Unvaccinated children healthier

On May 1, 10:00 am, "Jeff" wrote:
"bigvince" wrote in message

oups.com...





On May 1, 12:06 am, "Jeff" wrote:
"bigvince" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Apr 30, 3:06 pm
hand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hepatitis b vaccine is a vaccine that when given to 1 day old infants
has very little benefit for them .The original advice was to give the
vaccine to those groups at risk: prostitutes ;drug addicts who share
needles, medical professionals [inadvertant stick.]

Yeah, I know. I got the original heptavax vaccine, made with hepatitis B
antigen from people infected with the virus, before the combinant vaccine
was made.

Why than give it to
infants. Simple those at risk would not take it. The only group of
infants that benefit from this vaccine are those who have infected
mothers .

And it is not alway possible to tell who those are while the vaccine
would
do the most good.

For most other infants they are far more likely to have an
adverse reaction to the vaccine than to recieve any benefit from it.
The vaccine has been linked to MS (Neurology, 2004; 63: 838-42).
From that article "Conclusions: These findings are consistent with
the hypothesis that immunization with the recombinant hepatitis B
vaccine is associated with an increased risk of MS" . Also the
protective effect of this vaccine may wane with time. So by the time
these infants those who choise high risk lifestyles need it it may not
offer protection Vince

In which case they can get vaccinated again.

This is one study. Certainly, there were more studies of the issue. Did
they
show a possible link?

Jeff

The give this vaccine to infants that have none infected mothers is
not beneficial to those infants and in actuality those infants stand
a far greater chance of being damanged by this vaccine than by the
virus it protects against.

Evidence please.

Adverse reaction serious and sometimes
fatal can occur to take that risk and treat helpless infants who have
no risk factors as living test tubes

Evidence please.

Why because the drug addicts and
prostitutes won't take it is poor and damaging science, Certainly for
medical professionals and those that choise risky lifestyles it should
be and option.

And this is the kids fault? I have to admit, without using proper English, I
am not sure what you mean.

Resently The FDA put rules in effect prohibiting
blatant conflicts of interest on thier advisory boards.

Excellent. It's about time.

Perhaps its
time for the CDC to stop using Doctors with blatant conflicts of
interest from thier advisory chain.

Absolutely.

This economic influence cannot be
overestimated.

Actually, it can be.

Resently the COURAGE study investigating the benefit of
stenting in Heart diesease. The study concluded that stents offered no
real benefit in most cases ;before the paper was published it was
being attacked by MDs in the employ of stent makers .Every vaccine has
risk to allow those with that conflict to make these decisions is a
practice that needs to stop. Vince

Oh, I agree. Yet, there is no evidence that anyone ever changed votes about
vaccines because of conflicts of interest. However, I do totally agree that
anyone with a conflict of interest should not be vote on the committees.

Jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jeff why would you assume that a Doctot or any other person would not
allow his finacial interest effect his judgement. Most advisory groups
are filled with such people how can they not be biased. Thanks Vince

"bigvince" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 1, 10:00 am, "Jeff" wrote:
"bigvince" wrote in message

oups.com...





On May 1, 12:06 am, "Jeff" wrote:
"bigvince" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Apr 30, 3:06 pm
hand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hepatitis b vaccine is a vaccine that when given to 1 day old
infants
has very little benefit for them .The original advice was to give
the
vaccine to those groups at risk: prostitutes ;drug addicts who share
needles, medical professionals [inadvertant stick.]

Yeah, I know. I got the original heptavax vaccine, made with hepatitis
B
antigen from people infected with the virus, before the combinant
vaccine
was made.

Why than give it to
infants. Simple those at risk would not take it. The only group of
infants that benefit from this vaccine are those who have infected
mothers .

And it is not alway possible to tell who those are while the vaccine
would
do the most good.

For most other infants they are far more likely to have an
adverse reaction to the vaccine than to recieve any benefit from it.
The vaccine has been linked to MS (Neurology, 2004; 63: 838-42).
From that article "Conclusions: These findings are consistent
with
the hypothesis that immunization with the recombinant hepatitis B
vaccine is associated with an increased risk of MS" . Also
the
protective effect of this vaccine may wane with time. So by the time
these infants those who choise high risk lifestyles need it it may
not
offer protection Vince

In which case they can get vaccinated again.

This is one study. Certainly, there were more studies of the issue.
Did
they
show a possible link?

Jeff

The give this vaccine to infants that have none infected mothers is
not beneficial to those infants and in actuality those infants stand
a far greater chance of being damanged by this vaccine than by the
virus it protects against.

Evidence please.

Adverse reaction serious and sometimes
fatal can occur to take that risk and treat helpless infants who have
no risk factors as living test tubes

Evidence please.

Why because the drug addicts and
prostitutes won't take it is poor and damaging science, Certainly for
medical professionals and those that choise risky lifestyles it should
be and option.

And this is the kids fault? I have to admit, without using proper
English, I
am not sure what you mean.

Resently The FDA put rules in effect prohibiting
blatant conflicts of interest on thier advisory boards.

Excellent. It's about time.

Perhaps its
time for the CDC to stop using Doctors with blatant conflicts of
interest from thier advisory chain.

