please be fair and talk about the potential hazards, everyone thinks its just positive and 'safe' but does everyone know what is In vaccines, its not just some bits and pieces of broken or weakened virus...they have to grow the virus on live material - this could be aborted feotus or checken eggs etc, and they use mercury as a preservative. Mercury is toxic to even adults at even small levels. Be informed.
It's good to be sceptical, but be careful - you're repeating some very common misunderstandings here. Squaline-preserved vaccines have much less Mercury than the known safe limit for humans. We get more Mercury from a single tuna fish sandwich than we do from vaccines! And as for the other point: Some vaccines require foetal tissue to work. Women aren't encouraged to have abortions for this reason though! This method has also proven safe since the late 1960s.
@icarus313 Thats not true at all there is no proof that its safe at all. If so point me to a factual study. When Mercury is not a concern, then alluminum is... and that is used to what? stablize or preserve. Either way I appreciate your being civil with me and not rude. I think since feotal tissue has the mother's dna, they should require permission to use the material from the abortion. Its not fair how vaccines are portrayed to the public or that the vaccine comp. cant be sued
Forgive me, but your statement "No proof that its safe at all" reveals an alarming ignorance of decades of medical research. There are hundreds of high-quality studies (many of them Randomized Controlled Trials) published in reputable journals, that demonstrate the safety of vaccines. Here are links to research regarding the H5N1 & H1N1 vaccines, specifically:
@icarus313 I could say the same thing about your ignorance that you made the statement. yes, if someone uses your being to make something they profit from, that is a serious problem. I encourage you to look further into the dangers of vaccines. Look at all the girls paralyzed, dead, or harmed by garadsil. The flu shot is made new every season, there is no way to test if these things are safe when they are released on the public immediately without long term testing.
"there is no way to test if these things are safe when they are released on the public immediately without long term testing."
This statement tells me how little you've actually bothered to look up on the subject. There are several ways to test. It can be done both prospectively (using hospital-based case-controlled studies) or retrospectively (using cohort studies). Some examples from PubMed to follow:
What surprises me about your claim "there's no way to test the flu vaccine" is how much access the general public has to this information with the internet and yet how swiftly it is ignored.
@icarus313 Isnt the rate of cancer higher than ever in the US and every other place that we vaccinate heavily? autism and other behavioral disorders...? All Im saying is that this vid said it was safe, and thats not true or proven at all. You cannot prove a negative - like that something protects you for catching something - no way to know if it was only natural immunity. study in canada shows that people who took H1N1 vac were way more likely to catch the flu.
Rates of which cancer? Cancer isn't one disease - it's hundreds of related diseases. Rates of cancer, overall, are higher in the developed world since we live to old age, have more food (and more junk food!), have access to alcohol and tobacco, get less exercise, etc. No plausible mechanism or hypothesis currently exists to suggest that a vaccine could cause any cancer. Look at Wikipedia's page "Epidemiology of cancer" for good summary of the current info.
"You can't prove a negative..." "...no way to know if it's only natural immunity".
Nonsense. If you track rates of disease among a population that are fairly consistent from one year to the next and then introduce a vaccine, only to find that the disease has all but vanished in the next few years and then fails to ever return, that is overwhelming evidence that they work. That's how smallpox was wiped out - by vaccines. It wasn't just controlled. It's GONE!
The foetal lung tissue is used to help proliferate the weakened virus used in the vaccine. You are not being injected with another persons DNA. And even if you were, the cells would be dead by then, and they wouldn't even fit thru the cannula of the syringe. Regarding permission: you leave your DNA in skin and hair cells everywhere you go, if someone collects this material, does it really make sense that they'd need "permission" to use it?
@icarus313 and to answer your question: whats the incentive for two dif gov's to lie about vaccines? Easy- to get us to take vaccines. At lower levels, doc are trained to do what they are told- but some nurses and doctors protested mandates requiring health care workers to get H1N1 vac - because they didnt want it. And do you know if those in the high pos. of gov vaccinate themselves? They sell us genetically engineered food and dont eat it themselves. maybe look into that.
Huh? That doesn't answer anything. You said the reason was "to get us to take vaccines". Yeah...I know. I was asking WHY would they want us to vaccinate if it were truly dangerous and if there's no serious gain for themselves? And which part of the govt would be involved? This is still not clear. Are you just making this up as you go? Think about it: hundreds of national govt's...thousands of people...all kept quiet? For over 100 years? This is a ridiculous notion.
