Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Guess who is Sicker?

[BADecker]

There have been devastating cases in my country where the parents do not give their children proper vaccination and they get caught in diseases that are not easy to cure for children that are too small. Those children, if survive the diseases, are left with consequences that heavily affect their future lives. Vaccine sure holds certain degree of danger like in all of the shared reports above, but it should definitely be brought into consideration especially for very small children. If it doesn't keep us 100% safe at least it could do like 50-99%, which is still better than nothing.

Vaccinating in advance for no reason, when there is no sign of a major problem, is dangerous and stupid.

Proper hygiene and proper nutrition in a nation make it so that vaccination is not need.

If vaccination is used, the right kind of nutrition is doubly needed, to wash the contaminants from the bodies of those who have been vaccinated, and to rebuild their immune systems.

[CoinCube]

Vaccinating in advance for no reason, when there is no sign of a major problem, is dangerous and stupid.

Proper hygiene and proper nutrition in a nation make it so that vaccination is not need.

If vaccination is used, the right kind of nutrition is doubly needed, to wash the contaminants from the bodies of those who have been vaccinated, and to rebuild their immune systems.

Your first argument is correct but your second is much weaker.

Vaccination in advance for no reason is indeed stupid but if you don't do it you will need to spend massive amounts of money on the infrastructure needed to tackle outbreaks. Without routine vaccinations for everyone you would need your society to do the following.

1) Have massive stockpiles of vaccine ready to be deployed at a moment's notice.

2) Have and maintain a sufficiently robust enough health care system to rapidly detect outbreaks with the ability to actually administer those vaccines to hundreds of thousands at a moments notice.

3) Institute automatic and prolonged quarantine of anyone who arrives from a foreign country that is not completely clear of disease for up up to a few weeks. These passengers would also need to be almost totally isolated. They cannot be mixed with newer arrivals from foreign countries nor with people who got there earlier a week or two earlier and are about to be released. Alternatively you could make vaccination a prerequisite for traveling to or from countries where the disease has not been eliminated.

4) Have complete control of your boarders dropping your rate of illegal immigration to very low numbers.

Proper hygiene and nutrition will not stop a respiratory disease like measles from spreading like wildfire through a vulnerable population even if that population is in good health with good nutrition. The Amish outbreak a few years ago offers a textbook case of what that looks like. One Amish missionary came back unknowingly with measles to their mostly unvaccinated community leading to 377 cases before the outbreak was contained partially by willingness of that highly ordered community to obey voluntary quarantines and partly by the rapid vaccination of that community.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/2/18/amish-countrys-forgotten-measles-outbreak.html

Fortunately no one died in that outbreak which is consistent with the reported 0.2% mortality rate in healthy individuals in the first world but some people came near death. Here is a firsthand account from an Amish girl.

Those who were exposed, like Yoder’s cousin Mary Nisley, were put in a 21-day quarantine. She and her siblings didn’t contract the disease, but she watched uncles, aunts and cousins become ill. “People were sick. Very, very sick. Four of my cousins were taken to the hospital. A couple of babies were taken. Some people lost about 20 pounds,” she said.
...
hundreds of people lined up at Ivan Miller’s business, Mohican Wood Products, to be vaccinated during the height of the outbreak.

It would take billions of dollars, great political will, a population willing to obey quarantines when necessary, and a health care system comprehensive and smart enough to rapidly detect outbreaks in order to successfully shift to a reactionary approach to disease outbreaks instead of a population wide vaccination campaign. Should we do it? Very possibly yes but to know the answer for sure we would need to really know how harmful these vaccines are which we don't because our science is dishonest. We would also need a society ordered enough to accomplish the task. In the USA that seems potentially feasible. In Africa right now not so much.

[BADecker]

Natural measles is good, provided the people who get it are cared for well. What is proper care? Good resting time with good hygiene and nutrition. Why is measles good? It does a better job of vaccinating than vaccines do... without the deadly after effects. Properly cared for chicken pocks does the same.

Neither of these is deadly when proper care is used with them. And they don't produce the bad after effects of vaccines, yet do a job similar to the one expected from vaccines.