Absolutely.

This economic influence cannot be
overestimated.

Actually, it can be.

Resently the COURAGE study investigating the benefit of
stenting in Heart diesease. The study concluded that stents offered no
real benefit in most cases ;before the paper was published it was
being attacked by MDs in the employ of stent makers .Every vaccine has
risk to allow those with that conflict to make these decisions is a
practice that needs to stop. Vince

Oh, I agree. Yet, there is no evidence that anyone ever changed votes
about
vaccines because of conflicts of interest. However, I do totally agree
that
anyone with a conflict of interest should not be vote on the committees.

Jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jeff why would you assume that a Doctot or any other person would not
allow his finacial interest effect his judgement. Most advisory groups
are filled with such people how can they not be biased. Thanks Vince

I never said that they were not biased or their judgement affected. That is
why docs with potential conflicts should not be allowed to vote.

Jeff

On May 1, 10:25 pm, "Jeff" wrote:
"bigvince" wrote in message

oups.com...





On May 1, 10:00 am, "Jeff" wrote:
"bigvince" wrote in message

groups.com...

On May 1, 12:06 am, "Jeff" wrote:
"bigvince" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Apr 30, 3:06 pm
hand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hepatitis b vaccine is a vaccine that when given to 1 day old
infants
has very little benefit for them .The original advice was to give
the
vaccine to those groups at risk: prostitutes ;drug addicts who share
needles, medical professionals [inadvertant stick.]

Yeah, I know. I got the original heptavax vaccine, made with hepatitis
B
antigen from people infected with the virus, before the combinant
vaccine
was made.

Why than give it to
infants. Simple those at risk would not take it. The only group of
infants that benefit from this vaccine are those who have infected
mothers .

And it is not alway possible to tell who those are while the vaccine
would
do the most good.

For most other infants they are far more likely to have an
adverse reaction to the vaccine than to recieve any benefit from it.
The vaccine has been linked to MS (Neurology, 2004; 63: 838-42).
From that article "Conclusions: These findings are consistent
with
the hypothesis that immunization with the recombinant hepatitis B
vaccine is associated with an increased risk of MS" . Also
the
protective effect of this vaccine may wane with time. So by the time
these infants those who choise high risk lifestyles need it it may
not
offer protection Vince

In which case they can get vaccinated again.

This is one study. Certainly, there were more studies of the issue.
Did
they
show a possible link?

Jeff

The give this vaccine to infants that have none infected mothers is
not beneficial to those infants and in actuality those infants stand
a far greater chance of being damanged by this vaccine than by the
virus it protects against.

Evidence please.

Adverse reaction serious and sometimes
fatal can occur to take that risk and treat helpless infants who have
no risk factors as living test tubes

Evidence please.

Why because the drug addicts and
prostitutes won't take it is poor and damaging science, Certainly for
medical professionals and those that choise risky lifestyles it should
be and option.

And this is the kids fault? I have to admit, without using proper
English, I
am not sure what you mean.

Resently The FDA put rules in effect prohibiting
blatant conflicts of interest on thier advisory boards.

Excellent. It's about time.

Perhaps its
time for the CDC to stop using Doctors with blatant conflicts of
interest from thier advisory chain.

Absolutely.

This economic influence cannot be
overestimated.

Actually, it can be.

Resently the COURAGE study investigating the benefit of
stenting in Heart diesease. The study concluded that stents offered no
real benefit in most cases ;before the paper was published it was
being attacked by MDs in the employ of stent makers .Every vaccine has
risk to allow those with that conflict to make these decisions is a
practice that needs to stop. Vince

Oh, I agree. Yet, there is no evidence that anyone ever changed votes
about
vaccines because of conflicts of interest. However, I do totally agree
that
anyone with a conflict of interest should not be vote on the committees.

Jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jeff why would you assume that a Doctot or any other person would not
allow his finacial interest effect his judgement. Most advisory groups
are filled with such people how can they not be biased. Thanks Vince

I never said that they were not biased or their judgement affected. That is
why docs with potential conflicts should not be allowed to vote.

Jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

jeff said " Yet, there is no evidence that anyone ever changed
votes about
vaccines because of conflicts of interest." Then Jeff said -
" I never said that they were not biased or their judgement affected. . " Jeff it seems to me you are trying to split an awful fine hair. The bias caused by the conflicts of interest must effect the outcome. We need neutral experts not proponents on advisory boards.That is not often the case Thanks Vince

On May 2, 10:05 am, bigvince wrote:
On May 1, 10:25 pm, "Jeff" wrote:





"bigvince" wrote in message

roups.com...

On May 1, 10:00 am, "Jeff" wrote:
"bigvince" wrote in message

groups.com...

On May 1, 12:06 am, "Jeff" wrote:
"bigvince" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Apr 30, 3:06 pm
hand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hepatitis b vaccine is a vaccine that when given to 1 day old
infants
has very little benefit for them .The original advice was to give
the
vaccine to those groups at risk: prostitutes ;drug addicts who share
needles, medical professionals [inadvertant stick.]

Yeah, I know. I got the original heptavax vaccine, made with hepatitis
B
antigen from people infected with the virus, before the combinant
vaccine
was made.

