Anti-vaccine movies disappear from Amazon after CNN Business report

[JosephsDreams]

None of you are providing any sources to back up your claims. Both of you are just stating opinion. I see no reason to continue this debate.

Its not opinion. Its real studies. But I am not even going to bother to try and convince you otherwise. I have learned one thing about this site, it is people rarely change their mind not matter how much evidence is presented to them.

Believe me I know. I used to link reams of studies in the past regarding nutrition and other related issues. I can not remember anyone seeing the light.

Heck most would not be willing to even TRY the things the studies suggested, even though they were cheap and not dangerous in any way. And even though there is a biblical basis for it.

I know I may take heat for this next statement, but I have found most, not all,
but the majority of Christians are more ignorant about basic health principals God put forth in the bible then the younger people, who are in the world, are.

 

[Genipher]

None of you are providing any sources to back up your claims. Both of you are just stating opinion. I see no reason to continue this debate.

lol. The vaccine insert isn't an "opinion" it's a fact.

You need a link to help you along? Here you go:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

And here is the information on how/why fetal cells are used:

https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/fetal-tissues

And also on fetal cells being in vaccines. This one is from the National Vaccine Information Center:

https://www.nvic.org/nvic-vaccine-n...-fetal-cell-lines-for-vaccine-production.aspx

 

[Angela53510]

Here some for you... Thimerosal, fomaldyhyde, cell proteins (some from aborted fetuses) all very good for our bodies

Influenza (Fluarix) Quadrivalentoctoxynol-10 (TRITON X-100), α-tocopherylhydrogen succinate, polysorbate 80 (Tween 80), hydrocortisone, gentamicin sulfate, ovalbumin, formaldehyde, sodium deoxycholate, sodium phosphate-buffered isotonic sodium chloride

Influenza (Flublok)Quadrivalentsodium chloride, monobasic sodium phosphate, dibasic sodium phosphate, polysorbate 20 (Tween20), baculovirus and Spodoptera frugiperda cell proteins, baculovirus and cellular DNA, Triton X-100, lipids, vitamins, amino acids, mineral salts

Influenza (Flucelvax)QuadrivalentMadin Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cell protein, phosphate buffered saline, protein other than HA, MDCK cell DNA, polysorbate 80, cetyltrimethlyammonium bromide, and β-propiolactone, Thimerosal (multi-dose vials)


Influenza (Flulaval) Quadrivalentovalbumin, formaldehyde, sodium deoxycholate, α-tocopheryl hydrogen succinate, polysorbate 80, thimerosal (multi-dose vials), phosphate-buffered saline solution

Influenza (Fluzone) Quadrivalentformaldehyde, egg protein, octylphenol ethoxylate (Triton X-100), sodium phosphate-buffered isotonic sodium chloride solution, thimerosal (multi-dose vials)

Tdap (Boostrix)modified Latham medium derived from bovine casein, Fenton medium containing a bovine extract, formaldehyde, modified Stainer-Scholte liquid medium, glutaraldehyde, aluminum hydroxide,sodium chloride, polysorbate 80

You do know what a SOURCE is, right?

You listed a bunch of chemicals/substances. A source is where you supply where you got the information from. Like a Wikipedia link, or. Research Journal or a scientific peer reviewed paper, or a book on the subject.

Not one of you have listed a single source. Nope, I'm wrong! In page 1, UG put up a link to the NIH, which is reliable source. I clicked on the link, and it was something completely different than the material she wrote. Here is what her link led to!

Altered synthesis of interleukin-12 and type 1 and type 2 cytokinesin rhesus macaques during measles and atypical measles.
Polack FP, et al. J Infect Dis. 2002.
Show full citation
Abstract
Immunosuppression during and after measles results in increased susceptibility to other infections and 1 million deaths annually. The mechanism by which measles virus (MV) induces immune suppression is incompletely understood, but a type 2 skewing of the cytokine response after infection has been documented. In vitro studies suggest that lack of interleukin (IL)-12 production by monocytes and dendritic cells plays an early role in the skewed response. In addition, immunization with an inactivated measles vaccine before measles develops appears to lead to an even stronger type 2 skewing of the cytokine response and atypical measles. In this study, the cytokine responses in rhesus macaques were compared after vaccination with live and formalin-inactivated vaccines and after challenge with MV. In vivo production of IL-12 was decreased during the viremic phase of the illness, and production of IL-4 was increased during and after atypical measles, compared with measles.