Modern medicine has it wrong, and all to make money.

[CoinCube]

Natural measles is good, provided the people who get it are cared for well. What is proper care? Good resting time with good hygiene and nutrition. Why is measles good? It does a better job of vaccinating than vaccines do... without the deadly after effects. Properly cared for chicken pocks does the same.

Neither of these is deadly when proper care is used with them. And they don't produce the bad after effects of vaccines, yet do a job similar to the one expected from vaccines.

In this my friend despite being correct on other topics you are wrong. Measles infection does indeed grant better immunity to measles then the vaccine. However, if one had to choose between getting vaccinated or a certain exposure to measles the vaccination is by far the wiser course. Avoiding vaccination is only logical if your chance of exposure to measles is low.

The best situation would be if everyone had no immunity to measles at all because measles like smallpox was dead. That outcome is within our power to accomplish.

If I were to argue this from a spiritual perspective it would be as follows:

Measles is not good or evil in itself it is simply a part of nature a parasite that lives off of a host. However, allowing measles to continue to infect humans is evil because it saps our strength dragging us away from the spiritual the good and back into the muck of the the material world and mere survival. It usually weakens us and rarely kills us and the best that can come of such a battle is that we don't die.

Humanity has been given dominion over the earth and with that dominion comes the responsibility to address evils that interfere with our spiritual development. Thus it is ethical to kill diseases like smallpox and measles and we have a duty to do everything in our power to vanquish them. Neglecting that responsibility is to let evil exist unopposed and is wrong.

This does not mean everyone needs to be vaccinated, but if we choose not to it must be with the ultimate aim of eliminating the evil via some other means.

[af_newbie]

Natural measles is good, provided the people who get it are cared for well. What is proper care? Good resting time with good hygiene and nutrition. Why is measles good? It does a better job of vaccinating than vaccines do... without the deadly after effects. Properly cared for chicken pocks does the same.

Neither of these is deadly when proper care is used with them. And they don't produce the bad after effects of vaccines, yet do a job similar to the one expected from vaccines.

In this my friend despite being correct on other topics you are wrong. Measles infection does indeed grant better immunity to measles then the vaccine. However, if one had to choose between getting vaccinated or a certain exposure to measles the vaccination is by far the wiser course. Avoiding vaccination is only logical if your chance of exposure to measles is low.

The best situation would be if everyone had no immunity to measles at all because measles like smallpox was dead. That outcome is within our power to accomplish.

If I were to argue this from a spiritual perspective it would be as follows:

Measles is not good or evil in itself it is simply a part of nature a parasite that lives off of a host. However, allowing measles to continue to infect humans is evil because it saps our strength dragging us away from the spiritual the good and back into the muck of the the material world and mere survival. It usually weakens us and rarely kills us and the best that can come of such a battle is that we don't die.

Humanity has been given dominion over the earth and with that dominion comes the responsibility to address evils that interfere with our spiritual development. Thus it is ethical to kill diseases like smallpox and measles and we have a duty to do everything in our power to vanquish them. Neglecting that responsibility is to let evil exist unopposed and is wrong.

This does not mean everyone needs to be vaccinated, but if we choose not to it must be with the ultimate aim of eliminating the evil via some other means.

According to your Christian ideology, didn't God create measles in the first place?  Maybe you should check the Bible for cures?

Or ask BAdecker so that he can ask God why he "designed" measles.

[CoinCube]

According to your Christian ideology, didn't God create measles in the first place?  Maybe you should check the Bible for cures?

Or ask BAdecker so that he can ask God why he "designed" measles.

There are other threads better suited to debating religion and the problem of evil.

If your question is serious and not simply an attempt to derail this thread away from its intended topic repost it somewhere better suited to such a discussion send me a PM and I will respond with my thoughts.

[BADecker]

Natural measles is good, provided the people who get it are cared for well. What is proper care? Good resting time with good hygiene and nutrition. Why is measles good? It does a better job of vaccinating than vaccines do... without the deadly after effects. Properly cared for chicken pocks does the same.

Neither of these is deadly when proper care is used with them. And they don't produce the bad after effects of vaccines, yet do a job similar to the one expected from vaccines.