Why than give it to
infants. Simple those at risk would not take it. The only group of
infants that benefit from this vaccine are those who have infected
mothers .

And it is not alway possible to tell who those are while the vaccine
would
do the most good.

For most other infants they are far more likely to have an
adverse reaction to the vaccine than to recieve any benefit from it.
The vaccine has been linked to MS (Neurology, 2004; 63: 838-42).
From that article "Conclusions: These findings are consistent
with
the hypothesis that immunization with the recombinant hepatitis B
vaccine is associated with an increased risk of MS" . Also
the
protective effect of this vaccine may wane with time. So by the time
these infants those who choise high risk lifestyles need it it may
not
offer protection Vince

In which case they can get vaccinated again.

This is one study. Certainly, there were more studies of the issue.
Did
they
show a possible link?

Jeff

The give this vaccine to infants that have none infected mothers is
not beneficial to those infants and in actuality those infants stand
a far greater chance of being damanged by this vaccine than by the
virus it protects against.

Evidence please.

Adverse reaction serious and sometimes
fatal can occur to take that risk and treat helpless infants who have
no risk factors as living test tubes

Evidence please.

Why because the drug addicts and
prostitutes won't take it is poor and damaging science, Certainly for
medical professionals and those that choise risky lifestyles it should
be and option.

And this is the kids fault? I have to admit, without using proper
English, I
am not sure what you mean.

Resently The FDA put rules in effect prohibiting
blatant conflicts of interest on thier advisory boards.

Excellent. It's about time.

Perhaps its
time for the CDC to stop using Doctors with blatant conflicts of
interest from thier advisory chain.

Absolutely.

This economic influence cannot be
overestimated.

Actually, it can be.

Resently the COURAGE study investigating the benefit of
stenting in Heart diesease. The study concluded that stents offered no
real benefit in most cases ;before the paper was published it was
being attacked by MDs in the employ of stent makers .Every vaccine has
risk to allow those with that conflict to make these decisions is a
practice that needs to stop. Vince

Oh, I agree. Yet, there is no evidence that anyone ever changed votes
about
vaccines because of conflicts of interest. However, I do totally agree
that
anyone with a conflict of interest should not be vote on the committees.

Jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jeff why would you assume that a Doctot or any other person would not
allow his finacial interest effect his judgement. Most advisory groups
are filled with such people how can they not be biased. Thanks Vince

I never said that they were not biased or their judgement affected. That is
why docs with potential conflicts should not be allowed to vote.

Jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

jeff said " Yet, there is no evidence that anyone ever changed
votes about
vaccines because of conflicts of interest." Then Jeff said -



" I never said that they were not biased or their judgement affected. . " Jeff it seems to me you are trying to split an awful fine hair. The bias caused by the conflicts of interest must effect the outcome. We need neutral experts not proponents on advisory boards.That is not often the case Thanks Vince- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

often

On May 2, 10:05 am, bigvince wrote:
On May 1, 10:25 pm, "Jeff" wrote:





"bigvince" wrote in message

roups.com...

On May 1, 10:00 am, "Jeff" wrote:
"bigvince" wrote in message

groups.com...

On May 1, 12:06 am, "Jeff" wrote:
"bigvince" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Apr 30, 3:06 pm
hand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hepatitis b vaccine is a vaccine that when given to 1 day old
infants
has very little benefit for them .The original advice was to give
the
vaccine to those groups at risk: prostitutes ;drug addicts who share
needles, medical professionals [inadvertant stick.]

Yeah, I know. I got the original heptavax vaccine, made with hepatitis
B
antigen from people infected with the virus, before the combinant
vaccine
was made.

Why than give it to
infants. Simple those at risk would not take it. The only group of
infants that benefit from this vaccine are those who have infected
mothers .

And it is not alway possible to tell who those are while the vaccine
would
do the most good.

For most other infants they are far more likely to have an
adverse reaction to the vaccine than to recieve any benefit from it.
The vaccine has been linked to MS (Neurology, 2004; 63: 838-42).
From that article "Conclusions: These findings are consistent
with
the hypothesis that immunization with the recombinant hepatitis B
vaccine is associated with an increased risk of MS" . Also
the
protective effect of this vaccine may wane with time. So by the time
these infants those who choise high risk lifestyles need it it may
not
offer protection Vince

In which case they can get vaccinated again.

This is one study. Certainly, there were more studies of the issue.
Did
they
show a possible link?

Jeff

The give this vaccine to infants that have none infected mothers is
not beneficial to those infants and in actuality those infants stand
a far greater chance of being damanged by this vaccine than by the
virus it protects against.

Evidence please.

Adverse reaction serious and sometimes
fatal can occur to take that risk and treat helpless infants who have
no risk factors as living test tubes

Evidence please.

Why because the drug addicts and
prostitutes won't take it is poor and damaging science, Certainly for
medical professionals and those that choise risky lifestyles it should
be and option.

And this is the kids fault? I have to admit, without using proper
English, I
am not sure what you mean.

Resently The FDA put rules in effect prohibiting
blatant conflicts of interest on thier advisory boards.

Excellent. It's about time.

