Reply With Quote
Propylene glycol is the ingredient most associated with anti-freeze. However, PG is harmless. It's the Ethylene Glycol that's dangerous. Don't see it much anymore and certainly never an ingredient in vaccines.
lol panic meme.
lol
And the animal viruses. Aren't most viruses animal viruses? People forget humans are animals too.
Propylene glycol is the ingredient most associated with anti-freeze. However, PG is harmless. It's the Ethylene Glycol that's dangerous. Don't see it much anymore and certainly never an ingredient in vaccines.
lol panic meme.
I have never had the flu and never been vaccinated UNTIL this year.
I read about carriers and decided I would get vaccinated this year with the trivalent.
I will be damned if I am not showing any symptoms or super mild symptoms, and then infect someone else.
Working around others, occasionally many other people, led me to the decision.
Can I cough on you Boutons? Maybe you will become radioactive.
PG and VG (Vegetable glycerin) is safe and used everywhere... toothpaste, dental products, baked goods (moisturizer), electronic cigarette fluid, etc... the only issue is if you're allergic to it, which is very rare.
The only population section that needs to keep an eye on it is people with diabetes, since in some cases glycerol can be directly metabolized as glucose, but you would need a whole lot of glycerol intake to really have a problem with that.
@ antifreeze and animal blood. The ignorance is hilarious.
Why did they only include a partial list?!?!?!? I need to know what other killer substances are in my vaccines!
Since SA210 isn't around to do it, i'll post this for him tbh.
"lol you're the ignorant one. no life internet loser who doesn't know the facts like me. i have mountains of proof to back up all my claims but won't reveal said proof ever. YouTube video."
The 7 "this" are all links in the original article. I'd recommend reading it in its entirety.
This topic is so vast and so complex that I'm not going to pretend to be able to address it in single coherent blog entry (unlike so many anti-vaxxers). But I do want to put together a bullet-pointed list of what I, as a layperson with personal access to the medical community, believe that you, as a layperson without that same access (clearly - if you're considering not vaccinating) might want to know. I've followed and participated in many discussions on this topic and there are some repeat misconceptions or missed points that are worth cobbling together. Here are a few of them:
(1) Vaccines do not cause autism. See also this, this, this, this, this, this and this. Kudos to Dr. Andrew Wakefield for getting published in a legitimate medical journal, since everything else on this topic either wasn't, or has been misleadingly taken out of context and interpreted by non-medical minds to mean something it doesn't mean to any other physicians, who are also parents themselves. Too bad though - after other labs were unable to get any results by repeating his study, and after he was unable to reproduce the results himself, the original study was found to have fraudulently falsified its data (this "caught ya!" process is called peer review, and it's why we can rely on science). He made millions and children died. Not sure what that makes him in your book, and I don't want to mention what that makes him in mine. Maybe we should honor those deaths... by vaccinating. Here's some more persuasion though, if that's not enough:
We've been vaccinating since the 1950s, so we vaccinated for many decades before autism rates went up. The e has been most significant over the past five years, in spite of the decline in vaccination rates. Hmm. Doesn't seem that vaccines are the cause, does it?
Maybe you know or have heard about someone who went from "normal" to autistic right after his shots. Well, autism is an early-childhood onset condition, and it happens that we vaccinate early in childhood. There are lots of children out there whose symptoms started shortly BEFORE their shots, too; they're just not organizing themselves and speaking out about their experiences. Anecdotal evidence, while compelling to those personally experiencing it, does not show or prove correlation (let alone causation). Medical studies do, but they have repeatedly disproven that vaccines have any relation to autism - every single legitimate, peer-reviewed study (see the links above). If that weren't true, and this was, then your pediatrician wouldn't be vaccinating his or her own children - at rates even *higher* than the official recommendations.
Okay okay, you still can't be convinced, and perhaps you would like to speak at the next national AAP conference on this topic, and present to them the articles you found on the internet. Well how about the point that my friend made? Her brother is autistic. She loves him just the way he is, and would much rather an autistic brother than a dead one; she takes more than a little offense when people don't vaccinate for fear of autism. I'd rather an autistic child than a dead one myself, personally. But thankfully, we don't have to choose ... because vaccines do not cause autism!
http://bostonwed-murakami.blogspot.c...ective_26.html
From a newsletter by Bob Reagan, newmarkethealth.com
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention actually called a press conference to announce that during the 2012-2013 season, the flu vaccine prevented 6.6 million cases of flu. I mean, who could argue with success like that?
Well, I don't know. Let me give it a try.
First, if you're wondering how the CDC could possibly know how many cases of flu wewould have developed, that's a great question. If the feds were so good at predicting the future, how did we end up $17 trillion in debt?
But this time let's just take them at their word. According to the CDC about 45% of the population got a vaccine last year. That translates to roughly 135 million shots. But the shot only "prevented" 6.6 million cases of the flu.
That means your chance of EVER getting the flu was less than 5% to begin with.
In other words, the vaccine was totally worthless for 95% of the poor sons of guns who lined up to have their arms pricked.
Better safe than sorry, right? I mean, who wants to be one of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who drop dead of the flu each year? There are hundreds of thousands of them, right?
Not exactly. A 30-year analysis of the flu found that annual deaths averaged about 6,300. For half of the years, the total was fewer than 5,000. That wouldn't fill the end zone seats in the stadium where the Dallas Cowboys play.
