Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / April 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Do you get an annual Flu Shot?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Jan Drew - 15 Apr 2008 23:51 GMT
One of the most dramatic contributors to our chemical load is vaccinations.
There is growing controversy surrounding this topic. Many questions have not
been answered to the satisfaction of vaccination.

http://intentionmethod.blogspot.com/2008/04/chemical-stress-part-1.html

Chemical Stress Part 1
Because this is the most hidden form of stress (and most misunderstood), we
will spend a large amount of time here in an attempt to bring awareness to
this topic. Knowledge is power and avoiding or at least being conscious of
chemical stress can greatly affect our overall health.

As a society, our chemical load has increased tremendously over the last 50
to 100 years. This type of stress bombards us each and every day and can
originate from a variety of sources like our environment, nature,
vaccinations, drugs/medications (legal & illegal), personal hygiene products
and our food.

Our environment adds to our tension levels in a number of ways. There are
toxins in our air and drinking water that cause us stress when we ingest
them. Drinking water, unless distilled or purified, will increase your
chemical load with each sip. For example, chlorine & fluoride are commonly
added to our water supply. Chlorine, which is used to help sanitize the
water, kills the good bacteria in our digestive tract and also reacts to
other substances in the water to become toxins that have been linked to
asthma & various forms of cancer. Fluoride, which is added to supposedly
help fight tooth decay, is a poison in the same class as the deadly arsenic
and cyanide. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - categorizes
fluoride as "a drinking water contaminant" which may be linked to
osteoporosis, cancer and a higher infant mortality rate. Finland, Germany,
France, Sweden and The Netherlands have all banned fluoridation in their
water supply due to its dangers and lack of evidence of its effectiveness to
actually help tooth decay.

Many cities and counties are now using reclaimed water for use by their
population, which has created a number of problems. Recent headlines pointed
out the fact that traces of prescription drugs were found in the water
supply of many urban areas. Also, it is not unusual for bacteria linked to
feces, like E-Coli, to be found in our tap water.

Other ecological stressors include the effects of increasing radiation
levels from the sun, which have been measured for years. Extreme
environmental conditions, like heat & cold, can cause major problems (heat
stroke & frost bite). Also, due to technological advances, a negative effect
on us has been created from electro-magnetic radiation (from cell phones,
radio waves, microwaves, etc.), which is constantly in our immediate
surroundings.

Anyone who suffers from seasonal allergies is well aware that nature can be
a major cause of our chemical stress. By dispersing pollen to create hay
fever during "allergy season", nature can cause an incredibly uncomfortable
response for some. Also, the sting or bite of an insect or animal may cause
a slight negative reaction for some while it can be extremely dangerous for
others (anaphylactic shock, Rabies, Lyme Disease, etc.).

http://intentionmethod.blogspot.com/2008/04/chemical-stress-part-2.html

Chemical Stress Part 2
Do you get an annual Flu Shot? One of the most dramatic contributors to our
chemical load is vaccinations. There is growing controversy surrounding this
topic. Many questions have not been answered to the satisfaction of
vaccination critics. For example: Are they safe? What are the long-term
effects of mass vaccination to our society? Do they actually work to prevent
disease?

The 2007 immunization schedule put out by the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC), called for 68 vaccine injections to be given to all children by the
age of 18 (36 of which are to be administered by the age of 18 months).
These shots were not designed to cause us harm, however, often times they
do. A quick look at some of the components of these injections will make it
clear how these negative responses are possible. Here is a partial
ingredient list for the majority of shots that are routinely given to our
population:

· Formaldehyde: A carcinogenic embalming fluid according to the 2007
Physicians Desk Reference (PDR). May cause nerve, liver and kidney damage.
· Antifreeze (phenol-phenoxyethanol): Neuro-toxin that also affects the
liver and kidneys.
· Mercury (thimerosal): One of the most poisonous substances known. Can
cause permanent nerve damage and autoimmune disorders.
· Aluminum: Potent neurotoxin that causes brain damage and is linked to
Alzheimer's disease.
· Ammonium sulfate: Suspected gastrointestinal and/or liver toxin,
neurotoxin and respiratory irritant.
· Polysorbate 80: Known to cause cancer in animals.
· Glutaraldehyde: Caused birth defects in animal experiments.
· MSG (monosodium glutamate): Neurotoxin that many people have mild to
severe allergies to.
· Human & Animal DNA & Cells: This is the active part of the vaccine
according to the 2007 PDR. Includes lung cells of aborted human fetus, human
blood, infected human cells, kidneys of African green monkeys, infected
animal cells from monkey, pig, calf, canary, rabbit, chicken and guinea pig.

