Chinese Baby Atrophies and Dies After Receiving BCG Vaccine

Herd immunity is a mental delusion that afflicts morons with a herd mentality. Call it pseudo-science, junk science, Mickey Mouse science, or tobacco science, but not science!

Vaccination is nothing but a ugly and brutal money-making racket worth billions. The benefits are purely of a financial nature, and two-fold:

1. Profits from the sale of vaccines
2. Even greater profits from the sale of drugs used to treat the disasters caused by vaccines

Vaccines have never prevented anything, apart from health, sanity and common sense.

@Chris: I will concede that it is possible that some vaccine policy is good public policy. You do no justice to your view by saying others with different view points are “stupid”. But I will humor you and give you a reasoned response. Notwithstanding the original intent of vaccines (to eliminate lethal and debilitating illnesses like polio), the current trend in vaccines is to vaccinate for non-fatal illnesses. You bring up chicken pox, which is case in point. A highly problematic vaccine is for HPV, which is not in itself fatal and merely correlates with a higher incidence of cervical cancer (which can with prevention and appropriate health measures be avoided entirely). Do a little research and you will see a fair number of pre-teenage girls have died after receiving the HPV vaccine. Given that it is a non-lethal disease, can any death from such a vaccine be justified as a matter of public health policy?

The vaccine industry, well aware that killer diseases such as small pox having been successfully (largely) eradicated, can no longer rely on limiting vaccine policy to killer diseases in order to continue to generate the profits that their shareholders demand. So the idea of vaccines is now extended to non-lethal diseases. That is highly problematic. I was speaking with a colleague who has some digestive disorder (I forgot the name) which I know can be treated and healed with diet, but he, being brainwashed by mainstream medicine, said the diet seemed “too restrictive and its claims not believable” and said that the best hope, according to current research, was the development of a vaccine. The idea of a vaccine healing a gut disorder is beyond incredible to me, but it goes to show you how mainstream health propaganda has convinced everyone that vaccines is the panacea for all that ails us. Big pharma knows this and will continue to keep that lie alive.

Again, you cite as the basis for your position the case for small pox. That is the rallying flag for the entire industry … look what we did, we eradicated this horrible disease, now we can do the same with any other disease. The obsession with vaccination is so extreme now, infants are required to get something like 10+ vaccines (I don’t recall the exact number) within their first 2 years of life, most of them in the first year, often simultaneously, with no research having been done on the effect of combined assaults on the undeveloped immune system of an infant by such combination of vaccines (which include not only the virus but adjuvants which create other problems like chronic immune system activation, leading to other more serious problems).

Most children may not show any immediate effect as a result of the vaccinations, and it may be deemed “an acceptable risk” that some children die “for the sake of herd immunity”, but I will tell you that the nature of vaccine policy is to, like you, shut out those who would have criticisms of the way it is implemented. Vaccine policy is the high religion of the medical establishment. Those who go against it are heretics who are to be outcast and burned at the stake (if they could). For example, a way to make vaccine policy safer would be to vaccinate children at an older age and screen children for being at risk of adverse reaction (checking gut health, for one, would go a long way, as the gut is an essential part of the immune system). But such an approach is never considered.

Also, you would be foolish to assume the studies that support the efficacy of vaccine policy are objectively done. It has been shown again and again that research is biased in favor of interests that sponsored the research (or potential employers and futures sponsors of the researchers).

Above all, the test of whether or not you are willing to think for yourself when it comes to public health policy or whether you will just accept the authority of so-called “experts” at the FDA and AMA (which, btw, are all bought by big money interests … it’s called “regulatory capture” by big industry … a very common phenomenon among any governmental bureaucracy that regulates the private sector) is your view on whether fluoride in drinking water makes sense. If you agree with fluoridation of public drinking water, then that is the clearest evidence that you are willing to take complete non-sense as valid science simply on the basis of some pronouncement by public health authorities.

Hm. Odd, thought you mentioned HPV later, but guess not.

Your position is that HPV is somehow by appropriate health measures.

OK. Given that at least SOME of the readers here will be female, would you care to share these appropriate health measures? I’m sure that will help a great number of people.

As for HPV being non-fatal. While HPV is non-fatal, approximately 95% of cervical cancers were found to have HPV DNA inside. The virus, particularly high risk strains of 16 and 18 (both covered by the vaccine), produce protein products E6 and E7 that actually turn off genes in your cells that stop it from dividing, causing uncontrol growth of those cells (*gasp* sounds like cancer!). Cervical cancers aren’t fatal. But to remove them might involve removing entire uterus and overies. Can you imagine the impact on a young women’s psyche that would have? So given the cost, both personal and medical, wouldn’t it be worth it to stop this from happening?