Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: profound on 23/09/2013 17:26:19
-
Pro vaccine promoter Paul offit chief of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and the Henle Professor of Immunologic and Infectious Diseases at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, is the Chief US spokesman for vaccination has said it is ok to take a 100000 vaccines.
The question is it safe to 100000 Vaccines?
To answer this question Infowars has offered $1 million challenge to Piers Morgan and vaccine executives to take 1000 vaccines in a 2 week
period under controlled conditions.These are the people who are promoting 100000 Vaccines as being safe for anyone.
Piers Morgan has been offered $1 million if he will agree to be injected with 1,000 off-the-shelf vaccine shots within a two-week period.
So the question is will anyone of these corporate creatures take up the challenge?
Here is a list of the vaccines to be injected:-
The 1,000 vaccines to be administered to Piers Morgan if he accepts the challenge are:
• 500 Influenza vaccines
• 100 Anthrax vaccines
• 100 Polio vaccines
• 100 Gardasil vaccines
• 100 Hepatitis B vaccines
• 100 Meningitis vaccines
The $1 million vaccine challenge was also extended to any executive of a vaccine manufacturer, opening the challenge to thousands of potential takers.
-
• 500 Influenza vaccines
• 100 Anthrax vaccines
• 100 Polio vaccines
• 100 Gardasil vaccines
• 100 Hepatitis B vaccines
• 100 Meningitis vaccines
Are these 1000 different vaccines? Or repeated dosing of the same vaccine?
How many vaccines exist? Assuming one "unpackages" them. Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Varicella, Polio, Smallpox, Tetanus, Pertussis, Half a century of Influenza Vaccines (3 serotypes each year?), multiple serotypes of pneumovax, Yellow Fever, Hepatitis A & B, Rabies, IPV, OPV, HPV
Ok, I'm running out of fingers and toes. Perhaps the number would increase somewhat if one considered multiple manufactures, and manufacturing methods, and changes of the viruses over time. Still, the suggested dosing above seems very simplified.
I could imagine the immune system would go a bit crazy with dosing 1000 doses in 2 weeks. One would likely feel very much like one had the flu.
Megadoses of a vaccine?
One would likely get a bigger immune response by giving say a daily dose of a vaccine for a 2 week period. Would there also be an increased risk of taking megadoses of live attenuated viruses such as OPV?
As far as expected symptoms.
One would likely feel like one was hammered with the flu for those 2 weeks, perhaps a bit longer.
Theoretically, the biggest risk would likely be to induce an autoimmune disease such as diabetes or lupus, although I doubt the risk would be much different between taking 10 "normal" does vs 10 megadoses.
I suppose the question is that in the future, we could well be exposing our children to a LOT of vaccines. Of course, naturally they get "dosed" with large numbers of viruses and bacteria.
A thousand injections, and one would certainly start feeling like a pin cushion.
Would I accept the challenge? I certainly would consider it carefully, especially if it was my business. Perhaps test the dosing regimen in an animal or primate first.
-
I don't know how many different infections I have thrown off over the years, but the world is full of bacteria, virions and fungi, and countless types must have tried to infect me.
And, because my immune system recognises them, I now have a good degree of immunity to all those zillions of bugs.
I think another 100,000 might be a drop in the ocean, but I don't know.
Does anyone have any figures for how many things I'm likely to have been naturally immunised against- simply by infection?
Also, it's hardly the point.
It really doesn't matter if someone can (or can't) tolerate all those jabs.
The question about vaccines is "Am I better off getting the shot, or risking the disease?" and the answer is usually the former.
-
The question about vaccines is "Am I better off getting the shot, or risking the disease?" and the answer is usually the former.
Actually, you may well be better off if everyone else gets the vaccine (lowering the prevalence of the disease in the population), and you don't get the vaccine. However, there are certain diseases that are best not to get during pregnancy, or as an adult.
So far, I've avoided getting annual flu vaccines as I can limit my exposure to the flu, and fulminant disease symptoms seem rare for me. I have wondered, however, if I would be better off getting vaccinated for species jumping flu strains such as the swine flu, even if I may not get the swine flu until it is heavily mutated in a decade or so.
-
The question about vaccines is "Am I better off getting the shot, or risking the disease?" and the answer is usually the former.
