see is a good double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to confirm they really are effective. We would expect nothing less from drugs and other treatments. The research is clear that vaccinated people still get those diseases so no one is really immune. At best, their chances of getting infected are reduced. Strengthening the immune system with nutrients would also work without the risks of vaccines.

I'd be a lot happier if they were given to people at an older age and more spread out, and the ones that aren't necessary taken out (ie chicken pox).


As for reactions, I invite you to look up MeNZB (and on a lesser scale, Gardasil)...

Orwell, thanks for the info. on smallpox. I understand the logic behind it. That vaccine seems to have worked. I think some of the other vaccines were pulled due to being shown ineffective. They really should test them first. I'm going to look for a study on chicken pox vaccine. When I was a kid everyone got it so it shouldn't be hard to find out whether it works. I'm going to look for research on the long-term dangers of vaccines. I read of the dangers before but I didn't save the links and it wasn't from scientific studies. It was from doctor's interpretations of the evidence they read. The acute reactions are known and the government has paid out $2 billion to cover proven vaccine damage claims but the long-term danger is what I'm concerned about.

Here's statistics from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program website showing the government paid $2 billion in vaccine damage claims. The reason the payouts come from the government is because the drug companies made a deal with Congress to exempt them from harm caused by their vaccines. This is a big concern with me. Liability for harm caused by a company's products is what gives companies an incentive to conduct research and thorough safety inspections. Without liability, companies have every incentive to cut corners and skip safety testing. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation ... #post_1988

I never understood the whole HIV/AIDS thing. All I ever learned is how it is transmitted. I never got a good answer where it came from. If it came from monkeys, then wouldn't people still be getting infected from them. If so, then HIV/AIDS would reappear from monkeys even if you quarantined everyone with AIDS. You could kill the monkeys, but where did they get it from? And how did it jump from straight guys in Africa to gay men in America? I think infectious diseases are interesting and is a good area to specialize in because these diseases can be treated.

zendell wrote:

HIV is the human form of a very old disease chimps and other apes get called SIV, the S is for Simian. And what happened any ape that was going to die from it already has, millions of years ago. The ones that are alive now can handle the virus as a chronic disease, kind of like humans with herpes. Because they evolved that way. They're the decendants of the apes that DIDN'T die from SIV. People got infected by a practice in Africa called eating "bush meat". People eating chimps, and other wild animals. Getting the virus (actually a RETROvirus) can be as simple as getting blood into a cut. This went on long enough that the disease finally had a mutated form that successfully infected a human.

And it can just from straight to gay and vice versa because SOME people are bi-sexual. Or because a blood transfusion was made... or a needle shared... there's dozens of ways to get infected. The problem with AIDs is, there is no cure, and may not be one for a long time, if ever. Retrovirus' were pretty much unknown before this. I think since then they've discovered another one that causes some forms of leukemia.

Thank you. I realize that most people seem to do fine with them. At the same time, some people may end up having a more minor reaction and sometimes later in life. Makes it pretty much impossible to track....

Anyways, I'd just like to see more caution used and a lot less "the world is coming to an end so you must vaccinate" hype. And I think there are people on both ends of the spectrum making things worse. In other words, anti vac people and pro all the way people spreading lies and ignoring truths....

I would rather my children be alive and with autism than dead because of a disease that can be easily prevented! (and that does not mean I think vaccines cause autism, I do NOT)

Now you're getting into a completely different issue. I don't trust drug companies any more than you do, and I agree that more care needs to be taken to be sure they offer their products at a certain threshold of quality. We also need to watch the politicians a bit more closely, they sell their souls to the corporations rather quickly. BUT corruption or incompetence in a particular drug company does not refute the medical benefits of vaccination. Yes, some people are harmed from vaccination. Medicine is not a field with perfect and complete knowledge. We need better regulation on the drug companies to make sure that the actual vaccines produced really work as they're supposed to, but the practice of vaccination has been shown to be effective.

I don't know too much about the chickenpox vaccine, though I received it several years ago. Most people get chickenpox as little kids, and if you get it when you're older it tends to be much more unpleasant. From what my doctor told me, it was only intended to be used on people who went through childhood without going through the regular stage of chickenpox infection. Since it's not a fatal disease, there's no real reason to have a mass vaccination campaign for chickenpox, but I'm glad not to have to suffer from a severe chickenpox infection when I'm thirty, as my dad did.