In this my friend despite being correct on other topics you are wrong. Measles infection does indeed grant better immunity to measles then the vaccine. However, if one had to choose between getting vaccinated or a certain exposure to measles the vaccination is by far the wiser course. Avoiding vaccination is only logical if your chance of exposure to measles is low.

The best situation would be if everyone had no immunity to measles at all because measles like smallpox was dead. That outcome is within our power to accomplish.

If I were to argue this from a spiritual perspective it would be as follows:

Measles is not good or evil in itself it is simply a part of nature a parasite that lives off of a host. However, allowing measles to continue to infect humans is evil because it saps our strength dragging us away from the spiritual the good and back into the muck of the the material world and mere survival. It usually weakens us and rarely kills us and the best that can come of such a battle is that we don't die.

Humanity has been given dominion over the earth and with that dominion comes the responsibility to address evils that interfere with our spiritual development. Thus it is ethical to kill diseases like smallpox and measles and we have a duty to do everything in our power to vanquish them. Neglecting that responsibility is to let evil exist unopposed and is wrong.

This does not mean everyone needs to be vaccinated, but if we choose not to it must be with the ultimate aim of eliminating the evil via some other means.

According to your Christian ideology, didn't God create measles in the first place?  Maybe you should check the Bible for cures?

Or ask BAdecker so that he can ask God why he "designed" measles.

While we don't know for a fact if God created measles, or if it was made by the almost super-intelligent people before the days of the Great Flood, or if it is a Satanic corruption of something good that might no longer exists, what we ARE finding out is that in a perfect world, measles would be part of a balance of a good nature.

The question has to do with the dangers of vaccines. Watch the following video, which applies to measles and other diseases:

Vaccination Destroys Natural Herd Immunity and Weakens The Population

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlqyj_uyzBc

Check the Youtube sidebar (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=andrew+wakefield) to see the many videos by Dr. Wakefield that enlighten a lot more. And watch soon, because one never knows when Youtube will take down a set of videos that contradict mainstream.

[CoinCube]

The question has to do with the dangers of vaccines. Watch the following video, which applies to measles and other diseases:

Vaccination Destroys Natural Herd Immunity and Weakens The Population

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlqyj_uyzBc

These are very complex issues so I will do my best to unpack them to the best of my ability.

The facts presented are by and large factual but a least one of his assumptions is dubious. Overall it was a very interesting video.

To address the points he raises we must first understand herd immunity. Herd immunity is the general resistance to a pathogen that exists in a population because members of that population have been exposed to a disease in the past. It manafests in two ways.

A) In the natural immunity of individuals who can no longer contract the disease because they have already been infected in the past and fought the disease off.

B) In a secondary form passed from mother to child via antibodies in breast milk. A mother with natural immunity can transfer antibodies and temporary protection to a newborn.

It is important to note that this second group infants are not truly immune to the disease. Their protection lasts only as long as they are breastfeed and once they are weaned they have no residual immunity and are 100% vulnerable to the disease. Immunity transferred by the mother is a temporary protection only who's purpose is to protect a newborn until it reaches any age when it's immune system is more developed and better equipped to survive.

Now with that said Dr. Wakefield makes several arguments regarding herd immunity.

1. That our vaccines do not result in as strong of an immunity as natural infection so the transferred protection via breast milk to newborns is weaker. Thus newborns are more at risk if they are exposed to the target disease then they would be if their mother had natural immunity.

This is true. However, it must be noted that under the natural immunity scenario the infant also loses all immunity when he is weaned around age 1. The potential window of heightened vulnerability exists but it lasts only from birth until or the date of weaning or vaccination whichever comes first. After weaning the unvaccinated child has no protection from the disease the vaccinated child does.

2. That mortality rates from measles  was falling already before vaccination so maybe that process alone (better supportive care, health, and nutrition would continue to reduce the fatality rate to zero.

This was the only point he made that is highly speculative and extremely unlikely to be true. Measles is not going to just turn into the common cold because we have good nutrition and are healthy. Unless there is some scientific breakthrough that cures the virus it will always be a very serious potentially fatal illness.