And now consider this -- if the flu vaccine truly was preventing 6.6 million cases of flu a year that means your chances of dying from it are no better than one tenth of one percent! Yet we're spending billions a year on flu campaigns as if we have some national emergency on our hands!
Numbers never lie, friend, and the numbers on the flu vaccine are a joke. Even Uncle Sam is starting to admit it -- he just didn't mean to. "
flu vaccines are a huge BigPharma marketing scam, aided and abetted by captured-regulators CDC, NIH, etc.
Riddle me this, batman:
Does Bob Reagan of Newmarkethealth.com have any financial interest in getting people to stop vaccinating themselves?
I don't know. But he makes good case exposing the scam of flu vaccines.
His website actively profits from the promotion and sale of "natural medicines", at the expense of conventional medicine, as well as sales of his own books and other promotional material.
He has every motivation to spin the truth to promote his own sales.
If you'd like, I can start dissecting his arguments using real science. I have already noted a couple of logically flawed arguments just in the snippet you pasted.
There is a burgeoning "supplement" industry using all sorts of junk science and conspiracy theory to sell to people ready to believe that "they" are out to get you, and if you click on a few links at new market health, this is VERY apparent.
https://www.besthealthnutritionals.com/
https://www.realadvantagenutrients.com/
This stuff screams "scam" to me.
http://www.newmarkethealth.com/site/
there is the main site right there.
It is very obviously trying to scare people into buying their useless snake oil.
"useless snake oil"
so you agree or disagree with his stats on vaccines?
I don't know anything about his snake oil. What proof do you have that your slander is fact?
you want snake oil?
7 Drugs Whose Dangerous Risks Emerged Only After Big Pharma Made Its Money
http://www.alternet.org/personal-hea...made-its-money
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-06-2014 at 03:12 PM.
Drugs companies 'routinely withhold results of medical trials' from doctors, researchers and patients
Drug companies have “routinely and legally” withheld the results of medical trials from doctors, researchers and patients for decades, MPs have said.
In a damning report, the Public Accounts Committee said it was of “extreme concern” that about half of all trial results for medicines available on the global market were not subject to public and independent scrutiny.
Warning that doctors and patients are being “undermined” in their ability to make informed decisions on treatment, the committee called on the Government to act to ensure that the results of all clinical trials of every medicine currently being prescribed are made available.
The report will significantly increase pressure on the world’s pharmaceutical giants to commit to full transparency over clinical trials.
Critics have accused “Big Pharma” of systematically putting profit before patients, withholding data that might undermine confidence in their blockbuster drugs.
MPs said that “trials which gave a favourable verdict” were “about twice as likely to be published as trials giving unfavourable results”.
The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), which represents leading UK firms such as GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca, said that it was “misleading” to say data was being routinely withheld and that results from nine out of every 10 industry-sponsored clinical trials for “recently approved medicines” had been published.
Yet committee member Richard Bacon MP said that results of past trials on medicines still in use today could be of equal concern.
Tamiflu, which for years has been stockpiled by the Government for emergency use in the event of a flu pandemic, caused particular concern to the committee, which said it was “disturbed by claims that regulators do not have access to all the available information” about the drug.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...s-9035740.html
I disagree with his stats - they're horrendous and unscientific. One can make an argument against the overall usefulness of the flu vaccine with actually credible arguments.
"But this time let's just take them at their word. According to the CDC about 45% of the population got a vaccine last year. That translates to roughly 135 million shots. But the shot only "prevented" 6.6 million cases of the flu.
That means your chance of EVER getting the flu was less than 5% to begin with."
I mean this shows he has no knowledge on statistics. Before the introduction of the Pertussis vaccine, the incidence was 175,000 cases per year (150 cases per 100,000 population). Using this idiot's logic, there was only a 0.15% chance of acquiring whooping cough (at the time a big cause of infant mortality). Polio? Had a much lower incidence than pertussis (pre-vaccination era). Should we have not have developed vaccines for these diseases?
There's a bunch of resources that can be read about vaccination coverage and the rationale behind the models used:
http://www.who.int/immunization/moni...rveillance/en/
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/3/633.full
I think part of RandomGuy's point is people are quick to say "Of course Big Pharma is lying! They have so much to gain!" but they don't apply this same logic to these 'natural health' quacks who also stand to gain financially from the fear mongering and lies. If people are so interested in the 'truth', then read up on the data and make your own conclusions. But people always want the easy way out - use a quack to discredit another quack.
the message was STRICTLY about the flu vaccine scam, not measles, whooping cough, polio vaccines.
His logic for flu applies to every vaccine, i.e. it is flawed and incorrect. His math is incorrect so he's either uneducated or being dishonest.
Like I said, one can make an argument against he usefulness about flu, but he's obviously no the one to do it.
Did you know that you can DIE from drinking TOO MUCH water?!?!
STOP DRINKING WATER SHEEPELS!
Another thread full of people unaware of the dangers of DHMO.
Lead Developer Of HPV Vaccines Comes Clean, Warns Parents & Young Girls It’s All A Giant Deadly Scam -
http://asheepnomore.net/2014/01/12/l....UHeWFbHw.dpuf
gardisil is just another BigPharma scam.
HPV nearly always clears up by itself in healthy people, and the clearing can be aided by upping certain vitamins and food
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
