Vaccines are no more then pesticides in a pill form.. Most of our "illnesses and diseases" come from our bodies inability to process and elminate chemicals. Our bodies do not know how to handle all the chemicals, drugs and man-made crap that is apart of our world each and every day. We need to get back to basics and try to limit the amount of exposure to all these chemicals. I strongly believe in using 100%theraputic grade essential oils for my health as well as a positive mind. If you break down the word disease it is the dis ease of the body.. or in other words an inbalance within our systems. Modern medication and medicine has its place but it is not the answer to the every day problems. Lets get people thinking naturally again.. stop running to the doctors for simple sniffles or a slight cough. try essential oils, herbal remedies.. massage.. accupunture.. meditation anything else before diving into chemicals. I offer Complimentary consulatations for essential oils to anyone in the Albany, NY and surrounding area. Email me if intersted..
--- In
Health_and_Healing@yahoogroups.com, Sheri Nakken
<vaccinedangers@...> wrote:
>
>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judith-acosta/is-there-a-vaccine-agains_b_807382.html >
> Is There a Vaccine Against Fear? What You Need to Know About Medicine
> in the Media
>
> Judith Acosta
>
>
>
>
> Judith is the the author of The Next Osama and co-author of Verbal First Aid.
> Posted: January 18, 2011 10:50 AM
>
> Is There a Vaccine Against Fear? What You Need to Know About Medicine
> in the Media
>
> Confessions of an Ex-Ad Woman Part III
>
> The other day, we watched a commercial for a new drug that promised
> relief for neuralgia, but added that it might cause lupus, cancer,
> heart problems, and rashes that could indicate a life-threatening
> disease. As the commercial wrapped up with a warm and fuzzy moment, I
> pondered how big business had changed the face not only of media, but
> of medicine. And I thought not only about the demands of advertising
> (tell, tell, tell so you can sell, sell, sell), but about the way it
> conflicts with the essence of healing and how, once again, awareness
> is the true antidote.
>
> <
http://www.wordsaremedicine.com/the-power-of-homeopathy/>The First
> Law of Healing: Primun Non
> Nocere<
http://www.wordsaremedicine.com/the-power-of-homeopathy/>
> First Do No Harm. This is still the sacred oath of every medical
> school graduate across the country as he or she accepts the diploma,
> title and rank of healer. However, in a world of unreasonable speed
> in which new protocols and pharmaceuticals are being produced, pushed
> through FDA approval, and heavily promoted in measures of seconds,
> not years, it may be more than doctors can promise us anymore.
>
> What Does Do-No-Harm Require?
> This past year a friend of mine called to complain that he had been
> forced to get a vaccine at work. The alternative was being fired. He
> told me he was feeling sick and that his bones were aching. He had
> developed a slight fever which developed within 24 hours of the
> injection. He was not only unhappy because he was sick; he was
> unhappy because he'd had no choice.
>
> Parents are faced with this difficult dilemma every day. They are
> being asked earlier and earlier in their child's life to vaccinate
> him or her for every conceivable disease. They are told (and I've
> seen this) that if they don't get their children vaccinated, they
> will be reported for child neglect and lose custody. This year, for
> the first time, the CDC has 'recommended' that everyone from
> six-months of age and older get immunized.
>
> What are we doing to the first promise of medicine?
> Beyond the obvious (deliberate misdeeds or malicious negligence),
> being called to "do no harm" requires at least a reasonable
> skepticism. This means that a professional providing medical
> treatment, especially a pharmaceutical one, should not be moved by
> media. He or she should question whether that treatment does what
> it's purported to do. Does it cure what it says it's going to cure?
> Or do people have one symptom go away only to have another (often
> more dangerous) one appear? Is there an actual need for the
> pharmaceutical or is it a drug being sold because of a massive fear
> campaign? Do the independently financed studies back up what the
> pharmaceutical company's marketing department says? Even more
> pointedly, have we spent enough time with the patient to find out
> what is really ailing him before we give him a chemical cocktail and
> send him on his way?
>
> Two, the physician ought to be capable of weighing the risks and
> balancing the promised benefits against the delivered dangers. Does
> it reduce the pain of rheumatoid arthritis, but give you a
> statistically significant chance to get cancer? Does it give you a
> longer-lasting erection, but negatively impact your cardiovascular
> system? Does it give you a shorter menstrual period, but lead you
> towards ovarian cysts or worse?
>
> And finally, the physician MUST ask: Is this safe? Will this product
> or procedure actually harm my patient?
>
> <
http://thenextosama.com/>The Current State of Harm
> A bit of recent history: On July 13th of 2009, the World Health
> Organization (WHO) presented the global media with their
> recommendations on the H1N1 vaccines. A small part of their
> "guidance" as George A. Ure called it in his piece, "Calm Before the
> (Cytokine) Storm", were three points that are pertinent to this article:
>
> 1. All countries were called upon to forcibly immunize health care
> workers as a tier-one strategy to guard the infrastructure should a
> pandemic materialize. (This is ongoing.)
