Vaccine contaminants and safety


Latest News Forums Discussion Forum Vaccine contaminants and safety

Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 514 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #45801 Reply
    Clark

      Paul Barbara, July 21 23:05:

      Wikepedia serves the PTB

      That is a gross oversimplification; I edit at Wikipedia and my edits certainly don’t serve the Powers That Be, yet because I’m careful to follow the rules, my edits endure:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_the_9%2F11_Commission&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=661172358&oldid=650511014

      If you’re unhappy with Wikipedia, don’t just moan and dismiss; learn to recognise reliable sources and learn to edit Wikipedia!

      You have ignored my point about the WHO and Co. stating ethylmercury is safe…

      No, SA answered you. It isn’t a binary choice, it’s a risk versus benefit assessment.

      #46027 Reply
      Paul Barbara

        @ Clark July 27, 2019 at 16:04
        ‘No, SA answered you. It isn’t a binary choice, it’s a risk versus benefit assessment.’
        I made a long argument yesterday showing that he had not answered my comment, but for some reason the mods junked it.

        [ Mod: I’ve checked the deletion list and examined the activity logs, and I can see no deletion event in the last 48 hours for a reply with your username (or indeed anything on this thread). Maybe the reply wasn’t received? Sometimes a connection glitch can block the POST action, and sometimes replies can be automatically sent to the spam list – though I checked that too and didn’t notice your name! So unless you posted incomprehensible rubbish under a pseudonym, I don’t think it’s fair to say that “the mods junked it”. ]

        So may I refer you to my comment above, @ Paul Barbara July 19, 2019 at 23:28.
        To make a risk/benefit analysis, you need all or as much as possible information. Big Pharma will not give you that opportunity.
        As is stated in my comment, and in the two articles. WHO openly state on one of their sites, after going on about the hazards of mercury, states that: ‘Methylmercury is very different to ethylmercury. Ethylmercury is used as a preservative in some vaccines and does not pose a health risk. ‘
        https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mercury-and-health
        This is probably based on the fallacious assumption that because it rapidly leaves the blood, it therefore goes out of the body. WRONG (as demonstrated with links above).
        Yet the false information still sits on the WHO site (they have previously been very credibly accussed of cooperating with the likes of Bill Gates and other ‘human culling’ organisations, to assist spreading a vaccine among Third Country women which while ostensibly was for one thing (Tetanus, I believe), also sterilised them). The WHO, as the Western Governments ,UN and OPCW have all been compromised.

        • This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by modbot.
        • This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by modbot.
        • This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by modbot.
        • This reply was modified 5 years, 4 months ago by modbot.
        #46038 Reply
        Paul Barbara

          Mods, I apologies for saying you ‘junked’ my comment, as you have explained you didn’t.
          However, it somehow disappeared, possibly by some accidental action of my own.
          I took quite a while formulating it, but ‘C’est la vie’.
          Thanks for explaining the situation.

          #46053 Reply
          Clark

            Paul, it’s clear that you haven’t read even Bad Science, let alone Bad Pharma; it is simply impossible to have a meaningful conversation about this sort of subject until you have at least some of the necessary tools.

            The assessment of the effects of ethyl and methyl mercury in a system as complex as a living mammal is a hugely complex and technical subject, and just one of a myriad similar assessments; I know for certain that it is way beyond my technical experience, yet you rush in where angels fear to tread. You then attempt to support these claims with sweeping assertions such as “Big Pharma will not give you that opportunity” and “the WHO […] have previously been very credibly accussed of cooperating with the likes of Bill Gates and other ‘human culling’ organisations, to assist spreading a vaccine among Third Country women which […] also sterilised them”. These concern completely the opposite end of the pyramid of human activity, the pinnacle as opposed to the base.

            An ocean of highly complex structure with effectively infinite details lie between these two types of assessment and it cannot be ignored; the two simply do not belong together in the same comment. I’m sorry Paul, but this is conspiracy theorists’ type of thinking, like trying to assess momentum transfer in the collapses of the Twin Towers on the basis of whether I personally am Jewish or not.

            “The WHO, as the Western Governments ,UN and OPCW have all been compromised.”

            This is true, but “compromised” does not mean “puppet”, and the details are all-important. You need to be campaigning for transparency (as Ben Goldacre is) rather than against vaccines. It’s as if you’re campaigning against looking and listening when crossing a road because that’s what governments recommend.

            I take it you won’t read Goldacre because “he could be one of the bad guys” and thus might corrupt your thinking?

            #46217 Reply
            Paul Barbara

              @ Clark July 27, 2019 at 15:54
              We seem to be in agreement for a change!