3. That our vaccine policy create a dependency on vaccinations. That there is a possibility that these diseases could mutate around our vaccines or vaccines could suddenly be withdrawn and if that occurs the population could be worse off then if it had maintained its natural immunity to the disease.

This was by far the most interesting of his arguments. Here he presents a powerful argument. This argument can be best understood by looking at antibiotics.

Say you had an individual sick with a deadly bacteria. It would be highly unwise have that individual take just enough antibiotics to keep the disease from killing him but not enough to cure the infection. He becomes dependent on the antibiotic and eventually the bacteria might mutate and your drug won't work anymore. Dr. Wakefield is essentially saying we are doing this with our vaccination policy when we releasing vaccines like the mumps vaccine that are not capable of actually exterminating the disease.

I am sympathetic to this last point. However, it is not an argument against vaccination but against foolish and unwise vaccination.

A vaccination campaign should be a declaration of war against a pathogen an all out attempt to kill a disease worldwide like smallpox was killed. That kind of campaign is akin to giving a big dose of antibiotic (a poison) who's use kills the disease and thus cures the patient. This type of campaign is wholly justified scientifically and morally and we have seen it done in the case of smallpox.

Once you transition from that to a management strategy where you only suppress the disease but allow it to fester and smolder on in the periphery or when you introduce vaccines that are incapable of actually exterminating the disease then you indeed must question what the long term ends of your effort is.

However, all of this does not mean we should not vaccinate, any more then the risks of antibiotic resistance means we should stop using antibiotics. However, it may mean that our current approach is... lacking.

[BADecker]

The question has to do with the dangers of vaccines. Watch the following video, which applies to measles and other diseases:

Vaccination Destroys Natural Herd Immunity and Weakens The Population

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlqyj_uyzBc

These are very complex issues so I will do my best to unpack them to the best of my ability.

The facts presented are by and large factual but a least one of his assumptions is dubious. Overall it was a very interesting video.

To address the points he raises we must first understand herd immunity. Herd immunity is the general resistance to a pathogen that exists in a population because members of that population have been exposed to a disease in the past. It manafests in two ways.

A) In the natural immunity of individuals who can no longer contract the disease because they have already been infected in the past and fought the disease off.

B) In a secondary form passed from mother to child via antibodies in breast milk. A mother with natural immunity can transfer antibodies and temporary protection to a newborn.

It is important to note that this second group infants are not truly immune to the disease. Their protection lasts only as long as they are breastfeed and once they are weaned they have no residual immunity and are 100% vulnerable to the disease. Immunity transferred by the mother is a temporary protection only who's purpose is to protect a newborn until it reaches any age when it's immune system is more developed and better equipped to survive.

Now with that said Dr. Wakefield makes several arguments regarding herd immunity.

1. That our vaccines do not result in as strong of an immunity as natural infection so the transferred protection via breast milk to newborns is weaker. Thus newborns are more at risk if they are exposed to the target disease then they would be if their mother had natural immunity.

This is true. However, it must be noted that under the natural immunity scenario the infant also loses all immunity when he is weaned around age 1. The potential window of heightened vulnerability exists but it lasts only from birth until or the date of weaning or vaccination whichever comes first. After weaning the unvaccinated child has no protection from the disease the vaccinated child does.

2. That mortality rates from measles  was falling already before vaccination so maybe that process alone (better supportive care, health, and nutrition would continue to reduce the fatality rate to zero.

This was the only point he made that is highly speculative and extremely unlikely to be true. Measles is not going to just turn into the common cold because we have good nutrition and are healthy. Unless there is some scientific breakthrough that cures the virus it will always be a very serious potentially fatal illness.

3. That our vaccine policy create a dependency on vaccinations. That there is a possibility that these diseases could mutate around our vaccines or vaccines could suddenly be withdrawn and if that occurs the population could be worse off then if it had maintained its natural immunity to the disease.

This was by far the most interesting of his arguments. Here he presents a powerful argument. This argument can be best understood by looking at antibiotics.

