question

September 22, 2007

At 11:36 AM 9/22/2007 -0700, you wrote:

>Thank you Jen that is what I was trying to say!

>

> I agree that over time they will probably finally decide that

all the

>things they call " autism " are really different things (more so than

>the different diagnoses on the autism spectrum right now). And you

>(meaning several of you who have been posting today!) may be right

>that the 20%/80% doesn't apply in the most recent years, but that is

>the latest stats that I have heard.

>

>I think those who are mentioning other ingredients are right on. We

>need to get people looking at more than thimerisol. It has been

>removed from the MMR and most other vaccines, but autism continues to

>rise.

Just an FYI - it never was in MMR - it is a live vaccine (there is some

debate it is used in the processing but we have no definitive answer on that)

And it takes time to diagnose children and thimerosal wasn't out of them

all - old ones were still on the shelf for a long time

They were never recalled.

And there is concern it really is still in there (some tests showed that

was a possibility and we are waiting for more testing that is to come)

And I don't know of any cases of regressive autism in UNVACCINATED children

which is key

And yes it is about more than the thimerosal. But its a starting point to

get people to question.

I too want the whole issue to be looked at but sometimes you have to break

it down into tiny parts to get people to even look at one of the parts.

And mom's still get it in much of the Rhogam and have it in their fillings

in their teeth.

That's why I also have concern about antibiotics and tylenol.

>> So when we use that argument -- that it is the thimerisol --

>people say it must not be vaccines that are a potential cause. We all

>know the dozens of disturbing ingredients. There is so much reason for

>concern, and over time, hopefully more people will learn more so they

>can really make informed choices.

Exactly.

Sheri

>

>Jen

>

>---------------------------------

>Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join 's user

panel and lay it on us.

>

October 18, 2007

Did you happen to catch the pbs show Nova on epigenetics called " Ghost in

your Genes " -I think it is pretty relevant to your question here and it was a

very interesting show.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genes/ has some information related to that

show.

Lori

December 9, 2007

remind me, can it happen from getting the polio shot as a kid in the

50s 60s?

>

> Anyone have any thoughts or ideas on the association between Post

Polio syndrome and CFS/FM symptoms? They seem to overlap. Friend w/

PPS is currently struggling w/ " wired and tired " symptoms, plus muscle

aching and pain. Discouragement increases w/ increased sleep

difficulties.

> Diane in MI

>

December 9, 2007

I don't know. The polio virus seems to remain in the body, and when polio

victims age muscle pain, weakness, tiredness and fatigue seem to set in. There

is a different physioloty I think inthe way the virus damages muscle cells, but

symptoms seems to parellel CFS/FM

Diane in MI

Re: question

remind me, can it happen from getting the polio shot as a kid in the

50s 60s?

.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1178 - Release Date: 12/8/2007

11:59 AM

January 25, 2008

>Ok, I'm using an exercise bike for exercise. How many miles

> should I do a day on it to get good workout?

With my bad knees, back, shoulders, etc. I can comfortably do 3 miles

without breaking a sweat on a tension of about 4 out of 10. Henry, 30

years younger and male, has done as much as 10 miles at a much faster

rate than me and was still comfortable.

Our bike is an OLD one, rescued from the garbage when one of our elderly

neighbors was getting rid of it after her husband died. The handlebar is

stationary and the tension dial doesn't hold and has to be constantly

re-adjusted, no fancy gizmos or gadgets - just a manual speed bike with

a stand instead of a back wheel.

Also, is it better to

> ride it for long periods of time, or just shorter but several times a

> day??

My doctor is a firm believer of long workouts. He said he would rather I

do one long workout at a slower pace than a bunch of shorter ones,

because it takes about 10 minutes to get your heart into the target

heart rate, and true cardio workouts don't even *start* until after you

hit that pulse rate. A 30 minute workout is really 10 minutes to warm

up, 10 to 15 in your target zone, then another 5 to 10 at a slower pace

to return to your resting heart rate, so your total " workout " is only

that 10 to 15 minutes. If you did multiple short workouts of only 15

minutes each, it still takes those first 10 minutes to raise the pulse

rate, so your workout is only about 5 minutes long, and you still have

to slow the pulse rate down slowly afterwards or get dizzy or

light-headed.

When he told me earlier lat year I can break my workout down to 2

smaller ones, he said each smaller one should still be 30 minutes in

length. Remember how much I laughed over that?

>These sound stupid, but hope someone can answer them for me.

Not stupid at all. There's so much conflicting information out there by

all kinds of " professionals " that I don't think *anyone* knows the

" correct " answer.

Sue in NJ

January 25, 2008

Does it have a mileage counter? Were it me I'd start with a mile a day. If I felt like doing more after that I would. Just go till you're tired, and try to go a little further every day. *~*~*~*"You can deprive the body, but the soul needs chocolate" -Sapphyre*~*~*~*"Giving Up Is Not An Option ..." - Sapphyre

QUESTION

This sounds kinda like stupid question, but I thought I'd ask anyways. Ok, I'm using an exercise bike for exercise. How many miles should I do a day on it to get good workout? Also, is it better to ride it for long periods of time, or just shorter but several times a day?? These sound stupid, but hope someone can answer them for me.thanks,

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

January 25, 2008

Yes it does have a mileage counter on it. It also has

the calorie counter and the speed. I have done it 2

times today and both times I went at about 14-15mph

and went for 1.5 miles. It felt like it was going to

kill me. It is one where your arms move too, so it is

workin differnt parts.

Later,

--- Sapphyre <sapphyreonalosingstreak@...>

wrote:

> Does it have a mileage counter? Were it me I'd

> start with a mile a day. If I felt like doing more

> after that I would. Just go till you're tired, and

> try to go a little further every day.