Wow! Not a thing about chemicals in vaccines.

As for immune suppressors like Interleukin-12, they aren't that dangerous. I've been in 2 Interleukens - 6 & 1. One gave me my life back for 5 years. The other was not as successful.

As for those if you posting that measles and polio weren't big deal, usually mild, you need to have those diseases, or know people that got those diseases and the damage it did. I knew a lot of people who got polio and they were disabled for life. Others survived polio, and went onto live happy lives, until they got post-polio Syndrome. Very painful.

Seriously, you people are worried about tiny amounts of things put in vaccines. Try the side effects that I get from a biologic or methotrexate. They are both cancer drugs, immune system suppressors, and I am much sicker from the diseases that from any med I have taken, including some of the most dangerous drugs there are. I'm doing fine! Not just fine, but good. Thank God for all the chemicals that I can use to be close to normal and not worry about my heart and lungs getting attacked by RA.

 

[JosephsDreams]

You do know what a SOURCE is, right?

You listed a bunch of chemicals/substances. A source is where you supply where you got the information from. Like a Wikipedia link, or. Research Journal or a scientific peer reviewed paper, or a book on the subject.

Not one of you have listed a single source. Nope, I'm wrong! In page 1, UG put up a link to the NIH, which is reliable source. I clicked on the link, and it was something completely different than the material she wrote. Here is what her link led to!

Altered synthesis of interleukin-12 and type 1 and type 2 cytokinesin rhesus macaques during measles and atypical measles.
Polack FP, et al. J Infect Dis. 2002.
Show full citation
Abstract
Immunosuppression during and after measles results in increased susceptibility to other infections and 1 million deaths annually. The mechanism by which measles virus (MV) induces immune suppression is incompletely understood, but a type 2 skewing of the cytokine response after infection has been documented. In vitro studies suggest that lack of interleukin (IL)-12 production by monocytes and dendritic cells plays an early role in the skewed response. In addition, immunization with an inactivated measles vaccine before measles develops appears to lead to an even stronger type 2 skewing of the cytokine response and atypical measles. In this study, the cytokine responses in rhesus macaques were compared after vaccination with live and formalin-inactivated vaccines and after challenge with MV. In vivo production of IL-12 was decreased during the viremic phase of the illness, and production of IL-4 was increased during and after atypical measles, compared with measles.

Wow! Not a thing about chemicals in vaccines.

As for immune suppressors like Interleukin-12, they aren't that dangerous. I've been in 2 Interleukens - 6 & 1. One gave me my life back for 5 years. The other was not as successful.

As for those if you posting that measles and polio weren't big deal, usually mild, you need to have those diseases, or know people that got those diseases and the damage it did. I knew a lot of people who got polio and they were disabled for life. Others survived polio, and went onto live happy lives, until they got post-polio Syndrome. Very painful.

Seriously, you people are worried about tiny amounts of things put in vaccines. Try the side effects that I get from a biologic or methotrexate. They are both cancer drugs, immune system suppressors, and I am much sicker from the diseases that from any med I have taken, including some of the most dangerous drugs there are. I'm doing fine! Not just fine, but good. Thank God for all the chemicals that I can use to be close to normal and not worry about my heart and lungs getting attacked by RA.

It's obvious you really don't understand organic chemistry or the God designed exquisite nature of delicate balance in our bodies.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

You do know what a SOURCE is, right?

It seems as if you don't, or you would understand each of us posting is a source. You may not like or accept us as sources, but sources of information we are for you.

As for those if you posting that measles and polio weren't big deal, usually mild, you need to have those diseases, or know people that got those diseases and the damage it did. I knew a lot of people who got polio and they were disabled for life. Others survived polio, and went onto live happy lives, until they got post-polio Syndrome. Very painful.

Especially considering a simple little thing like intravenous vitamin C injections could have cured such people, but due to the greed of the pharmaceutical industrial complex, such people became crippled for life.

Seriously, you people are worried about tiny amounts of things put in vaccines. Try the side effects that I get from a biologic or methotrexate. They are both cancer drugs, immune system suppressors, and I am much sicker from the diseases that from any med I have taken, including some of the most dangerous drugs there are. I'm doing fine! Not just fine, but good. Thank God for all the chemicals that I can use to be close to normal and not worry about my heart and lungs getting attacked by RA.