>
> 2. Since production was insufficient, they recommended a laddered
> approach to "immunization" starting with pregnant women, children of
> six months old with one of a few specific medical conditions, healthy
> young adults 15-49 years of age, then healthy children, then healthy
> adults 50-64 years of age and finally the elderly.
>
> 3. Because some of the pandemic vaccines were created with new
> technologies which had not yet been properly studied for their safety
> in certain population groups, the WHO strongly urged post-marketing
> surveillance.
>
> What do these recommendations mean? How does a physician who has
> promised to do no harm interpret then act on this information?
>
> <
http://www.wordsaremedicine.com/fear-and-the-media>Marketing
> Medicines with Fear
> Let's take the first recommendation: "Should a pandemic materialize."
> That is a fair statement on the surface, but our track record on
> these things is not very good. Between a scandal-seized media, a
> fun-house communications system, and a collective tendency to panic,
> all Americans need to hear is "What if ... "
>
> Unfortunately, medical practitioners have not been immunized against
> panic either and tend to react the way we do. If they are told
> there's a "dangerous" epidemic on the way and in order to save their
> patients they must prescribe or inject the latest rescue cocktail,
> they will. They do not have the time to investigate every new
> pharmaceutical "answer." They can't be on both ends of such a massive
> industry; they can't simultaneously conduct research and be
> responsible for patient care. It is not malevolence or indifference.
> It is fear-based, pharmaceutical-driven training.
>
> I see a fair amount of anxiety in my work. And people are usually
> afraid of far more than they should be and do far less about the
> things they should be afraid of. People are afraid of ordinary
> household germs as if a serial killer were hiding in their basement,
> but they stand on rocky shorelines as hurricane-force waves batter
> the boulders they're standing on and drag them out to sea.
>
> An example of this sort of misplaced anxiety is one instance in 1976
> when the U.S. government vaccinated 45 million people for a swine flu
> outbreak that never materialized. In its wake more than 500 people
> developed a rare neurological condition called Guillain-Barre
> Syndrome which left many people in comas and 25 dead.
>
> Recommendations numbers two and three are important to read together
> because in effect it says: we are targeting specific populations, but
> we don't know what it's going to do to these populations because the
> vaccines have not been properly tested.
>
> One epidemiological study published by Dr. Tom Jefferson (Vaccines
> for preventing influenza in healthy adults, The Cochrane
> Collaborative, 2009), analyzed clinical trials over 40 years which
> involved more than 70,000 people.
>
> What they found was stunning: They found no credible evidence that
> the vaccines made any significant difference in healthy adult
> populations. Furthermore, it afforded little if any protection
> against complications (e.g., pneumonia), but did increase potential
> side effects, which, in turn had an effect on labor downtime.
>
> They also found something more disturbing: A systematic tendency for
> prestigious journals to publish and cite industry-funded studies. A
> full 15 of 36 trials were pharmaceutical initiatives.
>
> The 2010 update of this study with Dr. Roger Thomas of the University
> of Calgary, analyzed more specifically the effects of vaccination on
> caregivers and the elderly. The conclusion? Absolutely no impact on
> the incidence of laboratory-proven influenza, pneumonia or deaths
> from pneumonia.
>
> If I had taken an oath to do no harm, I would be properly worried at
> this point.
>
> Read the Ingredients!
> Most Americans know about Thimerosal. But few know that aluminum is
> now being added to a number of vaccines to make them "work better."
> The FDA has made the limits of ingestion clear on its website which
> documents aluminum toxicity from the dextrose patients receive in
> hospitals when they are hooked up to IVs. No studies have been done
> to determine what the effects of the aluminum in vaccines are,
> especially when given to infants.
>
> Dr. Robert Sears, a pediatrician, researched the dearth of
> information in his article, "Is Aluminum the New Thimerosal?"
> (www.mothering.com) and what he reported was scandalous. Although the > FDA requires that injectable solutions be limited to 25 mcg, the load
> of aluminum for infant vaccines is often 10 times as high.
>
> He writes:
> In other words, a newborn who gets a Hepatitis B injection on day one
> of life would receive 250 mcg of aluminum. This would be repeated at
> one month with the next Hepatitis B shot. When at two months, a baby
> gets his first big round of shots, the total dose of aluminum could
> vary from 295 mcg to a whopping 1225 mcg.
>
> These doses are repeated at four and six months. But the FDA
> recommends that premature babies and anyone with impaired kidney
> function receive no more than 10 to 25 mcg of injected aluminum at
> any one time.
>
> He goes on:
> As a medical doctor, my first instinct was to worry that these
> aluminum levels far exceed what may be safe ...
>
> That instinct was correct, but because he had been trained to trust
> the AMA and the FDA, his second instinct, which was wrong, was to
> assume that the issue had been thoroughly researched and resolved.
> His third instinct, which proved disappointing at the least, was to
> search for the studies that supported that assumption. He found none.
>
> The American Academy of Pediatrics did publish a policy statement in
> 1996 that alerted us to the fact that aluminum is a known danger to
> human neurology (and we can assume to other mammals as well) and that
> the threshold of aluminum is far lower than what is currently being
> used. But that doesn't seem to hold any sway over the pharmaceutical
> companies who are not only selling the product but funding the research.