Perhaps its
time for the CDC to stop using Doctors with blatant conflicts of
interest from thier advisory chain.

Absolutely.

This economic influence cannot be
overestimated.

Actually, it can be.

Resently the COURAGE study investigating the benefit of
stenting in Heart diesease. The study concluded that stents offered no
real benefit in most cases ;before the paper was published it was
being attacked by MDs in the employ of stent makers .Every vaccine has
risk to allow those with that conflict to make these decisions is a
practice that needs to stop. Vince

Oh, I agree. Yet, there is no evidence that anyone ever changed votes
about
vaccines because of conflicts of interest. However, I do totally agree
that
anyone with a conflict of interest should not be vote on the committees.

Jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jeff why would you assume that a Doctot or any other person would not
allow his finacial interest effect his judgement. Most advisory groups
are filled with such people how can they not be biased. Thanks Vince

I never said that they were not biased or their judgement affected. That is
why docs with potential conflicts should not be allowed to vote.

Jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

jeff said " Yet, there is no evidence that anyone ever changed
votes about
vaccines because of conflicts of interest." Then Jeff said -



" I never said that they were not biased or their judgement affected. . " Jeff it seems to me you are trying to split an awful fine hair. The bias caused by the conflicts of interest must effect the outcome. We need neutral experts not proponents on advisory boards.That is not often the case Thanks Vince- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jeff you said " no evidence that anyone ever changed votes about
vaccine because of conflicts of interest " you also said " I never
said they where not biased or their judgement affected" Jef it really
appears that you want to have it both ways. Thanks Vince

Chris wrote:
There are
certain organs and processes involved to get to that stage of immunity
when acquired naturally. There are links that indicate more research
should be done on various components of vaccines that can closely
resemble the genetic makeup of certain individuals thereby tricking
the body into attacking itself along with the component it should be
strictly focusing on.
Cite some examples of this research, please.

Maybe you need to start doing your own searches and research versus
being all for the bones the agencies choose to share with you. I have.
I don't feel the need to educate you.

I see, so you do not have any proof of your claims and are embarrassed
that I pointed that out. I am sorry I ruined your bull****ting experience.

A good starter book with a slew of links to check out on your own that
happens to not be all anti-vaccine nor pro-vaccine is the book my very
own pediatrician told me to read What Your Doctor May NOT tell you
about Children's vaccinations. It offers a lot of the information that
people who feel they deserve to have their right to choose for their
themselves and their children are looking for.

I see...you use books, not science...

Emphasis on
the word "normal" here. Are you aware of the difference as to what
reactions/processes are evoked between the two introduction methods
and in what order? I am completely aware of this "activation" process
of which you speak.
Yes.
the fact that autism
is "a disorder probably caused by organically based central nervous
system dysfunction", the fact that the neurologic systems,
immunologic
systems, etc. are rapidly forming during a period of time when an
infant is supposed to receive nothing other than breastmilk,
and the immune system receives thousands of other challenges each day,
like
from the bacteria in the gut
Yes, but more importantly, naturally, and that bacteria in the gut is
something that the infant's gut is already working hard at adjusting
to, which doesn't even occur until somewhere around an estimated 6
months of age, so why stress a developing organism even more?
How much are you stressing a baby compared to the way the baby is already
stress by responding to the organisms that he is already responding to?
You can stress a baby's immune system immensely when the immune system
is low after fighting infection,
Evidence, please.

Puhleeze. You think the CDC recommendations to avoid vaccination
during periods of febrile illness is because their immune system is
NOT compromised? der.

You first said "after" and now you say "during". Does moving goal posts
cause back strain?

hence the recommendation to not vax
while the infant is sick, and you can tax it by introducing 4 to 6
foreign substances at one time requiring disease-fighting immunity
resources while the immune system is currently trying to mature
itself, starting small and working its way up.
the fact
� that a body's immune system can be confused at just what it should be





attacking and thereby attack itself bringing on the diagnosis of an
autoimmune disease,
autism is not an autoimmune disease, however. To the best of my
knowledge,
there is no evidence to suggest that it is.
I didn't say that autism was an autoimmune disease.
OK. You're right. You said that an autoimmune disease is diganosed.
That's a
huge difference.
Yes, a huge difference and yet still somehow significant when even
autism can be linked to a genetic disposition for an autoimmune
disorder to begin with (with or without vaxes).
Somehow significant? Gee, what a joke.

I don't find it funny at all.

I find it funny that you actually believe this crap. I do not find it
funny that you spread it like the manure that it is.

You seemed to have
left out the definition of what autism is that I posted in your C&P. I
believe that a developing neurological system can be injured as well.
Yet there is very little to no evidence that the neurological system is
injured.
And yet, even still, there is little to no evidence that the
neurological system is NOT injured.
Actually, there is plenty of evidence that autism is not caused by vaccines.
And the fact that the immune system responds to vaccines outside the nervous
system as well as there is no mechansism known by which vaccines might harm
the nervous system, there is no reason to think that autism is caused by
vaccines.