@icarus313 To get us to take vaccines to make a shit load of money then. There is serious gain, billions or millions of dollars, just look it up. Recently an article in the british medical journel condems the WHO for not filing any conflict of interests w/ regards to scientists who advised the anouncement of pandemic of H1N1, these people stood to gain millions of $ and they did. When the US gov has a 20 year joint contract with one of the biggest vacc producers, there's incentive
You're saying we should be suspicious because of the govt contracts. That WOULD be a fair point if they were the only ones who proposed vaccinating or the only ones testing them. However, if you look at the studies I linked you to before, you'll see that this is being studied by universities and hospitals world wide. A conflict of interest in one particular case is different from alleging serious vaccine dangers - the evidence of which is almost nonexistent.
What? Now you've really lost me! This is the recurring cognitive error of every conspiracy theorist: "Company X says Product A is safe. Company X is making money, therefore don't trust them." Fine so far. But then other independent groups around the world all find that Product A is safe. And yet you still blindly repeat: "Company X is making money, therefore I don't trust them." But wait! You don't have to! I JUST showed you sources that are non-pharmaceutical!
You didn't even read the links, did you? Otherwise you'd have known they weren't industry-funded. Your logic leads to: "Assume everything that's claimed to be safe isn't because...money." But you can't just stop at the allegation. When thalidomide was first introduced in 1957, it was shown to cause birth defects. By 1961, it was banned. If industry is so good at keeping EVERY researcher quiet, why was thalidomide stopped so quickly?
@icarus313 I have already looked into so many of these links, and like I said, Im familiar with the stance of cdc. not a fan. You are the one who has not looked into anything to the contrary. Thalidomide stopped and replaced with alluminum. its obvious that if you make a flu vac every season there is no time to test it. period. look at the swiss they are calling H1n1 vacc. useless and a 'medical tragedy' because its only causing side effects.
If these types of questions and others are bothering you, look for reputable sources for answers and watch out for websites that repeat known misinformation. Check out:
The CDC
800-CDC-INFO
(800-232-4636)
TTY: (888) 232-6348
Also, the Public Health Agency of Canada:
phac-aspc (dot) gc (dot) ca (slash) im (slash) q_a_thimerosal-eng (dot) php#a3
Also from Canada, the CBC's public health radio show:
@icarus313 I don't want to take information gathered and sponsored by the gov. Even the institute of medicine is funded by the gov by military but mc donalds.... known for their healthy food right?
If I gave you a private source, you'd say it's a conflict of interest and disregard it. So I give you sources from two separate gov'ts that both agree and you don't think that's credible? Why? What's the incentive for them both to lie? How could thousands of researchers from all around the world be kept quiet for the over 100 years that vaccines have been used? They get vaccinations too, and also their kids. Why would they do that if they know it's harmful? This is not plausible.
@sereneyoshiko and none of this matters, what you are saying- because for my whole life I have seen it from your perspective. I still look at both sides, its no insult to your intelligence, not once have I ever implied that you were stupid. Its about awareness and info. I have dont it your way - if you truly want to know, you should look into it from the other point of view. and the whole point is that this vid doesnt talk about any cons of vacc. and there are, see package insert
please be fair and talk about the potential hazards, everyone thinks its just positive and 'safe' but does everyone know what is In vaccines, its not just some bits and pieces of broken or weakened virus...they have to grow the virus on live material - this could be aborted feotus or checken eggs etc, and they use mercury as a preservative. Mercury is toxic to even adults at even small levels. Be informed.
sereneyoshiko 2 months ago
@sereneyoshiko
It's good to be sceptical, but be careful - you're repeating some very common misunderstandings here. Squaline-preserved vaccines have much less Mercury than the known safe limit for humans. We get more Mercury from a single tuna fish sandwich than we do from vaccines! And as for the other point: Some vaccines require foetal tissue to work. Women aren't encouraged to have abortions for this reason though! This method has also proven safe since the late 1960s.