Do you ever think that some of your sicknesses, including cancer, may come from the very vaccines you promote? A little yeast works its way through the whole batch of dough, and a little vaccine is enough to cause death, SIDS, autism, ADHD or a spectrum of other disorders, not to mention the very disease it is supposed to be protecting against. No thanks. I'll take vitamin C over man-made toxins any day.

 

[Angela53510]

The ignorance here is positively astounding! No knowledge of the scientific method, especially double blind studies, how to produce statistics that are meaningful, and point to some statistically significant reasons.

Nothing about studies in peer reviewed journals, gathering concensus with multiple studies worldwide. Nope, just a lot of personal opinions, appalling misunderstanding of what is at stake, and the usual scare tactics of cancer, etc, which is totally unproven. But wait, then we are back to total lack of understanding of science.

Joseph you claim to be a nutritionist. What kind of training, certification etc do you have? Or do you just call yourself that because you want to?

The anti-vaxxers here are more responsible for more deaths and damage by outbreaks of disease which have been under control for 50 years. It is irresponsible to promote deadly and unscientific lies here.

A source: a published paper with a link to a journal or other peer reviewed publication.

In the Sciences, primary sources are documents that provide full description of the original research. For example, a primary source would be a journal article where scientists describe their research on the human immune system. A secondary source would be an article commenting or analyzing the scientists' research on the human immune system.

Not one of us is a "source!" No, we are people with opinions. Some might be better informed, but all this bogus internet garbage you read and listen to on YouTube is not a source. Ever!

"In the Sciences, primary sources are documents that provide full description of the original research. For example, a primary source would be a journal article where scientists describe their research on the human immune system. A secondary source would be an article commenting or analyzing the scientists' research on the human immune system."

 

[UnderGrace]

Here is the source


https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm

You do know what a SOURCE is, right?

You listed a bunch of chemicals/substances. A source is where you supply where you got the information from. Like a Wikipedia link, or. Research Journal or a scientific peer reviewed paper, or a book on the subject.

Not one of you have listed a single source. Nope, I'm wrong! In page 1, UG put up a link to the NIH, which is reliable source. I clicked on the link, and it was something completely different than the material she wrote. Here is what her link led to!

Altered synthesis of interleukin-12 and type 1 and type 2 cytokinesin rhesus macaques during measles and atypical measles.
Polack FP, et al. J Infect Dis. 2002.
Show full citation
Abstract
Immunosuppression during and after measles results in increased susceptibility to other infections and 1 million deaths annually. The mechanism by which measles virus (MV) induces immune suppression is incompletely understood, but a type 2 skewing of the cytokine response after infection has been documented. In vitro studies suggest that lack of interleukin (IL)-12 production by monocytes and dendritic cells plays an early role in the skewed response. In addition, immunization with an inactivated measles vaccine before measles develops appears to lead to an even stronger type 2 skewing of the cytokine response and atypical measles. In this study, the cytokine responses in rhesus macaques were compared after vaccination with live and formalin-inactivated vaccines and after challenge with MV. In vivo production of IL-12 was decreased during the viremic phase of the illness, and production of IL-4 was increased during and after atypical measles, compared with measles.

Wow! Not a thing about chemicals in vaccines.

As for immune suppressors like Interleukin-12, they aren't that dangerous. I've been in 2 Interleukens - 6 & 1. One gave me my life back for 5 years. The other was not as successful.

As for those if you posting that measles and polio weren't big deal, usually mild, you need to have those diseases, or know people that got those diseases and the damage it did. I knew a lot of people who got polio and they were disabled for life. Others survived polio, and went onto live happy lives, until they got post-polio Syndrome. Very painful.

Seriously, you people are worried about tiny amounts of things put in vaccines. Try the side effects that I get from a biologic or methotrexate. They are both cancer drugs, immune system suppressors, and I am much sicker from the diseases that from any med I have taken, including some of the most dangerous drugs there are. I'm doing fine! Not just fine, but good. Thank God for all the chemicals that I can use to be close to normal and not worry about my heart and lungs getting attacked by RA.

 

[UnderGrace]

It's obvious you really don't understand organic chemistry or the God designed exquisite nature of delicate balance in our bodies.

I would agree, I have several doctors in the family and when I listen to them talk it is obvious that their training is all about managing symptoms, treatments.... as my son once pointed out to me, they are doctors of MEDICINE

My son at the age of 20, due to high stress of being in a very competitive school environment was diagnosed with colitis, a fairly acute level of inflammation. It was pretty horrible.

