"The problem is the mercury (thimerosal) that's been added". No. The problem is vaccination, mercury or no mercury. Vaccines are neurotoxic and carcinogenic. Most people don't realise that vaccines have NOTHING to do with disease prevention, although most doctors believe they do. The widespread harm vaccines cause is not accidental, but deliberate.

Some people see a link between vaccinations and satanic rituals or witchcraft, where animals are sacrificed and their organs brewed in a hellish concoction of horrid substances: voodoo medicine by 21st century mad scientists. Sadly, our children are their unwilling subjects as society is slowly devoured by their insatiable appetite for human experimentation.

Is small pox a virus? Yes a deadly one no. It is a rash. The Native Americans who died from it were sick, hungry and cold already. We have not had any new evidence in hundreds of years.

May be we should all do more research and actuality look into the CDC's own research to see about these. We should also look into history. What was small pox? A: a rash. Yup a rash. Polio vaccines were given at the same time that DDT was stopped. What was DDT used for? to paralyze insects. Parents need to learn more. So do the doctors. They know what they are told even if it is a lie.

It's a pretty safe bet that most people grasp the simplified concept of "how" a vaccine works and/or "why" it works. The problem people have with the shots is the mercury (thimerosal) that's been added. Mercury can be deadly to humans and clearly is NOT going to have "nice" side effects for people/children that have other issues. Check out "Autism, Vaccines and Mitochondrial Disease" and then maybe you'll understand a little better.

The question we should be asking, is not do the vaccines work but rather, why is a mercury based preservative being used when there are alternatives. There is clear evidence that mercury is highly toxic.

Why would they leave poisonous substances in there, or would they deliberately put them in? The human population is exponentially expanding by over 240,000 people per day; this will have a minuscule effect on declining it. However, there is one things that could do the job: disease. This is why I endorse vaccines. Anthrax, gas gangrene, tuberculosis, leprosy, rubella, rabies... You name the disease; they all have macabre potential.

Why else does Eli Lilly and Merek insert secret rider bills into American political laws exempting them from lawsuits regarding knowingly distributing mercury in vaccines. No doubt this trend will continue and worsen. Parents, please do research before you willingly poison your child. It is the ultimate treachery to poison our babies under the guise of public health.

Vaccines were no doubt originally worked on to help prevent disease. Some in the field, may have nobel intentions. Unfortunately, many vaccines knowingly contain substances poisonous to human health or in some instances anti-bodies which may do great damage or render females unfertile. Something very useful for mankind has been co-opted by evil people who believe the death of your child will help with "population control."

One last thing: For those of you who think just remaining salubrious will prevent an infection, it you get a laceration on your skin, is it going to stop a virus or bacteria from entering? Don't get me wrong; there will always be a small percentage of people who react in an austere manner to certain vaccines like allergies to drugs, but that is insignificant to the potential of a very malignant, mutagenic virus. Have you seen Outbreak? It could happen at any time.

Do vaccines against polio not work? What about meningitis? Influenza? There is quite a gamut of viruses; we should all hope for one against the Ebola virus. Was smallpox not decimated by vaccination (not completely)? The evidence is blatant; the other side's evidence is spurious.

Some viruses like measles were being prevented, but now they are appearing again in newborns due to obstinate idiots not vaccinating their children. Even a mundane influenza virus could be deadly to a newborn after 6 months. All a vaccine is is an innocuous version of a pathogen that builds up antibodies and memory cells in the immune system which provides immunity. I know I am not extremely erudite on the subject, but open your damn eyes.

Okay, this is frivolous. Albeit I agree with the fact that some greedy conglomerate may be gulling others with vaccines, they are necessary. They have stopped the proliferation of a myriad of diseases; they even almost completely eradicated the smallpox virus which is a very macabre virus. The only reason a vaccine most likely wouldn't work is due to a change in a virus's genome during replication. Vaccines aren't necessary?