              #46221 Reply
              Paul Barbara

                @ Clark July 26, 2019 at 10:34
                Do you believe, or at least are you aware, that certain very powerful ‘people’ have seriously considered culling the human population by 85 – 95%? And ‘dodgy mandatory vaccines’ would be a handy adjunct to wars, induced famines and artificial Pandemics?

                #46316 Reply
                Clark

                  Paul, I think you would be surprised at just how much we agree about. Politically and ethically we share very similar positions; we both want the best for the vast majority ie. the ordinary people, and the natural world upon which we are all dependent. We both believe that the method of achieving this is for truth to be told and deception to be exposed.

                  Where we differ is in our methods of assessing what is true.

                  #46317 Reply
                  Clark

                    I am aware of that theory. A very effective way of reducing the human population would be to withhold preventative treatments such as vaccines, which have prevented literally millions of deaths. As an additional “bonus”, fortunes could be made from treating cases that would never have arisen.

                    In some ways I am even more suspicious than you. The “depopulation theory” was formulated by critics of a document called Limits to Growth by the Club of Rome, and the resulting UN initiative Agenda 21. Limits to Growth set out a message that big corporations wanted to discredit, that infinite economic growth on a finite planet was a recipe for mass extinction, including possibly human extinction. The UN’s Agenda 21 was an early sustainability initiative, and as such posed a major threat to corporate monetary profit. My suspicion, which I think you should consider, is that the “depopulation theory” benefited from corporate backing (hidden behind front organisations, of course, just as climate science denial has been). The UN is far from perfect, but it does hold governments and hence corporations to some (very inadequate) degree of accountability by being the authority of International Law.

                    The real situation is actually far more sinister; the vast majority of ordinary people are effectively being farmed for their labour. While a desire to cull the majority may be a fantasy of some less intelligent members of “the elite”, their more realistic brethren fully understand that their elite status derives entirely from the exploitation of the vast masses ‘beneath’ them. You only have to attempt to pay your electricity bill to discover how useless robots and software systems are when presented with the most trivial of complications; the notion that robots could replace human intelligence is beyond folly; we may be “made in God’s image”, but making in God’s image is clearly beyond our abilities. The elite need the masses, indeed, without the masses the very concept of elite status is meaningless.

                    #46319 Reply
                    Paul Barbara

                      Further evidence of Big Pharma’s real motivations:
                      ‘GcMAF and the Persecution of David Noakes, Lyn Thyer & Immuno Biotech’:
                      https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/gcmaf-and-persecution-david-noakes-lyn-thyer-immuno-biotech
                      ‘…Big Pharma is a corporate venture that has absolutely no vested interest at all in curing disease. They became acutely aware of the problem of cures in 2015 when Gilead Sciences (GILD) developed a 90% effective cure for Hepatitis C.

                      Initially the $12.5 billion in revenue from the GILD cure was welcomed. However, the problem with a cure, from an investment perspective, is that it cures people. The former Hep C patients no longer needed any treatment, and revenues fell off a cliff as more and more people didn’t require medication. What was even worse were the rapidly diminishing numbers of people spreading infection, creating fewer and fewer new customers.

                      The global investment firm Goldman Sachs are one of the world’s leading investors in the pharmaceutical industry. They were concerned about the potentially catastrophic financial effects of curing people. They saw that advances in medical science threatened to make people well and thus reduce their return on investment (ROI.) In 2018 they issued their report The Genome Revolution. In it they questioned if curing disease was sustainable from a business model perspective. Their analyst’s conclusions make horrifying reading.

                      The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies …

                      GILD is a case in point, where the success of its hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted the available pool of treatable patients …

                      In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines … Where an incident pool remains stable (eg, in cancer) the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise….’

                      How much evidence is required before the penny drops?
                      I was present in court for one day during the trial of David Noakes, but didn’t go again because of my hearing problems, and the very low sound level of the proceedings.

                      #46323 Reply
                      Clark

                        “How much evidence is required before the penny drops?”

                        Paul, I think you should recognise and question your own assumption that those who don’t accept your opinions about vaccines etc. are all brainwashed dupes. Yes, there have been incidents in which elements of the pharmaceutical establishment have attempted to discredit researchers who have discovered cures. For instance, a major effort was directed against one of the two doctors who demonstrated that some stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria called helicobacter pylori and could therefore be cured with cheap, off-patent antibiotics, thus depriving the pharmaceutical industry of a steady income stream from anti-acid ulcer treatments. It does not follow that vaccines are a scam.

                        I think you should also note that the quote in your comment above is advocating for a gene therapy, directly contradicting your own earlier position about “natural” treatments being more trustworthy.

                        I know nothing of the GILD case and I expect it would take me several weeks to research it, but thanks to Ben Goldacre’s two books, I’d have some idea of how to research it.