Say you had an individual sick with a deadly bacteria. It would be highly unwise have that individual take just enough antibiotics to keep the disease from killing him but not enough to cure the infection. He becomes dependent on the antibiotic and eventually the bacteria might mutate and your drug won't work anymore. Dr. Wakefield is essentially saying we are doing this with our vaccination policy when we releasing vaccines like the mumps vaccine that are not capable of actually exterminating the disease.

I am sympathetic to this last point. However, it is not an argument against vaccination but against foolish and unwise vaccination.

A vaccination campaign should be a declaration of war against a pathogen an all out attempt to kill a disease worldwide like smallpox was killed. That kind of campaign is akin to giving a big dose of antibiotic (a poison) who's use kills the disease and thus cures the patient. This type of campaign is wholly justified scientifically and morally and we have seen it done in the case of smallpox.

Once you transition from that to a management strategy where you only suppress the disease but allow it to fester and smolder on in the periphery or when you introduce vaccines that are incapable of actually exterminating the disease then you indeed must question what the long term ends of your effort is.

However, all of this does not mean we should not vaccinate, any more then the risks of antibiotic resistance means we should stop using antibiotics. However, it may mean that our current approach is... lacking.

The idea that vaccines create dependency is only part of this point. The other part is that there are far too few vaccines and varieties to care for the dependency that any of them create.

[CoinCube]

The idea that vaccines create dependency is only part of this point. The other part is that there are farr two few vaccines and varieties to care for the dependency that any of them create.

Yes that is an interesting point.
He is essentially arguing that we are mismanaging vaccinations much like we are mismanaging antibiotics.

Few people know just how horribly we mismanage antibiotics. 80% of antibiotics are used on farms and normally not even on animals that are actually sick. Farm animals are fed antibiotics round the clock every day so they can survive high density unsanitary and low cost conditions they are kept in.

This is a setup for the development of multi drug resistant bacteria which is what we get. We as a society have chosen to trade away our best antibiotics for low cost burgers and bacon. The result is the growing danger of superbugs resistant to all antibiotics or all accept the latest and most expensive ones.

Antibiotic Use for Farm Animals
https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Antibiotic_Use_for_Farm_Animals

However, this outcome does not mean antibiotics are bad. They are a useful tool. It is the misusing that tool blindly and without wisdom that leads to bad outcomes over time. The same holds true for vaccines.

As I said I sympathize with the anti vaccination crowd. Their rebellion will in the end force the system to become more transparent and to improve.

The long term answer to the problem, however, lies not in stopping all vaccinations any more then the answer to bacterial resistance lies in abandonment of antibiotics. The only long term answer will be found in a return to truth in the science around the issue and the use of vaccination in an intelligent and goal directed manner with a focus on long term aims. It is worth remembering that if we kill the disease then there is no longer any dependency on the vaccine.

[tvbcof]

All vaccines are not created equal.  Different countries have different 'needs' and get different vaccines.  For instance, it is a recognized matter of national security of the U.S. for there to be fewer Filipinos because they have minerals that we want.  The hCG laced 'tetanus' vaccines which covertly sterilized some of the females of that population came from a specialty lab in Canada.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200

These people are obviously psychopaths and I cannot understand why anyone would trust them.  Oh well.  Ultimately fewer people like Astergarth would be generally helpful for the species, but I still wouldn't do his kids like that.  But that's just me.

---

Looks to me like the gun has been turned around and pointed squarely at the U.S., and I cannot say we don't deserve it.

Autistic people are much less likely to breed successfully and contribute to the (perceived) overpopulation problem.  And they may be easier to harvest 'young blood' from which is all the rage among the wealthy these days.

Occasionally you'll get a high-functioning Ausbergers.  These people, who often lack any normal form of empathy, can make great bureaucrats.  Also they can contribute in a variety of ways to the various necessary genocides like the one in Yemen.  Or they can get involved in further vaccine 'research' and perpetuate the cycle.

[tvbcof]

The question has to do with the dangers of vaccines. Watch the following video, which applies to measles and other diseases:

Vaccination Destroys Natural Herd Immunity and Weakens The Population

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlqyj_uyzBc

These are very complex issues so I will do my best to unpack them to the best of my ability.
...

