Vaccines Are They Dangerous? Watch this Video!! What is the story?

Video


DISPELLING VACCINATION MYTHS:
An Introduction to the Contradictions Between Medical Science and Immunization Policy
by Rev. Alan Phillips, DirectorCitizens for Healthcare FreedomLast Revision: May 2001In Spanish


also


“Give no deadly medicine to anyone” - Hippocrates
If you raise the question of vaccinations with your doctor you are likely to be told that it is extremely important that you vaccinate your child. If you should be so naïve as to ask “why” you are likely to be told that vaccination is the most effective intervention of modern medicine which prevented more suffering and saved more lives than any other medical procedure.
If you decide to investigate independently, as lakhs of parents, doctors and scientists are now doing world wide, you will find, as I did, that nothing could perhaps, be further from the truth. Indeed, I urge you to investigate for yourselves. Dozens of Vaccine Research Books have been written - mostly by people from the medical profession itself. Some books are recommended at the end of this article.
There are many aspects of vaccinations that need to be addressed - however this report tries to deal with 2 basic questions only:
Do vaccinations prevent diseases?
Are vaccinations safe? Do they have side effects or contra-indications of which parents ought to be aware before they vaccinate?


A Vital Video Paternal age autism, vaccination induced autism, mother's father's age autism, familial autism, combined age and vaccination induced autism.


More on vaccination dangers


Another view of vaccinations:


Critique of Government-Funded Epidemiology by Harris L. Coulter Ph.D.©
Since I have been occasionally criticized for adopting, as it were, too acerbic a tone in my contributions on vaccination questions, I will try to demonstrate why those of us who have opted to contest the position of the medical-industrial-governmental complex on this issue at times feel overcome with rage at the abominably poor quality of the pro-vaccination epidemiologic research which is foisted on the public in the hope and expectation that no one will ever take the trouble to check it out and criticize it.
One feels rage as well at the complicity of the "peer reviewed" journals which print these awful productions. It is abundantly clear, if further proof were needed, that "peer review" means simply preventing criticism of certain commercial interests and blocking the emergence of competing viewpoints.
Finally, one feels rage and exasperation at the total inability of journalists -- who are reputed to be professional sceptics -- to see through, and expose, this duplicity. They fearlessly cross-question generals and members of the cabinet, even the President himself, but are struck dumb by the self-promoting assertions of some character in a white coat ("Say Joe, how do you spell 'breakthrough'"?).
Let us not forget that it is small and defenceless babies who are being turned into mincemeat by these commercial products known as vaccines.
Once upon a time, long ago in the 1940s and 1950s, physicians who were interested in vaccine reactions actually (would you believe it?) went into hospitals, and even to people's homes, to examine babies who were thought to have suffered some sort of adverse reaction. They went so far as to speak with the parents and to ask their opinion. This was called by one British pioneer "shoe-leather epidemiology."
Today our epidemiologists have progressed way beyond those primitive techniques. Rarely do they actually observe a sick baby. Rarely do they actually discuss a case with the parents. Oh no! That would be accepting "anecdotal evidence" -- a cardinal sin. That would be mistaking the well-known "background incidence" of SIDS or epilepsy or asthma or diabetes, or you name it, for a vaccine reaction. Never mind that no research exists on any such "background incidence" in an unvaccinated U.S. population. Our epidemiologists are not fazed by this. They just keep repeating the mantra until everyone is convinced that a "background incidence" must have been demonstrated somehow, somewhere, by someone.
Fortified by these unproven assumptions and methodological limitations, epidemiologists funded by government agencies and the medical-industrial complex fill the pages of medical journals with trash epidemiology -- the articles discussed below are prime examples -- which, in a sort of scientific apotheosis of Gresham’s Law, drives good research out of circulation or prevents it from being published.
[Vaccination]

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/coulter.html

http://www.whale.to/vaccines.html