Much is not known yet about recumbinant DNA vaccines,

Can you name a recombinant DNA vaccine?

and yet the
biggest concern about them is that they can trick the body into
attacking itself;

Who has this concern, other than anti-vac liars that is?

hence an autoimmune disease down the road.
Conjugated vaccines are vaccines where components are joined to
proteins. When vaccines have components like animal proteins, such as
monkey tissues, etc. it is not unreasonable to see the potential
problems that may be linked. Proviruses can develop and remain
inactive in the body for years. It is believed by many that when they
become active, there are instances where a body cannot distinguish
between its own tissues and the foreign invading substances, so it
attacks itself. It has also been said that the animal proteins are
undigested in the body and that the undigested proteins are a major
cause of allergies. Proteins that are undigested can attack the
protective covering on nerve cells and may cause neurological
problems.

Sounds soooooooooooo impressive....

Each person has a unique genetic makeup, and when combined with family
and personal medical histories, and backgrounds (social environment),
it can determine how one will react to a vaccine; therefore, vaccines
are not one-size-fits-all. Not all diseases are the same. Not all
vaccines are even the same.

True. The MMR vaccine is not like the Hib or HBV, etc.

Yes, vaccines can harm and kill, and yes, they can also save lives,
but because lives are on the line in either situation, more research
needs to be done to in fact rule out that vaccines are NOT responsible
for most of what is ailing people today. I don't believe in
sacrificing one to save 20.

One to save twenty? What crap. If one saves hundreds of thousands, and
that is what vaccines do, the risk is clearly worth it. Note that I do
not concede one.

I have gathered too many links that happen to not be any feasible
order on my backup computer since my crash four months ago, BUT you
can find this information for yourself if you look.

Did your dog eat your homework?

Why is it that you are so big on asking for proof/links/etc. versus
searching them out for yourself?

Because when I do, I out manure spreaders.

I don't ask you for proof or links
because I've searched and learned both sides of the argument. I choose
to not take the word of either side as gospel, nobody should. Again,
my issue is that the decision as to which vaccines I choose to give my
child, if any, should be mine and mine alone, and the medical
community that I pay to work with me in that decision-making process
should be knowledgeable enough as to which vaccines pose more of a
risk to MY child than to the majority of children, and I should be
provided with the necessary information to make that decision
including the whole truth from the pro-vaccine side.

It would be nice if risk was so easy to assess. Sorry, but it is not.
You have a straw man.

You want to be a basher of those who rightly question the substances
being injected into their bodies and children's bodies, then so be it.

I bash the bull**** and those who spread it. Anyone who has had an open
mind on looking at the vaccine issues would know that the anti-vac side
has no substantial science behind it.

I don't bash those who throw caution to the wind and do NOT at least
question it.

No, you just use manure and strawmen to support your so-called ideas.

Chris wrote:
Jeff write: Read what the OP said: "....after fighting infection." Not
during periods of febrile illness.

Immune systems aren't back up to par even after the person *appears*
to be healthy and fine again.

Do you know how many antigens the immune system can handle?


Jeff writes: Not all jokes are funny. Like unsupported suggestions about

life-saving vaccines.


Like how your's are equally unsupported other than with the vague,
generalized statements of the professional organizations that list the
very side effects in their literature and yet only accompany it with
"is so rare that it cannot be linked"? @@ I haven't read

Which means only that you have not read them. Use your finely honed
esearch skills, perhaps on Google Scholar, to find contrary information.

one single
study pertaining to this very issue that clearly indicates that the
participants were only given one single vaccine to study its
relationship as a causative factor to something anyway.

Why would anyone want to do that? First, it would be unethical, since to
intentionally withhold a life saving treatment is unethical.

Conjugated vaccines are vaccines where components are joined to
proteins. �When vaccines have components like animal proteins, such as
monkey tissues, etc. it is not unreasonable to see the potential
problems that may be linked. Proviruses can develop and remain
inactive in the body for years. It is believed by many that when they
become active, there are instances where a body cannot distinguish
between its own tissues and the foreign invading substances, so it
attacks itself. It has also been said that the animal proteins are
undigested in the body and that the undigested proteins are a major
cause of allergies. Proteins that are undigested can attack the
protective covering on nerve cells and may cause neurological
problems.

Jeff writes: Proviruses contain DNA or RNA, not just protein. Undigested
proteins in the body are unlikely to attack nerve cells.

Unlikely or will not? I know they contain DNA or RNA and not just
protein. What happens if your DNA is injected into my body, along with
say formaldehyde?

What do you think would happen? I think you would develop immunity to Jeff.

Hmmm...

Most nerve cells are inside the CNS and behind the blood brain barrier. What you are suggesting is theoretical, at best.

Most or All?

Most usually means "not all". I hope this clears up your confusion.

Polio doesn't attack nerves affect brain function?

Do you know what that sentence means?

The
viruses also contain proteins. Theoretical? Is it not also theoretical
about what you are saying?

Each person has a unique genetic makeup, and when combined with family
and personal medical histories, and backgrounds (social environment),
it can determine how one will react to a vaccine; therefore, vaccines
are not one-size-fits-all. Not all diseases are the same. Not all
vaccines are even the same.

Jeff writes: You don't need to combine the unique genetic make-up with

family history. Either a particular version of a gene is there or not. Of
course, not all vaccines or diseases are the same. But, how do you recommend
docs determine which vaccine or what doses to give?

