Vaccines cause Autism, Raw vegetable diet prevents Cancer

[O.G]

Holy Sh*t!, we got some F**king geniuses around here. all my education is a crock of BS.. I want my money back!

Source: http://www.gettheflushot.ca/public/docs/in...final_oct25.pdf

Don't forget to ask for interest too.

Who should not get the flu shot?

? Individuals with known allergies to preservatives

such as: Thimerosal, Formaldehyde or Neomycin

(depending on the flu vaccine being used).

Gotta love propaganda. Thimerosal (toxic), is a mercury based preservative linked to increased cases of autism (amongst other things like permanent brain damage). Formaldehyde (toxic) is a known carcinogen. Neomycin (toxic) has also been linked to autism and other learning disabilites and can impair the body's ability to absorb nutrients from food. It's yet another vaccine that no one in their right mind should ever have, especially children. It does not stop you from contracting the flu, it does not cure the flu and it does not stop you from passing the flu onto others. At best it will reduce the effects of the flu at worst it will kill you or just make you stupid for life.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Gotta love propaganda. Thimerosal (toxic), is a mercury based preservative linked to increased cases of autism (amongst other things like permanent brain damage). Formaldehyde (toxic) is a known carcinogen. Neomycin (toxic) has also been linked to autism and other learning disabilites and can impair the body's ability to absorb nutrients from food. It's yet another vaccine that no one in their right mind should ever have, especially children. It does not stop you from contracting the flu, it does not cure the flu and it does not stop you from passing the flu onto others. At best it will reduce the effects of the flu at worst it will kill you or just make you stupid for life.

Now you are onto a different conspiracy. The first one was the standard "Rich people are preparing for a New World Order" which isn't worth a response but this one dives into pseudo-science and can thus be debunked. I won't bother linking directly to the studies but as a starting point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy

In other words, there is no scientific link between Thiomersal and Autism. Children tend to start to show symptoms of Autism shortly after the standard age that children receive the MMR vaccine and some people desperate for a simple answer to a complicated problem blame the MMR vaccine.

I realize the world is a large and complicated place and that people want to believe in simple answers. The only way to prevent the growth of conspiracy theories is better public education.

[O.G]

I never mentioned anything about "Rich people are preparing for a New World Order", kindly do not put words in my mouth. I stated fact which is easily verifiable via the UN's website, the Rockerfeller Commission Report from 1972 and the WHO's documents/reports database. Its all there in black and white in their own words. Their words, not mine. There is independant evidence linking the increase in vaccine usage amongst minors to the increased rates of autism, independant as in nothing to do with the CDC, the FDA or the WHO, all of whom have their own skeletons and motives. Next you'll be telling people that mercury is actually good for you, like the FDA tried to say after people started producing scientific and statistical evidence linking childhood vaccines to autism.

Mercury 'linked to autism'

Autism experts want to see more research into mercury levels

Children who develop autism may do so because they have problems processing the toxic metal mercury, researchers have suggested. US researchers looked at mercury levels in the baby hair of children who later developed autism, a developmental disability that affects how a person communicates and interacts with other people. They were found to have far lower levels of mercury than children who did not have the condition, according to New Scientist magazine. The researchers say this could be because autistic children's bodies cannot make use of metals such as mercury properly, or because they have trouble excreting the metal from their body.

BBC

A review of medical literature indicates that the characteristics of autism and of mercury poisoning (HgP) are strikingly similar. Traits defining or associated with both disorders are summarized in Table A immediately following the Table of Contents and are discussed and cited in the body of this document. The parallels between the two diseases are so thorough as to suggest, based on total Hg injected into U.S. children, that many cases of autism are a form of mercury poisoning.

Autism:

A Unique Type of

Mercury Poisoning

[Fred Derf Veteran]

So the CDC, the FDA and the WHO are all conspiring together? I suppose Canada is somehow duped into their way of thinking even though our system isn't particularly susceptible to lobbyists and the pharmaceutical industry doesn't exactly consider our generic drugs laws to be paradise.

Mercury has never been scientifically linked to autism. Many people have suggested that there is a link (something that can mostly be accounted for due to the connection between the onset on symptoms and the optimum age to receive the MMR vaccine) but it has never been proven. In fact, studies have found no scientific connection. Now that hasn't stopped the rumours because people find it easier to believe that someone is responsible for their problem.

Controversy over vaccine-autism link endures

Updated Tue. Feb. 5 2008 9:14 AM ET

Angela Mulholland, CTV.ca News

The belief that routine childhood vaccines can lead to autism remains one of the most stubbornly enduring.

The mainstream medical community insists there is no evidence to support the theory, and cite study after study that have found no link. Yet the Internet is filled with groups and organizations who insist that vaccines are causing children to become autistic.

...