icarus313 1 week ago
@icarus313 Thats not true at all there is no proof that its safe at all. If so point me to a factual study. When Mercury is not a concern, then alluminum is... and that is used to what? stablize or preserve. Either way I appreciate your being civil with me and not rude. I think since feotal tissue has the mother's dna, they should require permission to use the material from the abortion. Its not fair how vaccines are portrayed to the public or that the vaccine comp. cant be sued
sereneyoshiko 1 week ago
@sereneyoshiko
Forgive me, but your statement "No proof that its safe at all" reveals an alarming ignorance of decades of medical research. There are hundreds of high-quality studies (many of them Randomized Controlled Trials) published in reputable journals, that demonstrate the safety of vaccines. Here are links to research regarding the H5N1 & H1N1 vaccines, specifically:
-- ncbi (dot) nlm (dot) nih (dot) gov (slash) pubmed (slash) 2194525
-- (same as above) 19281330
icarus313 1 week ago
@icarus313 I could say the same thing about your ignorance that you made the statement. yes, if someone uses your being to make something they profit from, that is a serious problem. I encourage you to look further into the dangers of vaccines. Look at all the girls paralyzed, dead, or harmed by garadsil. The flu shot is made new every season, there is no way to test if these things are safe when they are released on the public immediately without long term testing.
sereneyoshiko 1 week ago
@sereneyoshiko
@sereneyoshiko
"there is no way to test if these things are safe when they are released on the public immediately without long term testing."
This statement tells me how little you've actually bothered to look up on the subject. There are several ways to test. It can be done both prospectively (using hospital-based case-controlled studies) or retrospectively (using cohort studies). Some examples from PubMed to follow:
icarus313 1 week ago
@sereneyoshiko
Here are some examples of studies on vaccine safety and efficacy which you claim do not exist:
ncbi (dot) nlm (dot) nih (dot) gov (slash) pubmed (slash) 20439595
(same as above) 21288090
(same as above) 22021877
(same as above) 21994316
(same as above) 110754
What surprises me about your claim "there's no way to test the flu vaccine" is how much access the general public has to this information with the internet and yet how swiftly it is ignored.
icarus313 1 week ago
@icarus313 Isnt the rate of cancer higher than ever in the US and every other place that we vaccinate heavily? autism and other behavioral disorders...? All Im saying is that this vid said it was safe, and thats not true or proven at all. You cannot prove a negative - like that something protects you for catching something - no way to know if it was only natural immunity. study in canada shows that people who took H1N1 vac were way more likely to catch the flu.
sereneyoshiko 1 week ago
@sereneyoshiko
Rates of which cancer? Cancer isn't one disease - it's hundreds of related diseases. Rates of cancer, overall, are higher in the developed world since we live to old age, have more food (and more junk food!), have access to alcohol and tobacco, get less exercise, etc. No plausible mechanism or hypothesis currently exists to suggest that a vaccine could cause any cancer. Look at Wikipedia's page "Epidemiology of cancer" for good summary of the current info.
icarus313 1 week ago
@sereneyoshiko
"You can't prove a negative..." "...no way to know if it's only natural immunity".
Nonsense. If you track rates of disease among a population that are fairly consistent from one year to the next and then introduce a vaccine, only to find that the disease has all but vanished in the next few years and then fails to ever return, that is overwhelming evidence that they work. That's how smallpox was wiped out - by vaccines. It wasn't just controlled. It's GONE!
icarus313 1 week ago
@sereneyoshiko
Regarding foetal tissue:
The foetal lung tissue is used to help proliferate the weakened virus used in the vaccine. You are not being injected with another persons DNA. And even if you were, the cells would be dead by then, and they wouldn't even fit thru the cannula of the syringe. Regarding permission: you leave your DNA in skin and hair cells everywhere you go, if someone collects this material, does it really make sense that they'd need "permission" to use it?
icarus313 1 week ago
@icarus313 and to answer your question: whats the incentive for two dif gov's to lie about vaccines? Easy- to get us to take vaccines. At lower levels, doc are trained to do what they are told- but some nurses and doctors protested mandates requiring health care workers to get H1N1 vac - because they didnt want it. And do you know if those in the high pos. of gov vaccinate themselves? They sell us genetically engineered food and dont eat it themselves. maybe look into that.