Drugs, both legal & illegal, can lead to an enormous amount of stress on us.
The failed "War on Drugs" has been officially going on since the early 1980's
& the risks of doing drugs has been embedded into most of us for many years
now. The risk of alcohol and tobacco use is also well known due to increased
education & awareness over the last few decades.

Prescription and over-the-counter medications absolutely raise our overall
chemical load as well. Thanks to all of the television ads that must
verbalize the long list of possible negative reactions caused by each
specific drug, these negative side effects from taking medications are now
just beginning to gain recognition.

Personal hygiene products can be a large source of chemical stress. Do you
use hairspray, hair gel, shampoo, hand & body soap? How about make-up,
perfume, cologne, shaving cream and after shave lotion? Look at the
ingredient list of these daily personal products and you will learn that you
are absorbing some chemicals that you probably were not aware of. For
example, most deodorants and antiperspirants contain a wide range of harsh
chemicals including aluminum. Most toothpaste also contains fluoride (and
you probably rinse with fluoridated water). Start reading labels on these
types of products & educate yourself about what you are being exposed to.
Jeff - 16 Apr 2008 01:05 GMT
> One of the most dramatic contributors to our chemical load is
> vaccinations.

Dramatic, perhaps. But not significant. We get much more exposure to
chemicals in the food we eat, air we breath, the chemicals we use (like
household cleaners) and the stupid things we do, like smoking. The
makeup women cover their faces with is full of chemicals, too.

Jeff
drceephd@insightbb.com - 16 Apr 2008 01:31 GMT
> > One of the most dramatic contributors to our chemical load is
> > vaccinations.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Jeff

Can we agree that anything you "inject" into your body is anywhere
from 10 times to 100 times more harmful that something you may eat,
breathe, or smear on your skin?

DrCee
You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons.
Myrl - 16 Apr 2008 02:27 GMT
On Apr 15, 5:31 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:

> Can we agree that anything you "inject" into your body is anywhere
> from 10 times to 100 times more harmful that something you may eat,
> breathe, or smear on your skin?
>
> DrCee

With tht logic, you should then agree that nasal spray flu vaccines
are safer than injected flu vaccines?
drceephd@insightbb.com - 16 Apr 2008 03:53 GMT
> On Apr 15, 5:31 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> With tht logic, you should then agree that nasal spray flu vaccines
> are safer than injected flu vaccines?

It is not simple logic Myrl, it is a scientific fact.

DrCee
You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons
Mark Probert - 16 Apr 2008 13:53 GMT
On Apr 15, 10:53 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:

> > On Apr 15, 5:31 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> It is not simple logic Myrl, it is a scientific fact.

Then you should have no problem proving it.

Tick, tick, tick....
Skeptic - 16 Apr 2008 04:22 GMT
On Apr 15, 8:05 pm, Jeff <kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jan Drew wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Jeff

Can we agree that anything you "inject" into your body is anywhere
from 10 times to 100 times more harmful that something you may eat,
breathe, or smear on your skin?

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

? uh, no, of course not.  Smoking a cigarrette is far more harmful than
injecting some saline.  A reasonable dose of postoperative morphine is very
safe... more so than drinking excessive amounts of alcohol, etc.
Jan Drew - 16 Apr 2008 06:47 GMT
"
Skeptic" <bcs002b@yahoo.com> wrote:  

> Smoking a cigarrette  

Off-topic
Skeptic - 17 Apr 2008 00:38 GMT
> "
> > Smoking a cigarrette
>
> Off-topic

It was a straight answer to a very simple question (that you snipped).
news - 17 Apr 2008 03:29 GMT
>> "
>> > Smoking a cigarrette
>>
>> Off-topic
>
> It was a straight answer to a very simple question (that you snipped).
D. C. Sessions - 16 Apr 2008 04:48 GMT
> Can we agree that anything you "inject" into your body is anywhere
> from 10 times to 100 times more harmful that something you may eat,
> breathe, or smear on your skin?

No.  Counterexamples available on request (not
that you'll accept them.)

| sh.t happens.  Sometimes it happens to you. |
+--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+
Mark Probert - 16 Apr 2008 13:52 GMT
On Apr 15, 8:31 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:

> > > One of the most dramatic contributors to our chemical load is
> > > vaccinations.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> from 10 times to 100 times more harmful that something you may eat,
> breathe, or smear on your skin?

Not until you prove it using facts.
news - 17 Apr 2008 00:07 GMT
I hope Mark got his.
On Apr 15, 8:31 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
> On Apr 15, 8:05 pm, Jeff <kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> from 10 times to 100 times more harmful that something you may eat,
> breathe, or smear on your skin?

Not until you prove it using facts.
Mark Probert - 19 Apr 2008 17:16 GMT
> I hope Mark got his.

Never miss it. One year I did, and I regretted it. Never again.

"Mark Probert" <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:7f581743-d016-4ec5-a063-446fca958783@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 15, 8:31 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jan Drew - 17 Apr 2008 05:44 GMT
On Apr 15, 8:31 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
> On Apr 15, 8:05 pm, Jeff <kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Jan Drew wrote:

> One of the most dramatic contributors to our chemical load is
> vaccinations.
[quoted text clipped - 148 lines]
> from 10 times to 100 times more harmful that something you may eat,
> breathe, or smear on your skin?

Not until you prove it using facts.
David Wright - 19 Apr 2008 01:49 GMT
>> > One of the most dramatic contributors to our chemical load is
>> > vaccinations.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>from 10 times to 100 times more harmful that something you may eat,
>breathe, or smear on your skin?

Injecting a little distilled water would be far less disturbing than
getting it into your breathing system.

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "There are two kinds of Republicans:  millionaires and suckers."
                                                     -- John Dolan
Jan Drew - 16 Apr 2008 06:37 GMT
Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:okaNj.4274$iK6.3430@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...

> One of the most dramatic contributors to our chemical load is
> vaccinations. There is growing controversy surrounding this topic. Many
[quoted text clipped - 122 lines]
>
> Jeff

Formaldehyde: A carcinogenic embalming fluid according to the 2007
> Physicians Desk Reference (PDR). May cause nerve, liver and kidney damage.
> · Antifreeze (phenol-phenoxyethanol): Neuro-toxin that also affects the
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> infected animal cells from monkey, pig, calf, canary, rabbit, chicken and
> guinea pig.
Greegor - 19 Apr 2008 08:25 GMT
Wasn't somebody just arguing that we need to be more
careful about metals, preservatives and chemicals
what we inject into our bodies along with vaccines?

It looks like the pro-vaccine lobbyists here actually
argued about that point.

Is that a position common to the pro-vaccine lobbyists?

What's their excuse for all of the chemical JUNK
getting injected along with the vaccine itself?

Are they arguing that it has to be there?

The ingestion v. injection thing is about the
relative tolerance for impurities.

Our gut can't always filter out unwanted chemicals
but at least it's a mechanism for that, bypassed on injection.

Don't impurities injected into our bloodstream, especially
metallic and very toxic ones, represent an unusually
direct challenge to our kidneys and immune systems?

If I was making stuff to go into people's bloodstreams
I would look at byproducts and preservatives as
a HUGE liability.

If the government and the vaccine injury fund are cloaks
to protect these companies from those liabilities,
hasn't this (legal shield) been a huge disservice to the
citizen public?   Indirectly INVITING sloppy work
that normal liability concerns would have prevented..

Exempting them from concerns for liability seems insane.

Congressman Grassley from Iowa is going after
the FDA about a problem with approval of drugs
and medical devices, particualrly, he is digging
into an issue of serious conflicts of interest for
medical reviewers involved in the FDA approval process.

The steam roller impenetrable front that professionals
have run people over with for years is due for
some trouble.

Questioning every last tiny bit of byproduct and
preservative in the vaccines is going to happen.

Do the pro-vaccine lobbyists hate this?

I got the argument that trace amounts don't matter.

Recently there was news about psychotropics filtering
into the nations water supply and being covered
up "for our own good".  The concern that raised
is not about immedate effects, but LONG TERM
low level exposure.

Did the pro-vaccine people shrug that off also?
Herman Rubin - 19 Apr 2008 22:56 GMT
            ...................

>If the government and the vaccine injury fund are cloaks
>to protect these companies from those liabilities,
>hasn't this (legal shield) been a huge disservice to the
>citizen public?   Indirectly INVITING sloppy work
>that normal liability concerns would have prevented..

>Exempting them from concerns for liability seems insane.

There are adverse reactions one can get from flu
shots.  A weak allergy to eggs can suddenly become
a strong one to the flu shot, and there are other
adverse immune reactions.  The risks are sufficiently
great, and the profit sufficiently low, that without
these guarantees the flu shots would not be available.

Now there is considerable disagreement about the value
of flu shots, with arguments on both sides.  It is
necessary to balance the risks against the benefits,
and as benefiting from the flu vaccine is not the
same as taking it, the public health issue requires
the government to take a stand, and it has, recommending
the vaccines.

Would you be willing to manufacture something which,
if made ACCORDING TO SPECIFICATIONS, would subject
you to enormous lawsuits?
Signature

This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu         Phone: (765)494-6054   FAX: (765)494-0558

Greegor - 20 Apr 2008 17:29 GMT
> >If the government and the vaccine injury fund are cloaks
> >to protect these companies from those liabilities,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> great, and the profit sufficiently low, that without
> these guarantees the flu shots would not be available.

But shouldn't the pharmaceutical company lose
any immunity when they defraud the FDA
to obtain drug approval, or cover up problems?

What are the limits to the immunities granted
to the pharmaceutical companies?

> Now there is considerable disagreement about the value
> of flu shots, with arguments on both sides.  It is
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> the government to take a stand, and it has, recommending
> the vaccines.

And of course government is wise, responsible and loves us.   (sarc)

> Would you be willing to manufacture something which,
> if made ACCORDING TO SPECIFICATIONS, would subject
> you to enormous lawsuits?

Who wrote specifications allowing all of the byproducts,
chemicals and preservatives?

Are they accepting RESPONSIBLITY?
Herman Rubin - 22 Apr 2008 03:05 GMT
>> >If the government and the vaccine injury fund are cloaks
>> >to protect these companies from those liabilities,
>> >hasn't this (legal shield) been a huge disservice to the
>> >citizen public? =A0 Indirectly INVITING sloppy work
>> >that normal liability concerns would have prevented..
>> >Exempting them from concerns for liability seems insane.

>> There are adverse reactions one can get from flu
>> shots. =A0A weak allergy to eggs can suddenly become
>> a strong one to the flu shot, and there are other
>> adverse immune reactions. =A0The risks are sufficiently
>> great, and the profit sufficiently low, that without
>> these guarantees the flu shots would not be available.

>But shouldn't the pharmaceutical company lose
>any immunity when they defraud the FDA
>to obtain drug approval, or cover up problems?

If they defraud the FDA, they can be prosecuted
for that.  Likewise, if they cover up problems.
We are talking about vaccines only; the manufacturer
of VIOXX, or any of the other drugs of that type,
does not have such protection.

>What are the limits to the immunities granted
>to the pharmaceutical companies?

There are limits on vaccines.  In my opinion, if
the drug company has been honest about the drug,
there should be immunities in any case.  There is
no way that a drug manufacturer can even guess
that a chemical will increase the risk of cancer
10 years later, and by that time the drug becomes
generic in most cases.

>> Now there is considerable disagreement about the value
>> of flu shots, with arguments on both sides. =A0It is
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> the government to take a stand, and it has, recommending
>> the vaccines.

>And of course government is wise, responsible and loves us.   (sarc)

I assume none of these.

>> Would you be willing to manufacture something which,
>> if made ACCORDING TO SPECIFICATIONS, would subject
>> you to enormous lawsuits?

>Who wrote specifications allowing all of the byproducts,
>chemicals and preservatives?

The government.

>Are they accepting RESPONSIBLITY?

To a considerable extent in the case of vaccines, yes.
Certain consequences are definitely covered.  For other
consequences, one must make a good case.  Our legislation,
and reasoning, for situations where one cannot ascertain
a definite single cause, is lacking.  When there is
considerable randomness, which is the case, few people
are even thinking that way.

I can discuss the statistical problems involved, and I
definitely do not agree with the FDA's misuse of statistics.
They are aware of the problems of balancing risk against
benefits, but also do not seem to understand that in the
final analysis it should be the risk to the patient and
the benefits to the patient which need ot be considered.
Signature

This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu         Phone: (765)494-6054   FAX: (765)494-0558

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.