From: Jan Drew on
On Oct 18, 7:05�pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 11:43�am, rpautrey2 <rpautr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

NaturalNews.com printable article
Originally published October 16 2009

Ten questions about flu vaccines that doctors and health authorities
refuse to answer


by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor


(NaturalNews) Vaccine mythology remains rampant in both western
medicine and the mainstream media. To hear the vaccination zealots
say
it, vaccines are backed by "good science," they've been "proven
effective" and they're "perfectly safe."


Oh really? Where's all that good science? As it turns out, there's
isn't any. Flu vaccines (including swine flu vaccines) are based
entirely on a vaccine mythology that assumes all vaccines work and no
vaccines can be scientifically questioned. Anyone who dares question
the safety or effectiveness of vaccines is immediately branded a
danger to public health and marginalized in the scientific community.


Here are ten questions vaccine-pushing doctors and health authorities
absolutely refuse to answer:


#1) Where are the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled
studies
proving flu vaccines are both safe and effective?


Answer: There aren't any. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_v...)


#2) Where, then, is the so-called "science" backing the idea that flu
vaccines work at all?


Answer: Other than "cohort studies," there isn't any. And the cohort
studies have been thoroughly debunked. Scientifically speaking, there
isn't a scrap of honest evidence showing flu vaccines work at all.


#3) How can methyl mercury (Thimerosal, a preservative used in flu
vaccines) be safe for injecting into the human body when mercury is
an
extremely toxic heavy metal?


Answer: It isn't safe at all. Methyl mercury is a poison. Along with
vaccine adjuvants, it explains why so many people suffer autism or
other debilitating neurological side effects after being vaccinated.


#4) Why do reports keep surfacing of children and teens suffering
debilitating neurological disorders, brain swelling, seizures and
even
death following flu vaccines or HPV vaccines?


Answer: Because vaccines are dangerous. The vaccine industry
routinely
dismisses all such accounts -- no matter how many are reported -- as
"coincidence."


#5) Why don't doctors recommend vitamin D for flu protection,
especially when vitamin D activates the immune response far better
than a vaccine? (http://www.naturalnews.com/027231_V...)


Answer: Because vitamin D can't be patented and sold as "medicine."
You can make it yourself. If you want more vitamin D, you don't even
need a doctor, and doctors tend not to recommend things that put them
out of business.


#6) If human beings need flu vaccines to survive, then how did humans
survive through all of Earth's history?


Answer: Human genetic code is already wired to automatically defend
you against invading microorganisms (as long as you have vitamin D).
(http://www.naturalnews.com/027231_V...)


#7) If the flu vaccine offers protection against the flu, then why
are
the people who often catch the flu the very same people who were
vaccinated against it?


Answer: Because those most vulnerable to influenza infections are the
very same people who have a poor adaptive response to the vaccines
and
don't build antibodies. In other words flu vaccines only "work" on
people who don't need them. (And even building antibodies doesn't
equate to real-world protection from the flu, by the way.)


#8) If the flu vaccine really works, then why was there no huge
increase in flu death rates in 2004, the year when flu vaccines were
in short supply and vaccination rates dropped by 40%? (http://
www.naturalnews.com/027239_v...)


Answer: There was no change in the death rate. You could drop
vaccination rates to zero percent and you'd still see no change in
the
number of people dying from the flu. That's because flu vaccines
simply don't work.


#9) How can flu vaccines reduce mortality by 50% (as is claimed) when
only about 10% of winter deaths are related to the flu in the first
place?


They can't. The 50% statistic is an example of quack medical
marketing. If I have a room full of 100 people, then I take the 50
healthiest people and hand them a candy bar, I can't then
scientifically claim that "candy bars make people healthy." That's
essentially the same logic behind the "50% reduction in mortality"
claim of flu vaccines. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_v...).


#10) If flu vaccines work so well, then why are drug makers and
health
authorities so reluctant to subject them to scientific scrutiny with
randomized, placebo-controlled studies?


Answer: Although they claim such studies would be "unethical," what's
far more unethical is to keep injecting hundreds of millions of
people
every year with useless, harmful vaccines that aren't backed by a
shred of honest evidence.


Vaccine voodoo?
The vaccine industry is about making money, not actually offering
immune protection against the flu. Whether people get the flu or not
is irrelevant to the bottom-line profits of the drug companies. What
matters most is that people continue to take the flu shots, and
making
that happen depends entirely on pushing the vaccine mythology that
infects the minds of doctors and health authorities today.


There was a time when all "good" doctors believed in bloodletting.
Sickness was caused by evil spirits, they thought, and releasing
pints
of blood from the patient would clear the evil spirits and accelerate
healing. Any doctor who questioned the science behind bloodletting
was
called a "denier." All the "good" doctors said, "We know bloodletting
works, so we don't need science to back it up."


Today, you hear the exact same thing about vaccines. "We know they
work," doctors claim, "so we don't need any real science to back it
up." Anyone who questions the safety of flu vaccines (or H1N1
vaccines) is branded a "denier." Anyone who asks for solid scientific
evidence supporting the efficacy of vaccines is called a
troublemaker.
They don't need any evidence. They already know vaccines work.