                        #46326 Reply
                        Paul Barbara

                          @ Clark August 13, 2019 at 09:00
                          You largely agree with my position re Big Pharma’s lack of interest in curing, and desire to rather have the walking-dead coming back for repeat prescriptions (more lovely loot).
                          I don’t know if you read the GcMAF article about that cancer cure, which is avoided like the plague by Big Pharma, who use their tremendous clout to lean on regulatory and enforcement agencies to come down like a ton of bricks on doctors or others who try to use and distribute it.
                          Considering it’s phenomenal record in cases everyone has totally given up on, don’t you believe this is unconscionable?
                          And re one an antacid scam not proving vaccines are a scam, it all points to the possibility that vaccines COULD be, given the lack of honesty, morality and transparency.
                          My position is the possibility is there, and because of my knowledge of their previous criminality, I accept the worst interpretation given by Big Pharma’s detractors.
                          You seem to agree with me that Big Pharma are unprincipled, but give them the benefit of the doubt re vaccines.
                          Would you agree?

                          #46332 Reply
                          Clark

                            You seem to agree with me that Big Pharma are unprincipled, but give them the benefit of the doubt re vaccines. Would you agree?

                            Yes and no, respectively.

                            More specifically, the pharmaceutical companies are the same as other companies; their primary legal duty is to maximise returns to their shareholders. They could probably do that better by not manufacturing vaccines at all. Mostly it is governments that mandate vaccination programmes, not pharmaceutical companies.

                            Paul, this whole issue is a bit more complicated than the simple “us versus them” format you continually try to cobble it into. Why won’t you read Goldacre? Do you even know why you won’t?

                            #46379 Reply
                            Paul Barbara

                              @ Clark August 13, 2019 at 15:39
                              If you saw the list of books I have to read, and the other things I have to do, and you knew how difficult it is to do anything with my lack of energy and almost constant tiredness, you would stop asking me to read Goldacre.
                              The Pharma Companies do indeed have an obligation to their shareholders, but their primary obligation should be to the safety of the products they produce for use by patients. This clearly is not the case, and most of the various governments are quite happy with that.
                              Sure, governments mandate the vaccines and drug regulations, but at the behest of the Big Pharma lobbyists. Surely that is obvious.

                              #46380 Reply
                              Paul Barbara

                                Again, surely this screams out to the heavens:
                                http://whale.to/c/trace_amounts.html
                                ‘…Take Another Look : An Interview with ‘Trace Amounts’ co-director Shiloh Levine I learned that Ethylmercury is not the “safe mercury,” which a lot of people like to spout in the media. It is actually more dangerous than Methylmercury, which is the type of mercury found in fish. And it gets trapped in the brain twice as much as Methylmercury and that’s where the neurological problems are….Two parts per billion is the amount of allowable mercury in our drinking water. Two hundred parts per billion is considered toxic waste. Fifty-thousand parts per billion is the amount of mercury in Thimerosal at twenty-five micrograms. In a flu shot, that amount is fifty thousand parts per billion, which is twenty-five thousand times more than the allowable amount in drinking water. You’re injecting toxic waste into babies and pregnant mothers, and that’s not okay…..’

                                #46382 Reply
                                Clark

                                  “If you saw the list of books I have to read…” etc.

                                  You are justifying your own ignorance. I remind you that the opinions you are promoting have life-or-death consequences. The books I recommend are full of intellectual tools. If you are unwilling to learn to use those tools, you should refrain from promoting potentially lethal opinions.

                                  “The Pharma Companies […] primary obligation should be to the safety of the products they produce”

                                  That would be some system other than capitalism. Yet the major promoters of anti-vax literature are the US Right. Que pasa?

                                  “governments mandate the vaccines and drug regulations, but at the behest of the Big Pharma lobbyists”

                                  It really isn’t as simple as that; there is public research too. Really, either read the books I am recommending, which will give you a grounding at least, or admit to yourself that you don’t know enough to take a side.

                                  Incidentally, I was with Craig all last week and we discussed many things. One thing he mentioned was that of all the conspiracy theories, it’s the anti-vax ones that he most objects to. Yet his latest heart specialist has taken him off many medications, replacing all of them with one of the oldest, derived from foxglove extract. By odd coincidence I mentioned foxglove’s cardiac effects earlier in this thread. Foxglove extract slows the heart, this being the treatment that Craig is receiving, but too much will cause it to stop completely, which is the effect I mentioned. Natural or not? Good or bad? Maybe these aren’t quite the right questions.

                                  #46383 Reply
                                  Clark

                                    “surely this screams out to the heavens”

                                    No, it is merely rhetoric. An obvious flaw that even I can spot is that we each consume pints of water day in day out, whereas vaccinations are given in tiny doses and only a few times per lifetime.