The recommendations can only be made after all of the adequate
research is conducted, which is not the case, which will not be by me.
There are many people with certain genes that mark one as more
susceptible to developing a condition that never actually do and there
are people who don't have the gene that still develop the condition,
so the gene being there or not isn't the only factor to take into
consideration.



Yes, vaccines can harm and kill, and yes, they can also save lives,
but because lives are on the line in either situation, more research
needs to be done to in fact rule out that vaccines are NOT responsible
for most of what is ailing people today. I don't believe in
sacrificing one to save 20.

Jeff writes: Yet, there is very little evidence that vaccines do much harm.

Unfortunately, a very small number of people have bad reactiosn to vaccines.
However, the number is very small. Much smaller than the number of lives
saved. The benefits clearly outweigh the risks.

Again, you have already quite clearly relayed your belief that
sacrificing some to save many others is acceptable to you and that it
requires no further study as to how to eliminate those few being
harmed.

Jeff writes: I have. What you are writing is total nonsense.

Go ahead and prove to all who read here that it is total nonsense.
First of all, you'll need to get past the fixation on autism that you
seem to have since I'm not only speaking of autism. I would really
sincerely appreciate you sharing with me how giving my child the
hepatitis B vaccine will spefically not cause his inherited gene to
trigger the autoimmune disorder that can render him disabled. Please.
I'm serious.


Why is it that you are so big on asking for proof/links/etc. versus
searching them out for yourself? I don't ask you for proof or links
because I've searched and learned both sides of the argument. I choose
to not take the word of either side as gospel, nobody should. Again,
my issue is that the decision as to which vaccines I choose to give my
child, if any, should be mine and mine alone, and the medical
community that I pay to work with me in that decision-making process
should be knowledgeable enough as to which vaccines pose more of a
risk to MY child than to the majority of children, and I should be
provided with the necessary information to make that decision
including the whole truth from the pro-vaccine side.

Jeff writes: I have looked into vaccines very carefully. Likewise, I look at

the evidence for each vaccine. And for each vaccine offered to kids, the
evidence that they do more good than harm is very good. Vaccines have cut
down on deaths from chicken pox, measles (wiped out deaths in the US), small
pox, Hib menigitis, hepatits B and other diseases. There is risk with
vaccines, as with any treatment, but the risk is extremely small compared to
the benefit.

Not for everybody and not for all vaccines.The risk-benefit ratio is
different for everybody.


You want to be a basher of those who rightly question the substances
being injected into their bodies and children's bodies, then so be it.
I don't bash those who throw caution to the wind and do NOT at least
question it.

Jeff writes: �Incorrect. I want to be basher of those who provide false

information that harms people.

And yet you don't consider yourself amongst this group of providing
false information that harms people at all.

On Apr 30, 2:53 pm, Chris wrote:
Jeff write: Read what the OP said: "....after fighting infection." Not
during periods of febrile illness.

Immune systems aren't back up to par even after the person *appears*
to be healthy and fine again.

Jeff writes: Not all jokes are funny. Like unsupported suggestions about

life-saving vaccines.

Like how your's are equally unsupported other than with the vague,
generalized statements of the professional organizations that list the
very side effects in their literature and yet only accompany it with
"is so rare that it cannot be linked"? @@ I haven't read one single
study pertaining to this very issue that clearly indicates that the
participants were only given one single vaccine to study its
relationship as a causative factor to something anyway.







Conjugated vaccines are vaccines where components are joined to
proteins. ?When vaccines have components like animal proteins, such as
monkey tissues, etc. it is not unreasonable to see the potential
problems that may be linked. Proviruses can develop and remain
inactive in the body for years. It is believed by many that when they
become active, there are instances where a body cannot distinguish
between its own tissues and the foreign invading substances, so it
attacks itself. It has also been said that the animal proteins are
undigested in the body and that the undigested proteins are a major
cause of allergies. Proteins that are undigested can attack the
protective covering on nerve cells and may cause neurological
problems.

Jeff writes: Proviruses contain DNA or RNA, not just protein. Undigested
proteins in the body are unlikely to attack nerve cells.

Unlikely or will not? I know they contain DNA or RNA and not just
protein. What happens if your DNA is injected into my body, along with
say formaldehyde?

Most nerve cells are inside the CNS and behind the blood brain barrier. What you are suggesting is theoretical, at best.

Most or All? Polio doesn't attack nerves affect brain function? The
viruses also contain proteins. Theoretical? Is it not also theoretical
about what you are saying?



Each person has a unique genetic makeup, and when combined with family
and personal medical histories, and backgrounds (social environment),
it can determine how one will react to a vaccine; therefore, vaccines
are not one-size-fits-all. Not all diseases are the same. Not all
vaccines are even the same.

Jeff writes: You don't need to combine the unique genetic make-up with

family history. Either a particular version of a gene is there or not. Of
course, not all vaccines or diseases are the same. But, how do you recommend
docs determine which vaccine or what doses to give?