Actually, you may well be better off if everyone else gets the vaccine (lowering the prevalence of the disease in the population), and you don't get the vaccine. However, there are certain diseases that are best not to get during pregnancy, or as an adult.
So far, I've avoided getting annual flu vaccines as I can limit my exposure to the flu, and fulminant disease symptoms seem rare for me. I have wondered, however, if I would be better off getting vaccinated for species jumping flu strains such as the swine flu, even if I may not get the swine flu until it is heavily mutated in a decade or so.
But many studies which were not funded by vaccine makers show the opposite and suggest they are very dangerous to health.
Also when you get infected naturally you don't get large amounts of other dangerous artificials chemicals injected into you.like formaldehyde,mercury and so fourth.
explain that.
Also Big Pharma spent $2,674,746,491 on Lobbying from 1998 to 2013.
That is enough money to give 6 million dollars to each congress member of which there are 435.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/22-medical-studies-that-show-vaccines.html
Concerns regarding vaccinations continue to increase exponentially in light of all of the information and documentation that has surfaced over the past few years. As a result, corporate media has responded to alternative media, stating that the increase of persons who are choosing to opt out of vaccines and the recommended vaccine schedule is a result of ‘fear mongering.’
This may not be too surprising as the corporate media is owned by the major vaccine manufacturers, and the major vaccine manufacturers are owned by corporate media(1)(2)(3)(4). Given this fact, it’s easy to fathom the possibility that these institutions are desperately trying to protect the reputation of their product.
For example, if we take a look at GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, they are owned by the same financial institutions and groups that own Time Warner (CNN, HBO etc.) and General Electric (NBC, Comcast, Universal Pictures etc.).(1)(2)(3)(4) This is seen throughout all of the major vaccine manufacturers and all of the 6 corporations that control our mainstream media. Keep in mind that these are the major funders of all ‘medical research’ that’s used to administer drugs and vaccinations. Despite these connections, medical research and documentation exists to show that vaccines might indeed be a cause for concern.
-
When the figures look like this
http://blogs.plos.org/thepanicvirus/files/2012/07/Screen-Shot-2012-07-18-at-11.45.19-AM.png
it really doesn't matter who does the study.
The case for vaccines is very clear.
The fact that big pharma spends more on lobbying than on research is very worrying, but it isn't the only cause of worry.
For example, there's a lot more mercury in my teeth than there would be in those vaccines.
But people still think the mercury in vaccines is a problem. There's no real evidence for that, but people believe it and so we get this sort of thing.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/12/health/worst-measles-year/index.html
Which is also worrying.
-
When the figures look like this
http://blogs.plos.org/thepanicvirus/files/2012/07/Screen-Shot-2012-07-18-at-11.45.19-AM.png
it really doesn't matter who does the study.
The case for vaccines is very clear.
The fact that big pharma spends more on lobbying than on research is very worrying, but it isn't the only cause of worry.
For example, there's a lot more mercury in my teeth than there would be in those vaccines.
But people still think the mercury in vaccines is a problem. There's no real evidence for that, but people believe it and so we get this sort of thing.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/12/health/worst-measles-year/index.html
Which is also worrying.
the mercury in your teeth is not in your blood.mercury is very toxic as the cdc says.you are of course saying its safe to protect big pharma profits.how much did they pay you?
Big Pharma spent $2,674,746,491 on Lobbying from 1998 to 2013.
That is enough money to give 6 million dollars to each congress member of which there are 435.
With that kind of money i could lie,bribe,cheat,kill,steal.
Which is what big pharma is doing.don't you read the news about their latest criminal activities?
that simpson guy got away with murder because he had money.
i could do anything with that kind of money.
Big Pharma spent $2,674,746,491 on Lobbying from 1998 to 2013.
That is enough money to give 6 million dollars to each congress member of which there are 435.
-
According to the CDC, one to three out of every 1,000 children in the United States who get measles will die from the disease, even with the best of care. Even if complications such as pneumonia and encephalitis aren't deadly, they can make children very sick; in 2011, nearly 40% of children under the age of 5 who got measles had to be treated in the hospital.
I suppose the odds are that if your child is one of the few hundred unvaccinated children that contract measles in the US every year, then it won't die.
However, the risk of serious complications due to the vaccine is much less than if the child contracts the disease. Do you truly want to take the risk? And, of course, the cost of preventable hospitalization.