Search This Blog

Friday, March 11, 2016

Vaccines, and Drug Science vs Other Science

How do the two news items below differ from vaccination news items?  They are actually negative about the subjects and made the news.

"Lumber Liquidators' laminate flooring has been found to have a 3x higher risk of causing cancer than previously stated, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reversing their own findings from earlier this month. A report released Feb. 10 used incorrect ceiling heights, lowering the airborne concentration of formaldehyde that should have been examined, the agency said in a statement. The estimated risk of tumors is six cases to 30 cases per 100K people, above the two to nine cases in the earlier report."  But, if the formaldehyde in several vaccines is injected into an infant, how is that OK?

"The academic study that helped propel shares of Weight Watchers (NYSE:WTW) to an 18% gain on Friday was funded by the company, observes the New York Post after scanning the fine print. Harvard Medical School professor David Ludwig notes the practice isn't uncommon, but doesn't quite qualify as good scientific practice."  Yet when vaccine and drug studies are done this way, they qualify as good scientific practice?  Plus, it will never make the news.

Has anyone ever seen even one negative news report about vaccines in the mainstream media (also sometimes referred to as the "Lamestream Media") ?

Funny how the criteria change for vaccine (and drug) studies.

Just came across this item:  "What do you think they'd (the CDC, Drug companies, media) say about the late Dr. Mayer Eisenstein's statement:  "…. 40 years ago when I started my practice only 1 in 10,000 children had autism. Today it's 1 in 100. What is the only difference we have seen? The inordinate number of vaccines that are being given to children today. My partners and I have over 35,000 patients who have never been vaccinated. You know how many cases of autism we have seen? ZERO, ZERO. I have made this statement for over 40 years: "NO VACCINES NO AUTISM"….  Then again, never mind. I already know what they'd say.  They'd say nothing. Because they would all much prefer that no-one ever speak about that."
The above statement was written a few years ago, now the autism rate is 1 in 45, and still climbing, and the link between vaccines and autism is still denied by those profiting from vaccines.

Now I need to say this - I've always been for optimal health, and whatever can be done to promote health I would also promote.  I have no reason to try to mislead anyone, I make no money from these posts, and my only reason for posting information about vaccines here, when I'd rather be posting about photography, is to hopefully stop you from making an uninformed choice that might endanger you or your family and loved ones.  The dangers of vaccines get no coverage in the media.  Unfortunately, the motive of the drug companies is profit, not health.  I mean, have you ever heard of a product being so unsafe that all liability was removed?  How crazy is that?  But the Supreme Court said because vaccines are unavoidably unsafe, there will have no liability.  Which means there is no incentive for the vaccine makers to make them safe.

Put "Placebo Definition" in Google and read the definition.  Then see what the vaccine makers call a "Placebo."  I can tell you it is not the definition of a placebo.  They will use either another vaccine as a placebo, or a liquid with all the adjuvants of the vaccine they are testing.  Of course, there will be no difference in the comparison between their "placebo" and the vaccine, so therefore they will say the vaccine is safe.  Heck, using their study methods, I could have told them that and saved them the money of running the study!

Here is a link to an interview with Dr. Theresa Deisher PhD, that is very worth reading.  Here is a link to Dr. Suzanne Humphries, an M.D., part II of a video talk she gave in Copenhagen in November 2015, called Manufacture Consent, also an excellent resource.  You can see the other parts of her talk along the right side of that link.

Forget the studies for now.  But please don't forget about your freedom.  Those freedoms mentioned in the Nuremberg Code, the Geneva Convention, Helsinki Accord, even the HHS Belmont Report, etc.  This includes the human right to not be medically experimented upon or have medical procedures performed on you without your consent.  We're not allowed to do these things to enemy combatants, but we are mandating them for our children?  Regardless of the arguments for or against vaccines, mandatory and forced vaccinations are anti-freedom.  Any politician who votes for mandatory vaccination is taking away your freedom (and perhaps your life or the life of your loved ones, not to mention permanent disabilities, E.R. visits, medical bills, etc., that are possible - see the chart at the underlined link just above).  If you allow them to take away this basic freedom, what other freedoms might they decide to take away in the future?  Look at history and Nazi Germany for the answer to that.

I would rather be writing about photography, but our freedom and health is much too important, especially with the push for mandatory vaccinations across this country.

Please read my last few posts on this subject regarding logic, common sense, statistics, and myths about vaccines, plus the links on this post, so you can come to your own educated conclusions about vaccine effectiveness and safety, or lack thereof.  The more you know, the safer you'll be!




















No comments:

Post a Comment