The recommendations can only be made after all of the adequate
research is conducted, which is not the case, which will not be by me.
There are many people with certain genes that mark one as more
susceptible to developing a condition that never actually do and there
are people who don't have the gene that still develop the condition,
so the gene being there or not isn't the only factor to take into
consideration.



Yes, vaccines can harm and kill, and yes, they can also save lives,
but because lives are on the line in either situation, more research
needs to be done to in fact rule out that vaccines are NOT responsible
for most of what is ailing people today. I don't believe in
sacrificing one to save 20.

Jeff writes: Yet, there is very little evidence that vaccines do much harm.

Unfortunately, a very small number of people have bad reactiosn to vaccines.
However, the number is very small. Much smaller than the number of lives
saved. The benefits clearly outweigh the risks.

Again, you have already quite clearly relayed your belief that
sacrificing some to save many others is acceptable to you and that it
requires no further study as to how to eliminate those few being
harmed.



Jeff writes: I have. What you are writing is total nonsense.

Go ahead and prove to all who read here that it is total nonsense.
First of all, you'll need to get past the fixation on autism that you
seem to have since I'm not only speaking of autism. I would really
sincerely appreciate you sharing with me how giving my child the
hepatitis B vaccine will spefically not cause his inherited gene to
trigger the autoimmune disorder that can render him disabled. Please.
I'm serious.







Why is it that you are so big on asking for proof/links/etc. versus
searching them out for yourself? I don't ask you for proof or links
because I've searched and learned both sides of the argument. I choose
to not take the word of either side as gospel, nobody should. Again,
my issue is that the decision as to which vaccines I choose to give my
child, if any, should be mine and mine alone, and the medical
community that I pay to work with me in that decision-making process
should be knowledgeable enough as to which vaccines pose more of a
risk to MY child than to the majority of children, and I should be
provided with the necessary information to make that decision
including the whole truth from the pro-vaccine side.

Jeff writes: I have looked into vaccines very carefully. Likewise, I look at

the evidence for each vaccine. And for each vaccine offered to kids, the
evidence that they do more good than harm is very good. Vaccines have cut
down on deaths from chicken pox, measles (wiped out deaths in the US), small
pox, Hib menigitis, hepatits B and other diseases. There is risk with
vaccines, as with any treatment, but the risk is extremely small compared to
the benefit.

Not for everybody and not for all vaccines.The risk-benefit ratio is
different for everybody.



You want to be a basher of those who rightly question the substances
being injected into their bodies and children's bodies, then so be it.
I don't bash those who throw caution to the wind and do NOT at least
question it.

Jeff writes: ?Incorrect. I want to be basher of those who provide false

information that harms people.

And yet you don't consider yourself amongst this group of providing
false information that harms people at all

Try this one on for size...surely you will disagree.

On May 2, 10:20 pm, Mark Probert wrote:
Chris wrote:
Jeff write: Read what the OP said: "....after fighting infection." Not
during periods of febrile illness.

Immune systems aren't back up to par even after the person *appears*
to be healthy and fine again.

Do you know how many antigens the immune system can handle?

Jeff writes: Not all jokes are funny. Like unsupported suggestions about

life-saving vaccines.

Like how your's are equally unsupported other than with the vague,
generalized statements of the professional organizations that list the
very side effects in their literature and yet only accompany it with
"is so rare that it cannot be linked"? @@ I haven't read

Which means only that you have not read them. Use your finely honed
esearch skills, perhaps on Google Scholar, to find contrary information.

one single

study pertaining to this very issue that clearly indicates that the
participants were only given one single vaccine to study its
relationship as a causative factor to something anyway.

Why would anyone want to do that? First, it would be unethical, since to
intentionally withhold a life saving treatment is unethical.





Conjugated vaccines are vaccines where components are joined to
proteins. ?When vaccines have components like animal proteins, such as
monkey tissues, etc. it is not unreasonable to see the potential
problems that may be linked. Proviruses can develop and remain
inactive in the body for years. It is believed by many that when they
become active, there are instances where a body cannot distinguish
between its own tissues and the foreign invading substances, so it
attacks itself. It has also been said that the animal proteins are
undigested in the body and that the undigested proteins are a major
cause of allergies. Proteins that are undigested can attack the
protective covering on nerve cells and may cause neurological
problems.

Jeff writes: Proviruses contain DNA or RNA, not just protein. Undigested
proteins in the body are unlikely to attack nerve cells.

Unlikely or will not? I know they contain DNA or RNA and not just
protein. What happens if your DNA is injected into my body, along with
say formaldehyde?

What do you think would happen? I think you would develop immunity to Jeff.

Hmmm...

Most nerve cells are inside the CNS and behind the blood brain barrier. What you are suggesting is theoretical, at best.

Most or All?

Most usually means "not all". I hope this clears up your confusion.

Polio doesn't attack nerves affect brain function?

Do you know what that sentence means?

The



viruses also contain proteins. Theoretical? Is it not also theoretical
about what you are saying?
Each person has a unique genetic makeup, and when combined with family
and personal medical histories, and backgrounds (social environment),
it can determine how one will react to a vaccine; therefore, vaccines
are not one-size-fits-all. Not all diseases are the same. Not all
vaccines are even the same.