I'll check out that information you provided about Ghana when I have a bit more time and see what happened, massive outbreak after a seemingly successful vaccination campaign is a pretty big failure. I'll also try to find a double-blind study for you on vaccination. I'm not sure if I will be able to find anything that lives up to modern research standards, as much of the epidemiological information on vaccination was well developed before such standards were rigidly enforced and vaccines are so widely established that research funds in more recent years have been spent on other topics, rather than reaffirming prior knowledge.

As far as the Ghana issue, I want to research that in some depth before getting into too many details, but at that time period the World Health Organization was getting pretty cocky in its ability to eradicate all disease. They got a bit sloppy, didn't always take the necessary precautions, etc. We can thank that generation of doctors and scientists for antibiotic resistance in bacteria- they all thought bacteriology was a dead field simply because of penicillin, and so didn't bother with it for a long time. I wouldn't doubt that the WHO screwed up royally in a Third World country, but again I need to go read up on that some more.

Thanks for explaining. Does that mean they can still get HIV if they eat that kind of meat? I guess we don't have to worry about that in America.

Here's a link to information I found about possible long-term damage from vaccines: http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals ... e_syst.htm

It's quotes from doctors at the top and has some studies below. I think the research on long-term effects only started a few years ago.

Two quotes from other websites about no long-term safety studies:
"There have never been any safety studies done for any vaccine in use today that would meet the criteria of scientific proof. All we have are epidemiologic studies, which are indicators but not proof in and of themselves." [Oct 2004] Letter to the British Medical Journal by Harold E Buttram, MD

"Safety studies on vaccinations are limited to short time periods only: several days to several weeks. There are NO (NONE) long term (months or years) safety studies on any vaccination or immunization. For this reason, there are valid grounds for suspecting that many delayed-type vaccine reactions may be taking place unrecognized at to their true nature. Dr Buttram MD

I really found the above hand-drawn scribble from somewhere obscure in the depths of the Soil And Health Library quite... on second thoughts, I'll refrain from saying it.

It was nice to see the later, realistic contribution:

Naturally, the former image, associated with holistic science(sic), must be true, so I would imagine that this latter image is part of the world wide conspiracy, particularly as it comes from Wikipedia, where 90% of the information is falsified, therefore whatever it says, you should believe the opposite. There must be some other objections to it that I am too dumb to understand.

Dr. Buttram is a prolific writer and has authored numerous articles directed at lay education. He authored a chapter in the book, A Textbook of Natural Medicine and is co-author of For Tomorrow’s Children, Guidelines for Future Parents and Our Toxic World, Who is Looking After Our Kids? Many of his articles have addressed the subjects of Environmental Medicine, Preconception Care and immune system dysfunction. In addition, he has given both lay and professional lectures on Environmental Medicine and Preconception Care. He is an affiliate member of the family practice department at Lehigh Valley Hospital in Allentown.

Dr. Buttram currently practices patient centered family medical care with emphasis on environmental and nutritional treatment approaches to both common and complex medical problems. He is particularly concerned about the health of today’s children and their special needs. His unsurpassed caring and sensitive nature make him the epitome of the rare breed of physician that puts the patient before himself. His years of experience and expertise in the area of integrative medicine make him the perfect physician to lead the Woodlands Healing Research Center into the medicine of the 21st Century. He is married to his wife Virginia and they reside in Blooming Glen, PA.


Got to take things with a grain of salt, specially when it's normally head to head, Woodlands Healing Research Center

Sorry, but this bit made me laugh.

http://www.woodmed.com/WhoIsDrB.htm
I see he likes chelation.

I laughed for another reason when I looked up where it was, and dublin & new britain is next to it :/ what's the chance of that

I think all three graphs are correct. My objection is the graph below starts with 1950. It deliberately leaves out the decline that occurred from 1900-1950. It is dishonest to deliberately cover up information that proves you are wrong. If you object to the former graph, then show me a graph or statistics from 1900-1950.

Last edited by zendell on 07 Jan 2008, 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.