It is a fundamental observation from ecology that 'one can never do just one thing.'

This has been recognized by wise people for quite a long time:

You may drive out nature with a pitchfork,
Yet she will ever hurry back over your foolish contempt.
---
epistles, 1:10:24 - horace - 65-8 b.c.e.

In the present day, for pubic consumption, chanting 'herd immunity' is good enough to win over 95% of the peeps, and that's good enough to get forced vaccinations for all at gunpoint.  Safe to nowadays where technology (esp, databases, and computerized financial and medical records) can identify the 'deserving' on an individual level.

I don't buy the idea that our 'best scientists' are not bright enough or observant enough to not see what is going on.  More and more I find the most compelling hypothesis to be that there is a specific plan, or at least a general plan, driving this insanity.

[CoinCube]

You may drive out nature with a pitchfork,
Yet she will ever hurry back over your foolish contempt.
---
epistles, 1:10:24 - horace - 65-8 b.c.e.

This is certainly true.

C.S. Lewis described the process in detail and taken to its logical conclusion in his Abolition of Man.

Here is a video on his thesis that is very much worth watching. It describes the natural arc and end of man's "triumph" over nature.

The Abolition of Man
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=idgYLTnSzxI&list=PL9boiLqIabFh94-pJbd8RH2f2YXQwmOGD

I don't buy the idea that our 'best scientists' are not bright enough or observant enough to not see what is going on.  More and more I find the most compelling hypothesis to be that there is a specific plan, or at least a general plan, driving this insanity.

I used to be skeptical of "specific plan" hypothesis favoring Hanlon's razor as the most probable explanation for such things.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

That said as the years go by I increasingly feel that the difference between untruth, stupidity, and malice is mostly cosmetic. It all seems to eventually end in the same place. I am sure you remember this story that was never debunked but just faded away remarkably uncovered and with a very unconvincing denial.

WHO and UNICEF Secretly Sterilizing Women in Poor Nations?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=901791.msg9911254#msg9911254

Most of the people who administered those "fertility vaccines" to the unsuspecting were probably employees who thought they were giving a routine vaccination. Most of the scientist who developed it probably thought they were working on a form of voluntary birth control. Those who funded and deployed it probably honestly thought they were doing so in a spirit of altruism. As the old saying goes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Anyone who does not support the right to refuse vaccinations does not understand the power they are giving away. They are like the anti second amendment crowd who thinks disarming the population is the "smart" thing to do. Future drones announcing their willingness to be conditioned and controlled by the strong hand of "elect" human conditioners.

[BADecker]

Anyone who does not support the right to refuse vaccinations does not understand the power they are giving away. They are like the anti second amendment crowd who thinks disarming the population is the "smart" thing to do. Future drones announcing their willingness to be conditioned and controlled by the strong hand of "elect" human conditioners.

It is like this for any freedom, except the freedom to take away the freedom of others, except when they take your freedom away using their freedom, first.

[sue1710]

There have been a number of surveys before, comparing health status among children who have been vaccinated and not injected. For example, in 1992, the Association for Immunization Awareness (IAS) conducted a survey to better understand the health situation of children in New Zealand. The researchers received 495 questionnaires, including 226 vaccinated children and 269 unvaccinated children. Results showed that children who were not vaccinated had fewer chronic diseases than children who were vaccinated. Research results of TS. Mike Godfrey in 1999 is quite similar to IAS.

[TECSHARE]

"CDC’s Own Expert Vaccine Court Witness Confirmed Vaccines Can Cause Autism, So They Fired Him Immediately"

http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/the-vaccination-debate

Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

[BADecker]

How important is the most important? When it comes to proof that vaccines are causing autism, they ALL are important.


The Most Important Ten Minute Video on Vaccines and Autism EVER!

Will Trump Act?

By Kent Heckenlively, JD

Just below is a ten minute video by Sharyl Atkisson I want you to watch. It talks about an Affidavit recently produced by a government expert, Dr Andrew Zimmerman, who was dismissed from an important Autism case at the last minute, to cover up the fact that he had told the DOJ attorneys in private that “In fact, vaccines do cause Autism.”