A reply to vaccineshurtbabies, You keep spreading the truth and DO NOT waste your time with these(makaldassa,fs11111 etc)sleeping SHEOPLE as they can enjoy their death, as they ignorantly continue to chemical assault their bodies(and unfortunately their offsprings.They are very flouridated and gmo'd as well! You must know they are probably on pharmaceuticals too!They are MORONS at best,we must move on and save the ones that wish to be!To all ignorant just google EUGENICS and learn something!

everyone seems to hate vaccines.. but i find it very interesting to note that, eg: in Stockholm 1873-74, everyone was against vaccination against smallpox, but when the epidemic came, everyone seemed to want it. they shud have just given them to legitimately vaccine-supporting people, cos after all, this wud make the people who condemn vaccines look like hypocrites right? let them fight smallpox on their own, since they view vaccines as bad stuff

"Show me evidence that vaccines cause 80% of illness" There are e.g. surveys and studies which indicate that 80% of asthma cases are caused by vaccinations. Vaccinations are today a prime cause of ill-health, which is also one major reason why they are given, though in all fairness doctors haven't got a clue about this.

So you agree that studies critical of vaccination can get published? "If people weren't vacc., 80% of ill-health would dissappear". Tell me how a few vaccines is keeping me sick? I haven't even caught the flu since I was a kid. What evidence do you have to support your outrageous claim that vaccines cause 80% of illness?

Contd. I am certain that if you watched all 5 of my youtube presentations 'Vaccination: Miracle or Mayhem?', you would at least begin to see what I am talking about.

"if vaccines were as dangerous as you think they are, the research would line up with what you are saying, but it does not". It doesn't, indeed, because the research you refer to is tobacco science or junk science designed to protect vaccination, which is medicine's sacred cow. If people were not vaccinated, 80% of ill-health would disappear, which would be a disaster for the sickness industry, hence the need to make and keep the population ill with vaccines.

I do question the benefits of flu shots for the elderly. Because there is good evidence that I should do so. YOU say "who would publish it?". I'm saying journals ARE willing to publish studies critical of vaccines. No one is saying that all vaccines are good for all people. A 90 year old man doesn't need the HPV vacc, for example. What I'm saying is that if vaccines were as dangerous as you think they are the research would line up with what you are saying, but it does not.

"Flu Shot Benefits for Elderly Questioned". Well, there you go. In one comment you say that flu shots must be good because so many health professionals have them, while in this one you quote a study which questions the benefits of flu shots. Watch my 5 part youtube presentation 'Vaccination: Miracle or Mayhem?'and get educated.

This is a post of mine from a month ago, it is still unanswered... OK conspiracy nuts... this is one of today's headlines on MEDPAGETODAY (a widely read doctor's website)-- "Flu Shot Benefits for Elderly Questioned". It doesn't look to me like researchers are hiding anything about vaccines-- if someone finds something real they can publish it, like the authors did, and expose it. That's how science works. If you don't think vaccines are good for you publish a paper showing they aren't!!!

When I went to get my flu shot 2 days ago at my school, I had to wait in line for 20 minutes. Hundreds of doctors, nurses, and researchers were in line to get the influenza vaccine. It is a little cocky for you people to think that you know more about medicine than people who have spent their lives studying medicine and its interaction with the human body. The fact that doctors endorse vaccines doesn't make them safe. The evidence makes them safe, until there is better evidence to the contrary.

I agree with you that some journals are too beholden to the pharmaceutical industry. But to say that such an article wouldn't get published is simply not true. Remember all the heart stent hullabaloo? A group of researchers showed that the drug-eluting stents did not work nearly as well as was previously thought. As someone involved in medical research and medicine, I can tell you that a paper showing that vaccs weren't effective or safe would be HUGE and ANY journal would LOVE to publish it.

"surely you dont disagree with that do you" Don't waste your time arguing with makaldasa. Trying to explain to him that vaccins are useless and dangerous is like trying to explain the benefts of becoming a vegetarian to a butcher.