It appears you have not yet Signed Up with our community. To Sign Up for free, please click here....



Vaccination & Immunization Message Board


Vaccination & Immunization Board Index


Feelbad and Babyluv - I have a hard time with what you're saying. If immunizations are effective, why are you concerned with the non-immunized kids causing a wide-spread epidemic amongst everyone else (the majority of whom are immunized)? The fear for parents who choose not to immunize is the other way around - immunized kids actually have the virus in their systems... NOT the non-immunized. As dannysmom mentioned, the non-immunized kids who have been positively diagnosed with polio, most likely contracted it from a carrier of polio - someone who received it straight into their blood stream, whether it was an adult or a child. Polio doesn't just sit in a gutter for some kid to catch when they are splashing in puddles, and they most likely didn't contract it from a pet dog when they were playing with it. They had to have contracted it from a source that was hosting it. Anyone who has been vaccinated with the Polio vaccine is a carrier - it is in their system, whether or not it shows up through physical disabilities.

Non-immunized children do not spread disease - there is no disease in them to spread, until they get infected by someone who has it, and how did that person get it? Most likely from being immunized. What a brilliant idea - pay money and risk your child's health and well-being by diliberately injecting antigens into their blood stream and expect their immature and underdeveloped immune system to fight back.

I think this is a major point for parents who choose to not immunize. I will most likely immunize my children when they are 7 or 8 years old or more, after their bodies are more developed, but not earlier. Immunizations bypass the first FOUR natural systems of defense (the skin, the muscus membranes, the gut lymphoid system, and the rest of the entire lymph system) and deliberately place an antigen directly into the blood stream of a child whose organs and immune system are underdeveloped and immature. The mere presence of antibodies in no way proves effectiveness of a vaccine, or immune protection against a specific antigen. Doctors and scientists/biologist readily admit they do not know what antibodies do, what their purpose or their function is. To assume that because a vaccine causes a certain reaction of antibodies, that a person and even more so a child or infant is then "protected", is blind reasoning, based on documented medical and scientific studies. These can be found if you look in the right places (can't post them).

An excellent resource is Dr. Sherri Tenpenny - she is probably the foremost expert on vaccinations. Personally, I have two friends who were negatively affected by vaccines, one who contracted polio at the time of the vaccination, another who was also born perfectly healthy but after a specific vaccine, his physical development stopped and began to deform. He is now physically deformed from the chest down, is in an electric wheel chair and receives stipends from the US gov't for the rest of his life because of it (he cannot work or take care of himself). I have several friends who have huge divots in their arm from a vaccine they received as a child that destroyed the skin at the sight of the injection. I personally have experienced painfully swollen limbs, tingling, extreme burning and discomfort at the sight of injection and in that limb after receiving "normal" booster vaccines AS AN ADULT. In my own life and from my own personal experience and research, this overwhelmingly leads me to decide to never subject my own infant, baby or young child to these risks when their body is young and underdeveloped.

The pharmaceutical industry calls the tragic cases of children who are permanently damaged or worse, the children who die, from vaccines "for the greater good". Because it is considered (rightfully so) unethical to test the safety and efficacy of vaccines on children, the only means of knowing is strictly observational - meaning do it anyway and see what happens. If it's "bad enough" then something will change but otherwise, it's "for the greater good". Well, who decides it's bad enough? The parents who "wisely" trusted their doctors and nurses (who know as little, if not less than the parents about the safety and efficacy, and merely repeat what pharmaceutical sales reps have told them about their vaccine they convinced them to purchase and use - YES, pharmaceutical companies all have all of the same vaccines and compete in sales...Why do you think dr.s offices are stocked to overflowing with branded pens?) Parents whose children suffer adverse effects or worse, die from vaccines don't decide when it's "bad enough", and the children of the world continue to be the observational guinea pigs for the safety of vaccines. For those who have already been negatively affected or have died, their "observational" results came too late. Personally, I will not willingly allow my child to be a test and risk the possibility of them becoming a statistic "for the greater good".

Another thought to consider is if vaccines are supposed to work by deliberately placing an antigen into the bloodstream and "letting it loose" so to speak, and waiting and hoping the immune system will do its job (which is actually still pretty vague in the medical community), what is the difference between injecting the flu virus into the blood stream (who HASN'T gotten the flu (or what doctors say are "symptoms" of the flu, as if that makes the fact that the virus is in your system and your body is reacting as in... you have the flu... any less real than actually "having the flu"...it's just semantics) after receiving a flu vaccine?) What difference does it make to have it injected into your bloodstream and having "symptoms" and getting sick anyway ("that shows it's working!") or just waiting for it to somehow manage to bypass your first for God-given symptoms of defense and make you sick? It's not really different. This isn't necessarily the case with all vaccines, but a majority of them make no difference, symptomatically speaking.

Other things to consider are:

(1) the observable (if it's a good enough method for the pharmaceutical companies, why isn't it good enough for those challenging them?) rise of autism (a very easily linked side effect of vaccinations) in the human population (specifically western cultures) since vaccine schedules were implimented early in the 20th century, AND the serious LACK of autism in Amish communities (only 3 documented cases when, statistically speaking there should have been hundreds, and all three of them received vaccines - one was adopted from China and received vaccines before she was sent to the US, the second was a mennonite child whose parents were pressured by local health officials coming to their door on more than one occasion, and the third family could not be located)) who very stringently do not vaccinate their children.

(2) the observable link between vaccinations received at 2 months, 4 months and 6 months, and the overwhelming majority of SIDS cases occuring at those times, when children have received vaccines (this can actually be documented by examining publicly available death certificates of infants from your local morgue, whose deaths are listed as SIDS and under "Cause of death" a photocopy of "Adverse Reactions" from a vaccine has been attached.

For all these reasons, parents choose not to vaccinate their children.





All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:38 PM.





© 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved.
Do not copy or redistribute in any form!