I have written about this before here on the BolenReport – last September I pointed out:

----------

 U.S. Attorneys Withheld Evidence in Autism Omnibus Proceeding…

YOU Can Take Action… By Kent Heckenlively, JD For those who are unaware of the history of this issue… …in the late to mid 2000s more than 5,000 Autism cases went through a bizarre procedure called the Autism Omnibus Proceeding (AOP) as part of the so-called “Vaccine Court” in which several test cases were reviewed … Continue reading

----------

In that article I said:
For those who are unaware of the history of this issue…

…in the late to mid 2000s more than 5,000 Autism cases went through a bizarre procedure called the Autism Omnibus Proceeding (AOP) as part of the so-called “Vaccine Court” in which several test cases were reviewed for the proposition that vaccines can cause autism.

I know I should probably write more about this video…

…but the truth is after sixteen years of articles, two books, more than a hundred radio interviews, I’m tired of saying the same old thing:  “Vaccines cause autism and we are being lied to on a massive scale.”

FULL MEASURE: January 6, 2019 - The Vaccination Debate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XUM2gvfbW8


BONUS VIDEO


The Irrefutable Argument Against Vaccine Safety - with Author Del Bigtree

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJh3TiCFJH4


Do you still doubt that vaccines are dangerous?

[CristianOff]

Yes, but first tell me how many people who are not vaccinated arrive at the age where these conditions can be noticed?
How many anti-vaxers died for not being vaccinated, when they could prevent illness with a vaccine?

Of course, the lower the number of people, the lower the odds. It's normal since 80% of americans who are vaccinated have higher
chances of developing these conditions, while the others 20% have lower chances because they are less. Can you see it now?

This is a propaganda image used to switch your opinion. Me no likey likey

[BADecker]

Yes, but first tell me how many people who are not vaccinated arrive at the age where these conditions can be noticed?
How many anti-vaxers died for not being vaccinated, when they could prevent illness with a vaccine?

Of course, the lower the number of people, the lower the odds. It's normal since 80% of americans who are vaccinated have higher
chances of developing these conditions, while the others 20% have lower chances because they are less. Can you see it now?

This is a propaganda image used to switch your opinion. Me no likey likey

Yeah, yeah. I know, I know. You're gonna remain healthy if it kills you.


Vaccine shot killed famed cancer doctor in mere minutes from "total organ failure" …

State-run media desperately tries to cover it up.

Dr. Martin Gore, a widely celebrated cancer doctor credited with “saving thousands of lives” died from “total organ failure” just minutes after receiving a vaccine shot yesterday. Dr. Gore was a professor of cancer medicine at the Institute of Cancer Research based in London. He “died suddenly yesterday after a routine inoculation for yellow fever,” reports The Times (UK).

“His death highlights the increased risks associated with the vaccine for the growing number of older travellers visiting exotic destinations,” the paper explains.

It also underscores the horrific price of believing in Big Pharma, chemotherapy and vaccines. Throughout his career, Dr. Gore oversaw the harming of tens of thousands of children who were subjected to toxic chemotherapy and radiation treatments. Ultimately, he was killed by his own false belief in the safety of vaccines, another weaponized form of toxic medicine. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

So far, the U.S. media has completely blacked out the story in yet another effort to silence any truth about the deadly dangers of vaccines. There isn’t a single establishment news outlet in the United States that has accurately reported on this vaccine-induced sudden death of a cancer doctor...

Don't worry. If you are a Christian, you will go to Heaven anyway. Just another casualty on the war to reduce the populations of the world.

[tvbcof]

...
Yeah, yeah. I know, I know. You're gonna remain healthy if it kills you.

Vaccine shot killed famed cancer doctor in mere minutes from "total organ failure" …

...

Now that's what they call 'taking one for the team'!

It's also called a 'medical mistake' when you kill an important person like a politician or a doctor.  Or their relative.  There is no excuse for such an error now that we have databases which can track and correlate the medical records and financial assets of people on an individual level.  Those people are supposed to get 'special' injections which are befitting their class.  Proper AI will solve some of these minor issues.