The Big Lie

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/homeopathy.htm#linda

"Historically, homeopathy has proven many times to be more effective than allopathic medicine in the treatment and prevention of disease, with risk of harmful side effects. In a U.S. cholera outbreak in 1849, allopathic medicine saw a 48-60% death rate, while homeopathic hospitals had a documented death rate of only 3%. Roughly similar statistics still hold true for cholera today. Recent epidemiological studies show homeopathic remedies as equaling or surpassing standard vaccinations in preventing disease. There are reports in which populations that were treated homeopathically after exposure had a 100% success rate-none of the treated caught the disease.

During the epidemic of yellow fever in the southern States in 1878, the allopaths treated 96,187 cases, of which 12,296 died; a death rate of 23.b. At the same time the homoeopathic practitioners treated 3914 cases of the same disease, of which 261 died; a death rate of 6.6. In many of the southern States, by means of unjust medical legislation, the allopaths have obtained sole control, and they refuse to permit homeopaths to practice. This accounts for the great disparity in the numbers treated.
 

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=743

Vaccine Damnation: Retired Vaccine Researcher Speaks Out on Vaccine Dangers

Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?

A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I’m concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.

Q: Why?

A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.

Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?

A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases - say, meningitis - that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.

Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.

A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.

Q: Which is?

A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.

Q: So you’re saying that we have been treated to a false history.

A: Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.

...A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines. Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why? Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense.

Q: Why doesn’t it make sense?

A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn’t that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn’t that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury?

Q: And that is what you found?

A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, most of the time. Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark off an intense investigation....

Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?

A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that are not there.

Q: The things that are not there.

A: Yes.

Q: To avoid any confusion, I’d like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens.

A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from. Because, some version of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn’t get THAT disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism, what’s called autism, or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.

Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes?

A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable answer. That is what I’m saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you don’t get facts you can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to enforce the superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns, we can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. The harm is NOT limited to a few cases, as we have been led to believe. In the US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up at meetings. They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has been created by the researchers and doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing.

...Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that vaccines are successful?

A: No, I can’t. If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I’m not saying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you can declare, in every state, based on religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move.

http://www.oneradionetwork.com/health_-_articles/women_%96_children_-_vaccines_-_articles/u.s._research_fraud_and_the_italian_vaccine_mercury_study_20090207795/

U.S. Research Fraud and the Italian Vaccine Mercury Study, Written by Patrick Timpone, Saturday, 07 February 2009    

Documents disclosed under U.S. Freedom of Information act show the Centers for Disease Control spends U.S. tax dollars in foreign countries on studies which reinforce the claim that the vaccination programs they promote for U.S. children are safe -- even though they know the results of the studies will produce false and misleading results.

Just such a study, funded by the CDC and recently published in Italy, claims to show that the known neurotoxic mercury additive in vaccines, Thimerosal, is not harmful to children. The study has received wide-spread publicity.

What the public was not told is that the study was designed so that it certain to be unable to detect any effect.  A CDC internal email exchange shows that to be able to detect any effect in children with the methods used, the dose applied by the age of 3 months had to be more than 50 millionths of a gram of mercury. By the age of 6 months, it needed to be more than 100 millionths of a gram.

However, the Italian children in the study received only two thirds of the minimum amount by the age of 3 months, and were similarly beneath the minimum at 4 months and 6 months.

But do not be deceived into thinking there are no problems with the lower levels of mercury -- the study was simply unable to measure the effects at lower levels.  It was an issue of precision rather than absence of effect.

There were many other deficiencies in the Italian study.  Notably, the study only included healthy children in the original vaccine trial, so those most at risk were excluded.

Here's a link to the complete story and supporting documents>>>