We did follow the medical treatment of Predizone and other drugs, but I tell you I did my homework for a full year studying gut bacteria, diet and auto immune disease.

A lesser known medical doctor from Canada from 1950's had done extensive research on diet as a treatment, and a bio-chemist continued it forward because her daughter was afflicted and was eventually cured through this diet.

It was quite an "AHA" moment for me who had believed and trusted doctors and big Pharma.

I convinced my resistant son to go on the diet and it was a tremendous amount of work for me, preparing and bringing food to him at a distance while he continued his studies, now after several years he has no more symptoms.

I absolutely know that the body given the right tools can do a lot towards healing and recovery.

 

[UnderGrace]

You do know what a SOURCE is, right?

Of course, this is what I do all day long ..... although not on military strategy typically ...LOL

 

[UnderGrace]

The anti-vaxxers here are more responsible for more deaths and damage by outbreaks of disease which have been under control for 50 years. It is irresponsible to promote deadly and unscientific lies here.

I was just wondering if you have some studies to support this claim?

I am quite familiar with multivariate multiple regression so if you could dig something up for me that would be great.

Of course, it is well known among statisticians that a multivariate longitudinal study will have the most reliable and valid data.

It is very kind of you to insult our intelligence based on the fact we are willing to question the money making machinery of the Pharmaceutical Industry.

I would like to be trusting too, but unfortunately I have spoken to far too many parents that have told me about after their typically developing child who was using words and achieving all the right milestones at the right time, have an MMR vaccine and that very night end up in the hospital running a high fever, convulsing, reacting to the vaccine.

Each parent states pretty much the same thing, "I watched my child disintegrate before my eyes."

I think you are terribly unaware of the statistics around the rising incidence of autism and the devastating impact on families and children.

The autism estimate is 1 in 68 children (National Epidemiologic Database 2012).

I do not need a "double blind study" to inform me that something is terribly wrong!!

The ignorance here is positively astounding! No knowledge of the scientific method, especially double blind studies, how to produce statistics that are meaningful, and point to some statistically significant reasons.

Nothing about studies in peer reviewed journals, gathering concensus with multiple studies worldwide. Nope, just a lot of personal opinions, appalling misunderstanding of what is at stake, and the usual scare tactics of cancer, etc, which is totally unproven. But wait, then we are back to total lack of understanding of science.

Joseph you claim to be a nutritionist. What kind of training, certification etc do you have? Or do you just call yourself that because you want to?

The anti-vaxxers here are more responsible for more deaths and damage by outbreaks of disease which have been under control for 50 years. It is irresponsible to promote deadly and unscientific lies here.

A source: a published paper with a link to a journal or other peer reviewed publication.

In the Sciences, primary sources are documents that provide full description of the original research. For example, a primary source would be a journal article where scientists describe their research on the human immune system. A secondary source would be an article commenting or analyzing the scientists' research on the human immune system.

Not one of us is a "source!" No, we are people with opinions. Some might be better informed, but all this bogus internet garbage you read and listen to on YouTube is not a source. Ever!

"In the Sciences, primary sources are documents that provide full description of the original research. For example, a primary source would be a journal article where scientists describe their research on the human immune system. A secondary source would be an article commenting or analyzing the scientists' research on the human immune system."

The ignorance here is positively astounding! No knowledge of the scientific method, especially double blind studies, how to produce statistics that are meaningful, and point to some statistically significant reasons.

Nothing about studies in peer reviewed journals, gathering concensus with multiple studies worldwide. Nope, just a lot of personal opinions, appalling misunderstanding of what is at stake, and the usual scare tactics of cancer, etc, which is totally unproven. But wait, then we are back to total lack of understanding of science.

Joseph you claim to be a nutritionist. What kind of training, certification etc do you have? Or do you just call yourself that because you want to?

The anti-vaxxers here are more responsible for more deaths and damage by outbreaks of disease which have been under control for 50 years. It is irresponsible to promote deadly and unscientific lies here.

A source: a published paper with a link to a journal or other peer reviewed publication.

In the Sciences, primary sources are documents that provide full description of the original research. For example, a primary source would be a journal article where scientists describe their research on the human immune system. A secondary source would be an article commenting or analyzing the scientists' research on the human immune system.

Not one of us is a "source!" No, we are people with opinions. Some might be better informed, but all this bogus internet garbage you read and listen to on YouTube is not a source. Ever!