With that being the case, why bother calling it medicine at all? Why
not just call it VOODOO? Why not accompany vaccines with the wave of
a
magic wand and some shamanic chanting? Maybe doctors should tell
their
patients to cross their fingers before being injected with a vaccine
because "that makes it work better."


Seriously. Everything that doctors accuse "quacks" of doing with
homeopathy, or herbs, or energy medicine is now being done by the
doctors themselves when it comes to vaccines. They are following the
exact same "quackery" they accuse other of pursuing.


This brings me to an important observation about modern medicine: MY
quackery is okay, but YOUR quackery isn't!


That's the attitude of vaccine-pushing doctors and health
authorities.
As long as the quackery is widely agreed upon by the medical masses,
then to heck with actual scientific evidence.


Quackery only needs good company, not good science, to be accepted as
true.


Why natural medicine is inherently safer
Of course, these vaccine devotees might say, well, you don't have any
good evidence to support your anti-viral herbs, or your medicinal
teas, or your vitamin D nutrition either. But in saying that, they
miss the whole point: Foods, herbs and nutrition are all natural,
biocompatible healing elements that have been part of the human
experience for as long as humans have roamed this planet. A chemical
injection with a sharp needle that pierces the skin, on the other
hand, is extremely interventionist. It's unnatural and in many ways
quite radical. As such, it demands a higher burden of scientific
proof
than something that human beings have evolved with over time.


Foods, herbs and natural medicines have been around for millions of
years. Vaccines have existed for less than a hundred years, and
routine season flu vaccinations have really only been pushed hard for
less than twenty years. They have no track record of success. They
aren't natural, they aren't compatible with human biology, and they
contain extremely toxic substances that clearly do not belong in the
human body.


Given such extremes, the burden of proof for both safety and efficacy
of vaccines falls onto those who would advocate them. And yet, to
this
day, no such proof has been offered... or is even pursued. There
isn't
even a plan in place to someday find out if flu vaccines really work.
The whole plan is to just pursue "business as usual" and keep
injecting people whether it really works or not.


Vaccine needles would be far more honest if they were shaped like
question marks.


Flu vaccines are the voodoo of modern medicine.


Seriously. You would have the same level of protection from the flu
if
you brought your own personal voodoo doll to the clinic and had them
inject that with the vaccine instead of you!


That's an interesting idea, actually. We could really reduce national
health care costs if we just administered western medicines to our
voodoo dolls instead of our actual bodies. Got cancer? Just poison
your voodoo doll with chemotherapy. Side effects are almost non-
existent. Need heart bypass surgery? Just have them operate on the
doll (it's far less complicated). Want some protection from the
winter
flu? Just vaccinate the doll. It's quick and painless.


The results would be no worse than what people are experiencing right
now. In fact, in most cases they might actually be better.Buzz up!
vote
now


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
�-----


All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is
protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole
responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard
products and earns no money from the recommendation of products.
NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes
only and should not be construed as professional advice from any
licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for
the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of
this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml


http://www.naturalnews.com/z027258_vaccines_flu_vaccine.html
----------------------------------------

Marla didn't like it because he cannot stand the truth.
So, as usal he insults, and lies.
While remaining silent when disbarred.


From: Mark Probert on
On Oct 18, 9:17 pm, pautrey2 <pautr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> That's not exactly the way it was.

Close enough.

> I didn't want to come down to 'your sides' level.

I see. So you are like those in 1930's Europe who sat on their hands
and kept silent.

> I don't have a problem with that anymore.

Good thing.

>
> On Oct 18, 8:02 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 18, 8:45 pm, pautrey2 <pautr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > crybaby (plural crybabies)http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/crybaby
>
> > > 1.A baby that cries excessively.
> > > 2.Someone whose feelings are very easily hurt, also by trivial matters
>
> > I see. So when you were demanding that I control HO's posting because
> > you did not like what he was posting about you, you were a what?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Jan Drew on
Yappy finally posts the truth about himself.

http://www.collectiondx.com/gallery2/gallery/d/53247-5/1.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCD

Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is a mental disorder characterized
by intrusive thoughts that produce anxiety, by repetitive behaviors
aimed at reducing anxiety, or by combinations of such thoughts

From: Jan Drew on
On Oct 18, 10:10�pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 9:17�pm, pautrey2 <pautr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That's not exactly the way it was.
>
> Close enough.
>
> > I didn't want to come down to 'your sides' level.
>
> I see. So you are like those in 1930's Europe who sat on their hands
> and kept silent.
>
Just read who is posting about keeping silent.

The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to cooperate
with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of
professional misconduct.

The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a
disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent has
chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must
be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent
in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly,
the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of
attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately.
From: Jan Drew on
On Oct 18, 10:10�pm, Happy Oyster <happy.oys...(a)ariplex.com> wrote:

> Etc, Etc, Etc.

Now, that is the truth.