sereneyoshiko 1 week ago
@sereneyoshiko
Huh? That doesn't answer anything. You said the reason was "to get us to take vaccines". Yeah...I know. I was asking WHY would they want us to vaccinate if it were truly dangerous and if there's no serious gain for themselves? And which part of the govt would be involved? This is still not clear. Are you just making this up as you go? Think about it: hundreds of national govt's...thousands of people...all kept quiet? For over 100 years? This is a ridiculous notion.
icarus313 1 week ago
@icarus313 To get us to take vaccines to make a shit load of money then. There is serious gain, billions or millions of dollars, just look it up. Recently an article in the british medical journel condems the WHO for not filing any conflict of interests w/ regards to scientists who advised the anouncement of pandemic of H1N1, these people stood to gain millions of $ and they did. When the US gov has a 20 year joint contract with one of the biggest vacc producers, there's incentive
sereneyoshiko 1 week ago
@sereneyoshiko
You're saying we should be suspicious because of the govt contracts. That WOULD be a fair point if they were the only ones who proposed vaccinating or the only ones testing them. However, if you look at the studies I linked you to before, you'll see that this is being studied by universities and hospitals world wide. A conflict of interest in one particular case is different from alleging serious vaccine dangers - the evidence of which is almost nonexistent.
icarus313 1 week ago
@icarus313 I know and where do you think those places get their funding? I mean, come on
sereneyoshiko 1 week ago
@sereneyoshiko
What? Now you've really lost me! This is the recurring cognitive error of every conspiracy theorist: "Company X says Product A is safe. Company X is making money, therefore don't trust them." Fine so far. But then other independent groups around the world all find that Product A is safe. And yet you still blindly repeat: "Company X is making money, therefore I don't trust them." But wait! You don't have to! I JUST showed you sources that are non-pharmaceutical!
icarus313 6 days ago
@sereneyoshiko
You didn't even read the links, did you? Otherwise you'd have known they weren't industry-funded. Your logic leads to: "Assume everything that's claimed to be safe isn't because...money." But you can't just stop at the allegation. When thalidomide was first introduced in 1957, it was shown to cause birth defects. By 1961, it was banned. If industry is so good at keeping EVERY researcher quiet, why was thalidomide stopped so quickly?
icarus313 6 days ago
@icarus313 I have already looked into so many of these links, and like I said, Im familiar with the stance of cdc. not a fan. You are the one who has not looked into anything to the contrary. Thalidomide stopped and replaced with alluminum. its obvious that if you make a flu vac every season there is no time to test it. period. look at the swiss they are calling H1n1 vacc. useless and a 'medical tragedy' because its only causing side effects.
sereneyoshiko 6 days ago
@sereneyoshiko
If these types of questions and others are bothering you, look for reputable sources for answers and watch out for websites that repeat known misinformation. Check out:
The CDC
800-CDC-INFO
(800-232-4636)
TTY: (888) 232-6348
Also, the Public Health Agency of Canada:
phac-aspc (dot) gc (dot) ca (slash) im (slash) q_a_thimerosal-eng (dot) php#a3
Also from Canada, the CBC's public health radio show:
cbc (dot) ca (slash) whitecoat (slash) contact
icarus313 1 week ago
Comment removed
sereneyoshiko 1 week ago
@sereneyoshiko
Why "obviously"? What's the problem with the CDC's information on the subject? Does it differ from other fluoride regulators?
icarus313 1 week ago
@icarus313 I don't want to take information gathered and sponsored by the gov. Even the institute of medicine is funded by the gov by military but mc donalds.... known for their healthy food right?
sereneyoshiko 1 week ago
@sereneyoshiko
If I gave you a private source, you'd say it's a conflict of interest and disregard it. So I give you sources from two separate gov'ts that both agree and you don't think that's credible? Why? What's the incentive for them both to lie? How could thousands of researchers from all around the world be kept quiet for the over 100 years that vaccines have been used? They get vaccinations too, and also their kids. Why would they do that if they know it's harmful? This is not plausible.
icarus313 1 week ago
@sereneyoshiko and none of this matters, what you are saying- because for my whole life I have seen it from your perspective. I still look at both sides, its no insult to your intelligence, not once have I ever implied that you were stupid. Its about awareness and info. I have dont it your way - if you truly want to know, you should look into it from the other point of view. and the whole point is that this vid doesnt talk about any cons of vacc. and there are, see package insert
sereneyoshiko 1 week ago
not even close to be nice , its a perfect
ahmadmoner 3 months ago