"In the Sciences, primary sources are documents that provide full description of the original research. For example, a primary source would be a journal article where scientists describe their research on the human immune system. A secondary source would be an article commenting or analyzing the scientists' research on the human immune system."

 

[JosephsDreams]

Angela, I am not going to dignify your insult by giving you details of my schooling and training. Suffice to say you mentioned certification, yet the letters I have after my name go a lot further then that.
I have been doing this for 25 years, and treated many, many individuals, with satisfactory outcomes. If they follow the instructions I give them.

In fact from my conversations with you, I am saying this with sadness, your understanding of diet and nutrition and lifestyle is dim. No malice is intended with that statement. It's a shame, because despite you thinking that you know what you are doing regarding holistic health, you don't. You do what many I have witnessed do. You come close, but are ignorant of the true fundamentals. And in this arena, if you miss the ledge by an inch, you may as well have missed it by ten feet. That is what I mean when I say you have no clear understanding of the bodies chemistry.

Medications kill. If you doubt it, look it up. I forget the numbers, but its around 60 000 deaths a year caused by prescription meds.
In my humble opinion, meds have a place, but generally are emergency or short term solutions. They treat only the symptoms. Generally speaking, someone taking meds as a way of life is probably (not always, but the majority of the time) on a diet and in a lifestyle that is not sustainable to a healthy life and one that is not conducive to biological healing.

There is an emotional/psychological element to this. There are a large number of people who use prescription meds daily who are in a brain fog and who are in a failing physical state. Partly because of their pain and despair and hopelessness they convince themselves, despite evidence to the contrary, that it's the meds that do the healing. That their body can't. That their doctors are Jehovah rapha. Of all people Christian's should know that it is Gods design that our bodies have a internal and complex wisdom which facilitates healing, if we get out of it's way. In the long term the meds people are taking do more harm then good.
Vaccinations are no different.

I do understand how the studies work, and how to cite sources. What good is it if the studies are, pardon the term, doctored up? Yet your blind faith in them belies your intelligence.

Its typical of what goes on here at CC. You conveniently ignored my questions and statements about if you believe all studies are with no agenda. Yet I directly responded to your statements. You ignored my assertion that there is an embedded powerful aspect of greed and power and self interest at work here?
You ignored my statements, of fact, that the diseases and ailments caused by these vaccinations have skyrocketed in recent decades, coincidentally enough with the proliferation of more and increasingly dangerous vaccinations. But you believe it's just my opinion and that it is only some cosmic happen stance, right?

Studies and numbers can be and are manipulated. By both sides. That is a fact. Do you believe that, or not?

So let's get to the core if this. Are you denying that medications and vaccinations can and do have (sometimes lethal) side effects?

Are you saying there is no risk with vaccinations?

Are you suggesting the concerns of millions of moms should be ignored?

Are you telling me that you do not believe God created and designed our bodies with a specific anatomical, chemical and physiological makeup?
Do you believe that processed man made medications are the true answer to our health issues?

Do you think man has a clear and concise understanding of the vastness of the workings if the human body?

You know the bible. When a jew confronted another Jew, they had to face the person addressing them. If they turned their back to them and, if they walked away, that was an admission that they could not respond with conviction to the issue being raised.

Please answer my questions directly.

Who do you trust? Gods design, or man's institutions? Draw a line.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

A source: a published paper with a link to a journal or other peer reviewed publication.

In the Sciences, primary sources are documents that provide full description of the original research. For example, a primary source would be a journal article where scientists describe their research on the human immune system. A secondary source would be an article commenting or analyzing the scientists' research on the human immune system.

Not one of us is a "source!" No, we are people with opinions. Some might be better informed, but all this bogus internet garbage you read and listen to on YouTube is not a source. Ever!

"In the Sciences, primary sources are documents that provide full description of the original research. For example, a primary source would be a journal article where scientists describe their research on the human immune system. A secondary source would be an article commenting or analyzing the scientists' research on the human immune system."

Where did you get your definition of source? It seems to be incorrect. The dictionary definition I find is this:

noun: source; plural noun: sources

a place, person, or thing from which something originates or can be obtained.

If, by source, you meant "a published paper with a link to a journal or other peer reviewed publication", perhaps this is what you should have stated? Because my argument would have been that the peer review process is corrupted to favour the status quo. However, as you indicated that none of us were sources, which is clearly incorrect by the correct definition of the word source, I argued on this basis.