Jeff writes: You don't need to combine the unique genetic make-up with

family history. Either a particular version of a gene is there or not. Of
course, not all vaccines or diseases are the same. But, how do you recommend
docs determine which vaccine or what doses to give?

The recommendations can only be made after all of the adequate
research is conducted, which is not the case, which will not be by me.
There are many people with certain genes that mark one as more
susceptible to developing a condition that never actually do and there
are people who don't have the gene that still develop the condition,
so the gene being there or not isn't the only factor to take into
consideration.

Yes, vaccines can harm and kill, and yes, they can also save lives,
but because lives are on the line in either situation, more research
needs to be done to in fact rule out that vaccines are NOT responsible
for most of what is ailing people today. I don't believe in
sacrificing one to save 20.

Jeff writes: Yet, there is very little evidence that vaccines do much harm.

Unfortunately, a very small number of people have bad reactiosn to vaccines.
However, the number is very small. Much smaller than the number of lives
saved. The benefits clearly outweigh the risks.

Again, you have already quite clearly relayed your belief that
sacrificing some to save many others is acceptable to you and that it
requires no further study as to how to eliminate those few being
harmed.

Jeff writes: I have. What you are writing is total nonsense.

Go ahead and prove to all who read here that it is total nonsense.
First of all, you'll need to get past the fixation on autism that you
seem to have since I'm not only speaking of autism. I would really
sincerely appreciate you sharing with me how giving my child the
hepatitis B vaccine will spefically not cause his inherited gene to
trigger the autoimmune disorder that can render him disabled. Please.
I'm serious.

Why is it that you are so big on asking for proof/links/etc. versus
searching them out for yourself? I don't ask you for proof or links
because I've searched and learned both sides of the argument. I choose
to not take the word of either side as gospel, nobody should. Again,
my issue is that the decision as to which vaccines I choose to give my
child, if any, should be mine and mine alone, and the medical
community that I pay to work with me in that decision-making process
should be knowledgeable enough as to which vaccines pose more of a
risk to MY child than to the majority of children, and I should be
provided with the necessary information to make that decision
including the whole truth from the pro-vaccine side.

Jeff writes: I have looked into vaccines very carefully. Likewise, I look at

the evidence for each vaccine. And for each vaccine offered to kids, the
evidence that they do more good than harm is very good. Vaccines have cut
down on deaths from chicken pox, measles (wiped out deaths in the US), small
pox, Hib menigitis, hepatits B and other diseases. There is risk with
vaccines, as with any treatment, but the risk is extremely small compared to
the benefit.

Not for everybody and not for all vaccines.The risk-benefit ratio is
different for everybody.

You want to be a basher of those who rightly question the substances
being injected into their bodies and children's bodies, then so be it.
I don't bash those who throw caution to the wind and do NOT at least
question it.

Jeff writes: ?Incorrect. I want to be basher of those who provide false

information that harms people.

And yet you don't consider yourself amongst this group of providing
false information that harms people at all.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jeff writes: I have looked into vaccines very carefully.
Likewise, I look at


the evidence for each vaccine. And for each vaccine offered to kids, the
evidence that they do more good than harm is very good. Vaccines have cut
down on deaths from chicken pox, measles (wiped out deaths in the US), small
pox, Hib menigitis, hepatits B and other diseases. There is risk with
vaccines, as with any treatment, but the risk is extremely small compared to
the benefit.


Jeff you did not look closely enough; specificaly and you made the
statement you have examined this closely. How many death were averted
in the hepatitis b vaccine program as opposed to the number of serious
reactions to that vaccine.? How many deaths were attributed to chicken
pox the last year before vaccines for that condition.AS opposed to
this year?. Some vaccines esspecialy those that are for very minor
condition Chicken pox or those that effect a small group and are
closely associated with life style {hepatitis b} very probable have a
negative inpact unless you negate the normal side effects as the
medical profession tends to do. Why because when you inject millions
who really are not at risk think non drug users and hepatitis b . Even
the mainsay of the yearly vaccine the flu shot has not been shown to
reduce mortality in the elderly. The guestion how many assaults can a
infant sustain in an unnatural way and injection always bypasses the
normal system of immunity which begins with the skin. And not have
something go wrong does merit honest investigation. Most vaccines that
do not effect contagiuos dieseases should not be mandated . The
billion dollar a year sales potential surely has an effect on these
matters, I think every parent should look long and hard at these
issues. I think reasoned cases can be made against many vaccines
because they do not work well. There also is growing evidence that
they may have had a role in the rates of autism. Doctors never admit
error untill they have to its human nature. I expect that goes for
those at the CDC for people to have confidence in this system those
that mandate these drugs cannot have financial connections with the
vaccine makers . Today to many do. Thanks Vince

"bigvince" wrote in message
oups.com...
...

Jeff you did not look closely enough; specificaly and you made the
statement you have examined this closely. How many death were averted
in the hepatitis b vaccine program as opposed to the number of serious
reactions to that vaccine.? How many deaths were attributed to chicken
pox the last year before vaccines for that condition.AS opposed to
this year?.

The data are available. Do you own analysis.

If you want me to do the analysis, the fee is $75 per hour, pay in advance.

Jeff

...