                                    #46384 Reply
                                    Paul Barbara

                                      @ Clark August 13, 2019 at 20:20
                                      The fact that mercury has been removed from almost all childhood vaccines in the US proves that there is a very real danger (though it is still used in the yearly flu shot, and also used in vaccines exported to other countries).
                                      The CDC has been shown to have covered up the fact (not theory) that their schedule for babies’ vaccinations went way over even their own appalling ‘limits’, and rather than correct the issue immediately, let it ride for years, so as not to get embarrassed by their stupidity (and even when the top vaccine makers offered to supply mercury-free vaccines almost immediately).

                                      #46386 Reply
                                      Clark

                                        “The fact that mercury has been removed from almost all childhood vaccines in the US proves that there is a very real danger”…

                                        No, it doesn’t prove that. The way to prove that would be cohort studies, and case-control studies.

                                        The mercury may have been removed for a host of reasons, for instance at the direction of government to increase acceptance of and confidence in vaccination. Such acceptance and confidence could be justified or misplaced, and the way to find out would be cohort studies and case-control studies.

                                        You need to read Goldacre. His arguments clearly make sense, and he’s streets ahead of either you or me.

                                        #46397 Reply
                                        Paul Barbara

                                          @ Clark August 13, 2019 at 23:00
                                          No, it’s not me that should read Goldacre, it’s you who should read previous comments on this and other previous threads, or just to read up on the CDC and mercury. You will find out the obvious – it was removed because it is a hazard – something that should be obvious to anyone who knows the slightest bit about mercury and it’s neurotoxicity.
                                          Tell me something – above I quoted a WHO website that claimed, with no caveats, that:
                                          ‘…Methylmercury is very different to ethylmercury. Ethylmercury is used as a preservative in some vaccines and does not pose a health risk…’ https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mercury-and-health

                                          #46540 Reply
                                          Clark

                                            OK, so assuming you’re right (since clearly, no other assumption is acceptable to you), you can show me the cohort studies and the case-control studies that indicate widespread neurological damage in populations vaccinated with the substances you object to, right?

                                            Is there anything you aren’t the ultimate source of wisdom about? Or do you “just know” about everything?

                                            #46541 Reply
                                            Clark

                                              I have a reason for placing little weight upon the handful of links you’ve posted; what do you think it is?

                                              #46543 Reply
                                              Paul Barbara

                                                When I said ‘tell me something’ I missed out, ‘tell me what you think of that statement from the WHO’.

                                                #46544 Reply
                                                Paul Barbara

                                                  @ Clark August 15, 2019 at 10:18
                                                  Do you not trust that the WHO site I linked to is genuine? If it is, what do you make of such a ridiculous statement that:
                                                  ‘…Methylmercury is very different to ethylmercury. Ethylmercury is used as a preservative in some vaccines and does not pose a health risk…’
                                                  If the WHO can get away with posting such utter BS, what does it say about the WHO, and indeed, of ‘Peer Revue’? Why have not the world’s premier doctors and scientists corrected them?
                                                  And the CDC are still pumping out the same lies, though they know the truth that ethylmercury disappears quickly from the blood because it passes easily through the blood/brain barrier and is stored in the brain:
                                                  https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.html
                                                  How can anyone trust these puppet organisations?

                                                  #46545 Reply
                                                  Clark

                                                    “If the WHO can get away with posting such utter BS, what does it say about the WHO, and indeed, of ‘Peer Revue’? Why have not the world’s premier doctors and scientists corrected them?”

                                                    Tell you what Paul, you tell me, seeing as that’s the only direction of communication you’ll permit.

                                                    While you’re at it, since you’ve identified which organisations are ‘puppets’, please tell me who the puppeteers are. Just explain how the whole world works, since you’re clearly convinced that you know.

                                                    And when you’re done, might I be permitted to ask questions to test the logical consistency of your infallible knowledge?

                                                    #46547 Reply
                                                    Paul Barbara

                                                      @ Clark August 15, 2019 at 14:51
                                                      They are the puppets of the Banksters, Financiers and Corporations and their lobbyists, of course.
                                                      But why on earth you cannot respond to the WHO statement, and call it out for what it is, utter murderous BS, I fail to see.
                                                      Here is a balanced BMJ article (surely they are not sowing disinfo to question vaccines?):
                                                      ‘Pressure mounts for inquiry into MMR furore’:
                                                      https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/how-can-vaccines-cause-damage

                                                      Similarly, the Banksters’ and Corporations’ lobbyists lobby (bribe) for arms buildups, wars, GMO’s, pesticides and herbicides, deregulation of safety and pollution standards etc. These things are obvious facts, and should not need me to point them out.

                                                    Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 514 total)
                                                    Reply To: Vaccine contaminants and safety
                                                    Your information: