Topic: Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Guess who is Sicker? - page 6. (Read 45532 times)

Hey, I agree with you.  But I think the reason 'almost everyone recognizes this' is different than BADecker. (and probably you too?)

Do you think it's a problem because you agree with the general consensus of the science community?  

Or because someone is trying to "Weaken the kids right from the beginning of their lives. This is the way to make them more dependent on the medical IF they live long enough to grow up. But if they don't live that long, that's okay. We need to reduce the population of the planet, anyway."?

Can't pick both.  And one answer makes you fucking nuts.

Mis-use of antibiotics is a huge problem that almost everyone recognizes by this time.  If you don't you really need to move over to the kids table.

Are you seriously an anti-antibioticer also?

I didn't even know there was such a thing.

This article isn't saying antibiotics are bad.  They're just learning new things from research and making adjustments.

Most premature babies - about 80 percent - are given antibiotics in their first weeks of life to protect them from potentially fatal bacterial infections.

However, receiving this treatment for several months - even after they leave the NICU - may permanently alter their gut bacteria, a new study finds.

Compared to babies that weren't given antibiotics, the microbiomes of preemies had not only less diverse bacteria, but also more bacteria linked to antibiotic-resistance.

The team, from Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, says its findings suggest that neonatologists should reduce their use of antibiotics in premature babies from a few months to just a few weeks.

'The immune system is pretty much set by age three,' senior author Dr Gautam Dantas, a professor of pathology and immunology at Washington University, told DailyMail.com.

‘No man can be forced to be healthful, whether he will or not. In a free society, individuals must judge for themselves what information they choose to heed and what they ignore.’ John Locke. ‘A letter concerning Toleration’

Here, I am going have another look at vaccination, before scurrying away from the subject for a bit, and getting back to the safe ground of cardiovascular disease. Much to the relief of some of the regular readers of this blog, no doubt.

I have to say that I thought long and hard about blogging on vaccination. It is the most brutal area for discussion that I have ever seen, and a reputation shredder. If you even dare to hint that there may just be the slightest issue with any vaccine, people come down upon you like a ton of bricks.

I also know that by daring to write on this subject, there will inevitably be people moving behind the scenes to have my blog taken down. I cannot imagine WordPress management going to the wire to protect my right to free speech. A little flick of a switch, and I will be gone from the airwaves.

What they rarely if ever disclose, however, is that both the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) developed by Jonas Salk and the live-virus oral polio vaccine (OPV)—developed first by Polish scientist Hilary Koprowski and later by Albert Sabin—frequently have caused the very condition they were supposed to prevent.

Despite Salk's belief that a 'killed-virus' vaccine could not accidentally cause polio in those inoculated, the number of reported polio cases rose immediately and dramatically within a year, with particularly steep increases in some states—including a 642% spike in Massachusetts.

U.S. regulators fast-tracked the Salk vaccine in 1954, deliberating for just two hours before approving it for wide-scale use. Despite Salk's belief that a "killed-virus" vaccine "could not accidentally cause polio in those inoculated," the number of reported polio cases rose immediately and dramatically within a year, with particularly steep increases in some states—including a 642% spike in Massachusetts.

If you get together with a friend, and decide to start a business, that is a conspiracy of sorts. Big Pharma is simply business.

If you get together with a friend, and decide to start a business, that is a conspiracy of sorts. Big Pharma is simply business.

People’s anger is not long, yes. Here you are undoubtedly right, and I am inclined to doubt everything about the general picture, but I have no good reason to believe that there is some kind of big conspiracy.

Is that based information that your are somehow privy to, or is it just your suspicion?

It actually is a fairly handy supposition for the 'herd' to have.  I mean, if one of the 'pharmaceutical companies' gets caught in some sort of malfeasance, people who are conditioned with this supposition will write it off to 'one of the few bad apples' and it won't shake confidence in the larger system.

It is also suspiciously convenient that people simply don't remember the instances of malfeasance which happened more than a few weeks prior.

There are some pharmaceutical companies that are trying to trick people, but they are a minority.

