This is a wrong way to utilize statistics imo. Yes, if they are accurate, then the vaccine is less harmful than the disease. But who gets sick? The weak, the unlucky. Who are we harming with the vaccine? Everybody. The weak, the strong, the sick and the healthy. A healthy individual will not be damaged by the disease, but he will certain…
This is a wrong way to utilize statistics imo. Yes, if they are accurate, then the vaccine is less harmful than the disease. But who gets sick? The weak, the unlucky. Who are we harming with the vaccine? Everybody. The weak, the strong, the sick and the healthy. A healthy individual will not be damaged by the disease, but he will certainly be damaged in some way when he gets a injection which contains various poisons. That is the difference between God and Man.
Healthy individuals were damaged by diseases that we vaccinate against: polio (obvious), mumps (sterilized many men), measles (yes, it did cause blindness and deafness). I'm not for vaccine mandates, but to suggest that vaccines are a net negative or even a net neutral is ridiculous. Our infant/childhood mortality rate has plummeted, and it is partially because of vaccines. You can try to spin that however you like, but what ends up happening is you now make the people that we might have been able to convince to treat the COVID vaccine, which is dangerous, warily look at us and laugh. Vaccines *are* a miracle of modern medicine; to gain immunity at a fraction of the risk is a wonder. To suggest otherwise is to play into the hands of those ridiculing us for being skeptical of the COVID vaccine.
Polio was caused by DDT I think. Then they made up the vaccine to hide that fact. It seems many if not all of these diseases are the result of poison in the early industrial age, before they understood the dangers. They just won't admit to it. Better to blame diseases and cigarettes.
Infant mortality vanished when they started washing hands. It's a very illustrative story I think. The male doctors didn't wash, taught not to. But the nuns did, being less "educated" and with more common sense. Their child care unit had vastly less incidences of infant mortality.
A guy noticed this, a doctor. He tried it at his own hospital with great success. However what did the Medical Community do? Shut him down, called him names, took his license. Until the truth became too overpowering to ignore.
So I'd be vary believing anything from the medical community. Including the efficacy of those old "tried and tested" vaccines.
Polio was around before DDT, and "infant mortality" includes deaths up to one year of age, long after they leave the hospital. Infants actually have very health immune systems as they get all the antibodies from their mother. The mother's had more to fear from a doctor's dirty hands than newborns did.
DDT was made in 1874, first polio outbreak was 1894. Other pesticides also existed before that time. The timeline is curious isn't? They started regulating pesticides in the 1950s at the same time we saw a drastic reductions in polio and small pox. By the 70s total bans on the worst pesticides had been enacted and at the same time both diseases were declared eradicated. Not quite though, the vaccines still cause damage they just give it other names like cerebral palsy and MS.
It was first synthesized in 1874. It was not turned into an insecticide until 1939. Polio has existed for thousands of years. You're right about the outbreaks, but that could be from a mutation that made it more transmissible. By the 70s we also had both the smallpox and polio vaccines and they were widespread. My mother was born in 1939. No one around her was dying of smallpox because inoculation was common and had been since the 1800s, though it was a riskier inoculation than most today. Smallpox was pretty much eradicated in the developed world. The last known case was in the late 1970s. Polio is not eradicated and still shows up, coincidentally, where vaccines are less utilized.
This is a wrong way to utilize statistics imo. Yes, if they are accurate, then the vaccine is less harmful than the disease. But who gets sick? The weak, the unlucky. Who are we harming with the vaccine? Everybody. The weak, the strong, the sick and the healthy. A healthy individual will not be damaged by the disease, but he will certainly be damaged in some way when he gets a injection which contains various poisons. That is the difference between God and Man.
Healthy individuals were damaged by diseases that we vaccinate against: polio (obvious), mumps (sterilized many men), measles (yes, it did cause blindness and deafness). I'm not for vaccine mandates, but to suggest that vaccines are a net negative or even a net neutral is ridiculous. Our infant/childhood mortality rate has plummeted, and it is partially because of vaccines. You can try to spin that however you like, but what ends up happening is you now make the people that we might have been able to convince to treat the COVID vaccine, which is dangerous, warily look at us and laugh. Vaccines *are* a miracle of modern medicine; to gain immunity at a fraction of the risk is a wonder. To suggest otherwise is to play into the hands of those ridiculing us for being skeptical of the COVID vaccine.
Polio was caused by DDT I think. Then they made up the vaccine to hide that fact. It seems many if not all of these diseases are the result of poison in the early industrial age, before they understood the dangers. They just won't admit to it. Better to blame diseases and cigarettes.
Infant mortality vanished when they started washing hands. It's a very illustrative story I think. The male doctors didn't wash, taught not to. But the nuns did, being less "educated" and with more common sense. Their child care unit had vastly less incidences of infant mortality.
A guy noticed this, a doctor. He tried it at his own hospital with great success. However what did the Medical Community do? Shut him down, called him names, took his license. Until the truth became too overpowering to ignore.
So I'd be vary believing anything from the medical community. Including the efficacy of those old "tried and tested" vaccines.
Polio was around before DDT, and "infant mortality" includes deaths up to one year of age, long after they leave the hospital. Infants actually have very health immune systems as they get all the antibodies from their mother. The mother's had more to fear from a doctor's dirty hands than newborns did.
DDT was made in 1874, first polio outbreak was 1894. Other pesticides also existed before that time. The timeline is curious isn't? They started regulating pesticides in the 1950s at the same time we saw a drastic reductions in polio and small pox. By the 70s total bans on the worst pesticides had been enacted and at the same time both diseases were declared eradicated. Not quite though, the vaccines still cause damage they just give it other names like cerebral palsy and MS.
It was first synthesized in 1874. It was not turned into an insecticide until 1939. Polio has existed for thousands of years. You're right about the outbreaks, but that could be from a mutation that made it more transmissible. By the 70s we also had both the smallpox and polio vaccines and they were widespread. My mother was born in 1939. No one around her was dying of smallpox because inoculation was common and had been since the 1800s, though it was a riskier inoculation than most today. Smallpox was pretty much eradicated in the developed world. The last known case was in the late 1970s. Polio is not eradicated and still shows up, coincidentally, where vaccines are less utilized.
*mothers
Amen to that