 

[Susanna]

Where did you get your definition of source? It seems to be incorrect. The dictionary definition I find is this:

noun: source; plural noun: sources

a place, person, or thing from which something originates or can be obtained.

If, by source, you meant "a published paper with a link to a journal or other peer reviewed publication", perhaps this is what you should have stated? Because my argument would have been that the peer review process is corrupted to favour the status quo. However, as you indicated that none of us were sources, which is clearly incorrect by the correct definition of the word source, I argued on this basis.

I think this response made every bit of uncertainty about your credibility vanish from the thread.

Just stating that peer review process is corrupted, without backing that up with nothing but your biases, tells me your narrative is mostly circumstantial and coincidental, at best.

You knew quite well what she meant regarding sources, but you chose to twist her words into a meaningless statement on what basis you argued. How stupid do you think she is?

I haven’t seen anything but disrespectful rants from you when someone disagrees with you.

 

[UnderGrace]

Its typical of what goes on here at CC. You conveniently ignored my questions and statements about if you believe all studies are with no agenda. Yet I directly responded to your statements. You ignored my assertion that there is an embedded powerful aspect of greed and power and self interest at work here?

I have not really thought about this until I read your comment and this is very true.

Also there is not doubt that journals have had to retract articles because of fraud, in fact one journal, Journal of Vibration and Control
had to retract 60 articles.

There are not enough peer reviewers so that is a problem right there.

Falsification of data is also a problem.

For anyone to think everything is above board in research is very, very naive.

 

[Angela53510]

"An Ottawa cancer survivor is condemning anti-vaxxers, after she contracted measles while travelling overseas.

Despite having the measles vaccine, her immune system had been weakened from past cancer operations.

Jayda Kelsall spent eight days in the hospital and said her life was put at risk by anti-vaxxers after she caught measles while on a trip in March. Now she’s urging everyone to get the immunization.

• Everything you need to know about the measles vaccination

“I'm not somebody who did anything wrong,” she told CTV Ottawa. “I'm an immunocompromised cancer patient [and] this is why we should be vaccinating.”

Four years ago, Kelsall, 36, was diagnosed with a rare abdominal cancer.

“It's an incurable cancer, so we watch and we wait,” she said. “I have a few tumors at the moment that haven't grown in about a year and a half now.”

Recently, a charity had awarded her a trip to London, U.K., which included a tour of Harry Potter-related tourist sites. Kelsall and her husband Alex da Silva took the trip in mid-March.

“It was surreal to be treated so well,” she said, adding it had been an “amazing” trip of a lifetime. But a week after she’d returned, she started feeling tired, more so than her usual fatigue.

Kelsall was taken to hospital with a high fever and it was there that her husband noticed bumps on her forehead -- a typical measles symptom.



CANCER OPERATIONS WEAKENED HER IMMUNE SYSTEM

“She got all these red bumps on her forehead. I thought it was from sweating and the fever,” da Silva told CTV Ottawa. Kelsall was soon put into isolation once doctors realized she was carrying the infectious disease.

“Everyone was really baffled, including myself,” Kelsall said. “I laughed at first and thought that was absurd [because] I'm vaccinated.”

“It quickly turned to real concern of who I may have exposed,” she said.

Doctors explained her bouts with cancer had compromised her immune system and made her more susceptible to measles.

A spokesperson from Ottawa Public Health said Kelsall is actually the second recent case of measles in Ottawa but that the two aren’t connected. They believe Kelsall contracted the virus while she was overseas.

She’s grateful she was vaccinated “because I didn't get nearly as sick as I could have.”



WHO: MEASLES VACCINE HAS SAVED 17.1 MILLION LIVES SINCE 2000

The measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine should be given to children soon after their first birthday, Public Health Agency of Canada urges. The Canadian Paediatric Society and the National Advisory Committee on Immunization strongly recommend routine immunization.

The World Health Organization estimates that measles vaccination has saved an estimated 17.1 million lives since 2000.

The unfortunate skepticism over vaccines and their safety primarily started after a widely discredited study was published in the medical journal The Lancet in 1997. The misinformation has only gotten worse in the past several years, with more outbreaks of preventable and widely-eradicated contagious diseases across Canada and the United States occurring.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has declared a public health emergency in the city, as medical facilities are now dealing nearly 300 cases. It’s the largest measles outbreak in New York City in almost 30 years.

De Blasio is now mandating vaccinations and threatening fines of up to $1,000 for those who are not vaccinated.

In February, Angus Reid Institute released a troubling statistic that found that at approximately 29 per cent of Canadians polled didn’t think the science on vaccinations against deadly diseases was “quite clear.”

But in that same poll however, researchers also found that the vast majority of Canadians -- 70 per cent -- say vaccines should be mandatory for school-aged children.

https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/health/2019/4/10/1_4374980.html

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

Just stating that peer review process is corrupted, without backing that up with nothing but your biases, tells me your narrative is mostly circumstantial and coincidental, at best.

Since when does science depend on the opinions of others? It does not. I view those who rely on such processes as potentially incapable of critically reviewing themselves, or worse, capable, but too lazy to investigate.

You knew quite well what she meant regarding sources, but you chose to twist her words into a meaningless statement on what basis you argued. How stupid do you think she is?

What someone means and what someone says can be two different things, and were in this case. It is important for one to be precise with one's words, as words can easily be twisted if not, and what is false logically, but falsely, proven to be what is true. If anything, it seems to be you in favour of word-twisting, as it is you who asks why I didn't reinterpret a word to mean what it does not.

I haven’t seen anything but disrespectful rants from you when someone disagrees with you.

I think the most disrespectful of my responses has been more polite than this of yours. But we each are entitled to our opinions.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

"An Ottawa cancer survivor is condemning anti-vaxxers, after she contracted measles while travelling overseas.

Despite having the measles vaccine, her immune system had been weakened from past cancer operations.

So basically, the vaccine didn't work, yet instead of blaming the pro-vaxxers for their rubbish product, she blames anti-vaxxers for not being conned? Lol.

Jayda Kelsall spent eight days in the hospital and said her life was put at risk by anti-vaxxers after she caught measles while on a trip in March. Now she’s urging everyone to get the immunization.

Sad. So she thinks the whole world she put themselves at risk of death, SIDS, autism, etc. so she can travel? It's even a possibility her cancers were caused by her past vaccinations. Probably if she'd never been vaccinated like all the anti-vaxxers she blames, she wouldn't have got measles, either.

I for one won't be putting myself or mine, or recommending anyone else, put their lives and families in jeopardy for such people. She could've stayed home - some can't even afford to eat, let alone jet about the world. If she wants to travel, take the risks associated it, and don't go blaming everyone else when things don't go all your way.

 

[Susanna]

Since when does science depend on the opinions of others? It does not. I view those who rely on such processes as potentially incapable of critically reviewing themselves, or worse, capable, but too lazy to investigate.

What someone means and what someone says can be two different things, and were in this case. It is important for one to be precise with one's words, as words can easily be twisted if not, and what is false logically, but falsely, proven to be what is true. If anything, it seems to be you in favour of word-twisting, as it is you who asks why I didn't reinterpret a word to mean what it does not.

I think the most disrespectful of my responses has been more polite than this of yours. But we each are entitled to our opinions.

Do you think science depends on your findings only? No peer reviews, just your own echo chamber thinking?

There’s a distinction between critically thinking and fiction. Judging from what you’re posting I’d say you have failed to provide any source which is even remotely connected to your “thesis”.

I’m sorry, but what you are writing will only make you find common ground with the anti vaccine movement.

 

[gb9]

I would encourage anyone- find and read vaccine inserts. not a fact sheet, the actual insert that comes out the box the vaccine comes in.

it is on thin paper, like Bible pages. it lists all the possible side effects of the vaccine it came with. it has to, by law, so there is not a liability issue for the medical practice.

 

[JosephsDreams]

So basically, the vaccine didn't work, yet instead of blaming the pro-vaxxers for their rubbish product, she blames anti-vaxxers for not being conned? Lol.

Sad. So she thinks the whole world she put themselves at risk of death, SIDS, autism, etc. so she can travel? It's even a possibility her cancers were caused by her past vaccinations. Probably if she'd never been vaccinated like all the anti-vaxxers she blames, she wouldn't have got measles, either.

I for one won't be putting myself or mine, or recommending anyone else, put their lives and families in jeopardy for such people. She could've stayed home - some can't even afford to eat, let alone jet about the world. If she wants to travel, take the risks associated it, and don't go blaming everyone else when things don't go all your way.

And refuses to answer my posts...