>
> Gardasil, the latest must-have vaccine for young women who are now
> being told to be afraid of cervical cancer, has just been forced to
> update their label warning to include expanded risks for those
> "immunized." These include seizures, miscarriages, genital warts, and
> Guillain-Barre syndrome. In their ads, Merck has even said it will
> not necessarily prevent many types of cervical cancer.
>
> Why, if the evidence is so scanty, the research so distorted or
> unavailable, do we continue to vaccinate?
>
> The Current State of Alarm
> The only real virus we need to pay attention to, it seems, is the
> virus of fear being seeded on every form of media. There is hardly a
> newscast these days without some biological terror being headlined.
> Most frequently we are hearing about new influenza strains and their
> potential to reach "pandemic" levels. We are terribly worried about
> contracting and dying from the flu, but not terribly concerned about
> the proposed prophylactic treatments or how safe they are.
>
> The CDC released statistics on the novel flu in July 2009. While it
> was apparently fairly transmissible with 37,246 cases reported at
> that time, the death toll was only 211. That's 0.56 percent. And one
> researcher notes (jsonline.com) that the actual mortality rate was in
> fact much lower than the CDC figures because almost every flu death
> is reported, while many illnesses that could be swine flu were going
> unreported.
>
> What we might pay more careful attention to is the real, imminent and
> subtle danger of the prophylaxis itself.
>
> The Canadian Vaccination Risk Awareness Network website has published
> information that suggests that vaccines themselves are damaging to a
> child's developing immune system and brain, "leading to debilitating
> and life-threatening disorders like autism, ADHD, asthma, peanut
> allergies, juvenile diabetes, SIDS" or death itself. Since the 1970's
> when vaccinations among infants and young children were increased,
> autism has increased by 6000 percent.
>
> I can't speak for you, but that number is staggering to me. (I know
> that some people will point out how the big drug companies have
> claimed that there is no "hard proof" about the causality of these
> statistics. But to me that sounds something like Phillip Morris
> arguing that cigarettes haven't been proven to actually cause cancer.)
>
> While there is a building demand amongst pharmaceutical companies,
> lobbyists, certain universities (which are amply funded by
> pharmaceutical companies) and public health officials for
> vaccination, there simply aren't very good reasons for the panic and
> many, many reasons NOT to vaccinate.
>
> For true protection, many Americans might consider their diets
> (sugar, sugar, sugar), their sleep and rest habits (none), their
> exercise levels (low), the toxins they regularly ingest that inhibit
> immune response, and the drugs they take that make them more
> susceptible to disease.
>
> The fact that no one speaks about is that there's nothing to suggest
> that these chemicals are in any way helping us. One study reported by
> Science Daily (10/2007) stated the flu vaccine was not associated
> with reduced hospitalizations or outpatient visits among young
> children. Furthermore, vaccine effectiveness couldn't be demonstrated
> for any season, age or setting. Were there some specific risk groups
> that were statistically safer for the vaccine? No.
>
> In fact, one vaccine poster distributed by the CDC emphasized that
> 36,000 Americans die of flu-related illnesses every year. They imply
> very clearly that you could be one of the dead if you don't get the vaccine.
>
> The question is, however, if the vaccine is already in use, why is it
> not preventing those deaths? Between 1980 and 1998, vaccination rates
> rose by 148 percent. The overall rate for death among the ill elderly
> had stayed the same the entire time. One study (Washington Post,
> 2005, S. Woloshin, L. Schwartz, and G. Welch) concluded that the
> reason was that most of those people (elderly and infirm) were
> already at high risk for many other causes of death.
>
> True Protection: Legal Immunity for Big Business
> If the pharmaceutical companies can't convince us with real facts,
> they set out to hire marketing giants, such as the RAND Corporation,
> which has recommended a redirection of research dollars from
> biomedical efforts to the study of social and behavioral sciences.
> (R. Moore,
> <
http://www.rhinelanderdailynews.com/articles/2010/12/28/news/doc4d1a028ef1855775813213.txt>Rhinelander
> Daily News, 12/28/10)
>
> Instead of focusing on better medicine, the focus is on how to better
> inspire fear.
>
> And just in case that doesn't work, they set out to hire attorneys
> and lobbyists. The pharmaceutical industry has spared no expense or
> political traction to protect themselves.
>
> Recently the Associated Press reported that a legal immunity will be
> set for the makers of swine flu vaccines so that any profits which
> proceed from making the vaccine will be unencumbered from any future
> claims. At the time of their report, those profits were nearing
> $2-billion prior to distribution and medical training, which will
> bring with it other costs and, naturally, other profits.
>
> There seems to be little to say after that, except -- Praemedicatum
> permaneo exsisto vulnero. (Protected by medicinal charms, we forever
> come through undamaged.) At least some of us will be free from harm.
>
> To see what the vaccine makers decided about being injected with
> their own vaccines see this
> <
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4SmFxyust0&eurl=http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108789&feature=player_embedded#t=116>video.
>
0 comments:
Post a Comment