It started in February, 1998, in the highly prestigious, British-based medical journal, The Lancet. There, British gastroenterologist Dr. Andrew Wakefield, along with 12 co-authors, published a small study on 12 children in which he claimed to have found a link between inflammatory bowel disease, autism and the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine introduced across the U.K. in 1988.

...

Wakefield's research was attacked as flawed almost from the beginning. In fact, even his collaborators changed their minds. In 2004, 10 of Wakefield's 12 co-authors retracted their conclusions in the Lancet study.

...

[Anarcho-Capitalist]

So you think mercury is perfectly safe to inject in humans? Are you mad?

[the evn show]

So you think mercury is perfectly safe to inject in humans? Are you mad?

Strawman to ad hominem in 14 words.

A 0.14:1 fallacy to word ratio.

Well done.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

So you think mercury is perfectly safe to inject in humans? Are you mad?

Nothing is perfectly safe. Crossing the street is a calculated risk. Having a mercury-based anti-fungicide in vaccines adds much, much, much more benefit than any potential harms. If, however, you think you might be someone with a rare allergy to Thiomersal then it should be noted that Thiomersal is not needed in more-expensive single-dose injectables.

Chemotherapy is a mix of extremely toxic substances. One would think that you would need to be mad to inject that stuff into your veins. Yet, if the alternative is unchecked cancer growth, the benefits of injecting toxins starts to sound very reasonable.

[Anarcho-Capitalist]

Fred, don't you think it's weird that the treatments for disease happen to be just as toxic to the human body as the disease itself? Don't you think that deep down, there has to be a better way to heal people than to inject toxic substances into their body? Don't you think that these treatments do more harm than good?

[Evolution]

Great no evidence is used whatsoever.... just suggestions.

[Anarcho-Capitalist]

Great no evidence is used whatsoever.... just suggestions.

?Several full-time scientists at the McGill Cancer Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum - one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used - while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.? (Philip Day, ?Cancer: Why we?re still dying to know the truth?, Credence Publications, 2000)

http://www.vaccinationdangers.com/2007/12/...s-refuses-c.php

[Growled Member]

Children who develop autism may do so because they have problems processing the toxic metal mercury, researchers have suggested.

Suggested? They don't know? Why suggest such a thing?

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Fred, don't you think it's weird that the treatments for disease happen to be just as toxic to the human body as the disease itself? Don't you think that deep down, there has to be a better way to heal people than to inject toxic substances into their body? Don't you think that these treatments do more harm than good?

As someone who has received the maximum possible dose of chemotherapy, no, I do not. Temporarily losing my hair wasn't fun but it beats death any day of the week.

Vaccines are responsible for making some truly terrible diseases almost irrelevant today. We forget how bad things used to be and we've become a little spoiled in that regard.

[Anarcho-Capitalist]

As someone who has received the maximum possible dose of chemotherapy, no, I do not. Temporarily losing my hair wasn't fun but it beats death any day of the week.

Vaccines are responsible for making some truly terrible diseases almost irrelevant today. We forget how bad things used to be and we've become a little spoiled in that regard.

You're very lucky, because almost all the people who have done what you did are dead.

Vaccines aren't responsible for disease going down. What reduced disease was the shift from ignorance to knowledge about the root causes for disease, such as squalor, malnutrition, and awareness of toxic substances around us.

[soonerproud]

As someone who has received the maximum possible dose of chemotherapy, no, I do not. Temporarily losing my hair wasn't fun but it beats death any day of the week.

Vaccines are responsible for making some truly terrible diseases almost irrelevant today. We forget how bad things used to be and we've become a little spoiled in that regard.

+1

(Y)

[Fred Derf Veteran]

?Several full-time scientists at the McGill Cancer Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum - one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used - while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.? (Philip Day, ?Cancer: Why we?re still dying to know the truth?, Credence Publications, 2000)

http://www.vaccinationdangers.com/2007/12/...s-refuses-c.php

I had cis-platinum as part of my triple cocktail and it was successful in killing my cancer. I had an extremely aggressive type of cancer that could double in as quickly as 48 hours. That makes it a very deadly cancer if left untreated but something that can have very high cure rates if treated immediately. Lung cancer, on the other hand, is a much more difficult journey and many people will opt to let nature take its course rather than fight many types of lung cancer. Chemotherapy isn't fun and if it isn't going to work then it drastically reduces your quality of life for nothing. Of course, if it does work then it is worth paying the price to your temporary health.

All that being said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. People should spend more time investigating cancer-prevention diets but it should also be said that I ate and exercised better than most people and I still came down with it. Sometimes it just comes down to numbers.

In my case the cancer had quickly metastasized but not so far as the lungs, the pancreas, the brain or anywhere really nasty. There are times when chemotherapy isn't worth it.

[soonerproud]

You're very lucky, because almost all the people who have done what you did are dead.

Vaccines aren't responsible for disease going down. What reduced disease was the shift from ignorance to knowledge about the root causes for disease, such as squalor, malnutrition, and awareness of toxic substances around us.

My Mom is a 30 year breast cancer survivor because she had chemotherapy as a last resort when three successive surgeries failed to completely irradicate the cancer. I know many other cancer survivors due to chemotherapy, so no it is not just being one of a lucky few.

Vaccines are responsible for the irradiaction of smallpox in the wild, so yea they are directly responsible for disease going down. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why diseases such as polio are no longer a major threat. Just 60 years ago, that wasn't the case due to the lack of vaccines. There are many other diseases that no longer plague us as they did before vaccinations were wide spread. People understood cleanliness, nutrition and were aware of toxic substances long before diseases actually subsided due to vaccination programs.

Next you are going to try and tell us that HIV meds cause AIDS, even though AIDS was around long before the meds and people who take these meds live a lot longer than those who refuse.

(Don't even try to tell me about HIV/AIDS since I am a sufferer.)

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

There is absolutely no evidence vaccines cause autism. None at all.

The type of mercury that Thiomersal metabolises into is removed from the body very quickly, in just a few days (different types of mercury last in the body for different period of time, you can't just assume it's all the same)

Also, Thiomersal has been phased out of vaccines for the last decade, yet autisim rates haven't dropped, that's good evidence that there is no link.

[Anarcho-Capitalist]

Fred, I'm not trolling here, but chemo only gets rid of the tumor, and the tumor isn't the cancer. The tumor is just the symptom of cancer. If you haven't changed your lifestyle completely since recovering, you're just going to get it again, and next time, you might not be so lucky.

[O.G]

The CDC have been proven to have fraudulently obtained parental consent to perform experemental measals vaccine trials on babies from mostly poor minority groups. One such case happened in Los Angeles in the late 80's early 90's (one of many such cases). The WHO have been proven to have provided tainted tetanus vaccines mostly into 3rd world countries, that were contaminated with female hormones that caused steralization in those injected with the vaccines (or misscarraiges when already pregnant). And the FDA have approved no end of health damaging substances for consumption in one form or another. Whether they are conspiring together, I don't know, I never said they were, however none of them have anything remotely close to a clean track record, quite the opposite in fact and nothing they say should be taken as gospel. None of them can be trusted.

Look, the fact of the matter is, by the UN's own sustainability reports, the world is over populated. Their figures suggest a sustainable global population of between 1.5 and 2 billion people. There are over 6 billion people on this planet which means by their reconing, the population needs to be reduced by 2/3's in order to be sustainable. How do you go about reducing the population by 4 billion people? For a start you need to stop them from breeding and you achieve that by steralization in one way or another. Mass vaccination programs are the most effective method of achieving that with a direct result of the vaccine being steralization or a reduced chance of reproduction. It wouldn't be the first time such a program was initiated. Post WW2, Rockefeller with the US Gov funded the Planned Parenthood Foundation to carry out a program that seen 1/3 or Puerto Rican women steralized as well as some 40,000 Cambodian women. Canada carried out forced steralization between 1928 and 1972 on "unfit" individuals. The US steralized over 65000 people early last century. It's happened before, and there is no reason it cannot happen now, in fact it still does in some countries. The UN would called a plan for a sustainable global population, I would call it eugenics.

The Autism issue is a seperate one (maybe), and it cannot be debunked for the pure and simple fact that mercury damages the brain. That is an undisputable fact. Where the questions arise in in the individuals ability to expell heavy metals from the body. Those who can are fine, those who cannot retain the mercury which causes neurological damage. The symptoms of autism and mercury poisoning are virtualy identical, so either they are the same thing, or children with mercury poisoning are being diagnosed with autism. There is still statistical evidence showing the increase in autism with the increase in mercury based vaccines, though this is anecdotal. You simply cannot go injecting folk with known toxins and expect people to believe there will be no side effects.

You can pass it all off as a conspiracy theory if you like, that's fine but to me it stinks and given previous track records I wouldn't put anything passed these people.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

You're very lucky, because almost all the people who have done what you did are dead.

You do not seem to be in possession of the facts. Fast growing cancers in non-critical areas have a greater than 90% cure rate if found early enough. Chemotherapy has come a long way in the last 20 years.

Slow growing cancers can actually be more dangerous because it can take 5 years of waiting and re-testing to have any sort of confidence that you have been cured. It is more difficult to know when that type of cancer is dead and thus it can slowly start to re-grow. Melanoma is a good example of something that has a preponderance to return.

Canada gets high ranking for cancer survival rates

Updated Wed. Jul. 16 2008 10:55 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Canada has some of the best cancer survival rates in the world, and doctors are pointing to our much-maligned public health-care system as the reason.

In a report on worldwide cancer survival rates, Canada ranked near the top of the 31 countries studied with an estimate five-year survival rate of 82.5 per cent.

For breast cancer, Cuba had the highest survival rates -- another country with free health care. The United States was second, and Canada was third, with 82 per cent of women surviving at least five years.

...

Using Google from my location tends to pop up Canadian results first. My point was that the overall survival rate is 82.5%. Some cancers have a much lower survival rate (i.e. pancreatic cancer) while others have a much higher survival rate. It averages out to 82.5%. Clearly those people aren't getting better on their own. Surgery and radiation treatments may be enough for some but chemotherapy are keeping a lot of people alive today that would not have survived in previous generations.

[Evolution]

Anarcho-Capitalist have you actually read the pathetic article? The first quote is from a book saying that they cured cancer in the 1930s.. written in 1987. Random quotes from a few odd selected doctors is also not valid. And by the way Doctors aren't scientists, they don't actually know what's going on at the molecular level.

Chemotherapy is scientifically sound in helping reduce cancer and is proven to be effective.

BTW tumor is a generic term, and yes cancer will take the form of a tumor with increased proliferation rates. Cancerous cells tend to be localized in a region creating a tumor and when it metastasizes, it too will form tumors in various regions since it cannot transform readily.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Evolution

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Fred, I'm not trolling here, but chemo only gets rid of the tumor, and the tumor isn't the cancer. The tumor is just the symptom of cancer. If you haven't changed your lifestyle completely since recovering, you're just going to get it again, and next time, you might not be so lucky.

Don't get all holistic on us. :D

The cancer is the tumor. Yes, diet can increase you chances, family history can increase your chances, living on a past toxic waste dump can increase your chances but it still comes down to probabilities. Some people will do all the right things and still get cancer. It may be statistically rare but it does happen.

There was some limited cancer in my family history although it wasn't much to put me in a high risk category. I have always eaten proper meals, received proper exercise and lived a low-risk lifestyle. Cancer can happen to anybody. Yes, I would encourage everybody to reduce their odds but you cannot ever eliminate the chances completely.

Life is complicated and there are no simple answers but you shouldn't delude yourself into thinking that people who get cancer somehow "deserved" it even if that will make you sleep better at night.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

...

The Autism issue is a seperate one (maybe), and it cannot be debunked for the pure and simple fact that mercury damages the brain. That is an undisputable fact. Where the questions arise in in the individuals ability to expell heavy metals from the body. Those who can are fine, those who cannot retain the mercury which causes neurological damage. The symptoms of autism and mercury poisoning are virtualy identical, so either they are the same thing, or children with mercury poisoning are being diagnosed with autism. There is still statistical evidence showing the increase in autism with the increase in mercury based vaccines, though this is anecdotal. You simply cannot go injecting folk with known toxins and expect people to believe there will be no side effects.

You can pass it all off as a conspiracy theory if you like, that's fine but to me it stinks and given previous track records I wouldn't put anything passed these people.

What is undisputed is that large doses of mercury (or small doses applied continually over time and allowed to build up) damage the brain. Certain doses are small enough and short lived enough to not damage the brain. Most larger predator and sport fish contain mercury. The general recommendation is that the worst examples of these fish are safe to eat once or twice a month. They also have guidelines for pregnant women.

Mercury buildup in humans can be tested from the hair. Less than 14 ppm have no health impact and individuals will not show any symptoms until about 50 ppm. If it gets over 1000 ppm then you will have serious neurological problems leading to death.

The point here being that there are safe mercury limits. It doesn't need to be all or nothing. One can have a single beer without getting alcohol poisoning.

[Anarcho-Capitalist]

Fred, cancer isn't genetic, it happens the same way people get fat. They're fat because their parents taught them how to eat, same way their parents told them how to eat and so on...

Cancer can happen to anybody

If cancer could happen to anybody, cancer would have consistent rates throughout the entire world. But no, cancer is rare in some countries, and a near epidemic in others. Why is that? Hmmm?

Could it be that our personal choices are what kill us, yet our society wants us to believe that cancer is just something that is out of our control, so that we give that responsibility to doctors, so they can profit from our misfortune?

Think about it.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Anarcho-Capitalist

[Evolution]

There are certain types of cancer that occur based on genetic predisposition. There are also other reasons why other regions may have less. One possible example is that most of the people die of something else before hand, but to be honest I can't argue this at all since I haven't seen any evidence that cancer rates are lower...

One of the largest predisposing factor to cancer is simple constant repair of DNA which happens in everyone all the time in all cells. Of course other common causes often result from smoking or UV damage. It is also possible that certain populations are more homogeneous then others and have a lowered risk due to certain genetic factors.