Looking at the science.  It becomes impossible to not see 'conspiracies when doing this.  At least it does for someone with a basic competency in science and analysis.

Oh, these opponents of vaccination. They were given a vaccine, no, they are looking for conspiracy theories.

So far DuckDuckGo - https://duckduckgo.com/ and Entire Web - https://www.entireweb.com/ are much better search engines for getting the rest of the info. Seems like StartPage caters to Google these days.

Bump for awareness. Take a look at the google search results for vaccine dangers and you will see differing opinions on the safety of vaccines are hidden from view. If vaccines are so safe, why are search results being scrubbed?

Prenatal ultrasound is a taken-for-granted component of modern maternity care, to such an extent that most obstetrician-gynecologists find it impossible to practice their profession without it. American women now routinely undergo four to five ultrasounds per pregnancy. Despite the absence of demonstrated benefits, there is also a trend toward "new applications of ultrasound…at earlier stages in pregnancy" (p. 47), including Doppler fetal heart rate monitoring that magnifies the unborn baby's exposure manyfold.

A Scottish physician developed the first 2D ultrasound machine in the late 1950s. Intended for prenatal scanning as well as gynecological tumor diagnosis, the machine drew on the doctor's prior experience with military radar technology. Now, the latest growth sector in ultrasound technology is 3D imaging (which shows the baby's face) or 4D ultrasound that creates a "live video effect, like a movie"—luring parents into stockpiling "keepsake" footage of their baby's in utero facial expressions.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tells prospective parents that ultrasound exams provide "a valuable opportunity to view and hear the heartbeat of the fetus, bond with the unborn baby, and capture images to share with family and friends"—and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) denies any association between ultrasound and adverse maternal, fetal or neonatal outcomes—not everyone shares the agencies' complacency. In fact, two recent books make the opposite case. One author—backed up by over 1500 scientific citations—argues that prenatal ultrasound is so harmful to children that it "should be banned from obstetrics immediately." The other contends that the "subtle and not-so-subtle" biological effects of ultrasound "have set the human species on a tragic path" from which it may take generations to recover.

… a single exposure to ultrasound produced cellular and DNA damage similar to 250 chest x rays—and damage was permanent and heritable for ten generations and beyond.

Known but hidden risks

Few prospective parents realize that ultrasound technology is not just sound waves but is based on non-ionizing radiation. Other examples of man-made non-ionizing radiation include cell phones, cell towers, cordless phones, Wi-Fi and more. Although ionizing radiation (think X-rays) has the reputation of being more powerful, non-ionizing radiation is plenty capable of producing biological effects—including altering and damaging cells. In the mid-1980s, a best-selling doctor/author likened ultrasound to other "unproven" technologies "being sold to the public as being 'perfectly safe'" and scolded the medical profession for failing to take the "necessary steps to protect people against a malignant technology." Around the same time, the World Health Organization declared (in vain) that concerns about ultrasound's clinical efficacy and safety "do not allow a recommendation for routine screening."

According to the author of one of the recent ultrasound critiques, the technology causes far-reaching damage. Describing a series of studies published in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the author notes that "a single exposure to ultrasound produced cellular and DNA damage similar to 250 chest x rays"—and "[d]amage was permanent and heritable for ten generations and beyond." Forms of damage included "DNA shearing, single and double strand breaks, chromosome rearrangements and DNA uncoiling, deformities and mutations in offspring, as well as the complete deactivation of genetic material within sonicated cells."

Even as the evil tech giants and deceptive mainstream media desperately try to censor any truthful information about vaccine ingredients and their health risks, a new video has just been posted that may turn the tables and awaken people to the truth.

Posted by GreenMedInfo, the new video unleashes an array of shocking, true facts about vaccines and how they systematically damage the health of children.

Watch it at this link on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greenmedinfo/videos/2325821697679985/.

UPDATE: The video has now been posted on Brighteon as well:

https://www.brighteon.com/945074b3-520e-4edb-85fd-f52d782d3508

Every effort will be made to censor this video and block the channels that promote it. We have already been completely de-platformed by Facebook and all the other tech giants for daring to report the truth about the dangers of vaccines.