> *~*~*~*

> " You can deprive the body, but the soul needs

> chocolate " -Sapphyre

> *~*~*~*

> " Giving Up Is Not An Option ... " - Sapphyre

>

> QUESTION

>

> This sounds kinda like stupid question, but I

> thought I'd ask

> anyways. Ok, I'm using an exercise bike for

> exercise. How many miles

> should I do a day on it to get good workout? Also,

> is it better to

> ride it for long periods of time, or just shorter

> but several times a

> day?? These sound stupid, but hope someone can

> answer them for me.

> thanks,

>

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

> Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

> http://www./r/hs

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

January 26, 2008

In a message dated 1/25/2008 10:47:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, kstull2000@... writes:

I'm using an exercise bike for exercise. How many miles should I do a day on it to get good workout? Also, is it better to ride it for long periods of time, or just shorter but several times a day??

I'd say do what you can, either way, and build up. If it's only 10 minutes at a time in the beginning, go from there. ;-)

in WAWho's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.

January 29, 2008

In a message dated 1/29/2008 5:07:58 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, Jase0157@... writes:

Anyone remember the website for weightloss where you could make a free blog.

http://www.extrapounds.com/logout.php

Hugs - I saw your other email about the crappy night

Hang in there!!

in WA310/255.0/170 - .6 this week- 55 lbs total (15.0 from half-way point)The race is not always to the swift, but to those who keep on running.-AnonymousStart the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

July 14, 2008

Hi

I have a question: why do vaccines only have an effect on some kids and on

others not. Is there a long term effect on all human beings?

Also if anybody can supply a link detailing how one deals with any of the

diseases we can get that vaccines are supposed to prevent, ie polio, measles,

chicken pox etc. What I mean by detailing is what particular food to give (if

any), natural medication etc.

Regards

Brigitte

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Conflict of Interest

http://www.nccn. net/~wwithin/ conflict. htm

Review my webpage on conflict of interest

Much there

Lesson 2A - Conflict of Interest

Here is the first article on my webpage above

that you can't link to without subscription

http://www.redflags weekly.com/ conferences/ vaccines/ oct13_. php

(viewable with subscription only)

FOLLOW THE MONEY: PART ONE

By

On 31 January 2001, New Zealand Doctor ran an

article on page 9 by Penny St , called

Mandatory Jabs Short Cut To Increasing Rates.

This was a " briefing " , sponsored by the

manufacturers of the MMR vaccine, Merck and Co,

for journalists in the Asia/Pacific regions.

Why just journalists?

Because, as a 1997 World Health Organization

publication clearly spells out, (14) an " on-side "

media is vital to them. WHO was planning the

first of many regular summits on vaccination at

the time of publication, and they see the role of

WHO and the vaccine manufacturers to undertake:

Pg 90: " the recruitment of those people who are

able to back scientific declarations with

political commitment for action: heads of state,

or other high-level government officials such as

prime ministers, governors or senators; national

policy-makers from both the health and finance

sectors; directors of international

organizations; and directors of agencies from the

donor assistance community. A third group of

participants in the meeting would be media

representatives from as broad a spectrum as

possible. It is essential that the public be

informed, and continually reminded, that vaccines

and immunization are one of the most

cost-effective health interventions to day, and

that they save the lives of millions of children every year. "

Why is it essential that the public be informed and continually reminded….?

Pg 16: " 2.3 To create and expand demand for vaccines:

inform the public and decision makers on the

value of disease prevention and the role of

vaccination as a cost-effective health intervention. "

Pg 43: " The concept and practice of immunization

needs to be integrated into the " health

consciousness " of people and thus, to their daily

lives. Media, local leaders and other partners

need to be used to reach this objective. "

(emphasis in this article is usually mine))

So, they need to:

" 4.2.5 develop active information campaigns for

the public on immunization programmes, vaccines

and the risks of infectious diseases. " (Page 46)

Pg 75 summarises earlier information on pg 20

under a heading " ing a culture of

prevention through advocacy for vaccines " which

discusses action to maintain local and political commitment to vaccines:

" This can be done only through active efforts

which inform the public of the benefits and risks

of vaccination, the real risks of infectious

diseases in their community and the impact of

these problems on society as well as the

individual. Similar efforts must also be directed

at opinion leaders and those who provide

resources so that support to immunization efforts

can be dramatically expanded to provide better protection. "

And how does WHO propose to do this?

Firstly, they want to do: " Social and behaviour

research on attitudes and access to immunization…

to guide the process of expanding protection. " )

In other words, it is all about how we change

perceptions, so that people will willingly allow

us to inject whatever we like into them. To do

that, we have to study those who don’t vaccinate

and change their attitudes and behaviour, ..and the media is where it is at….

(Sure enough, about four years ago, the CDC in

America starting doing a study, and were

appealing to parents who didn’t vaccinate to

contact them and tell them why. I have a copy of

the fax sent out. The interesting thing, as far

as I know, is that some parents smelled a rat.)

WHO also needs to " Help countries identify where

to acquire vaccines; how to acquire them; how to

assure their quality; and how to finance vaccines

as costs rise and resources diminish " (Pg 59)

Note the above: " AS COSTS RISE AND RESOURCES

DIMINISH " How do they know that costs will rise

and resources diminish? What " resources " might they be?

Is there something else they aren’t telling us?

Costs can only rise if countries choose to

diminish their resources by making vaccine

companies a big money extractor from their health budget.

WHO could succeed,- if they get enough media on

side, to spew out free fear-mongering information

often enough to make people scared enough, so

that they want everything WHO has to offer. And

WHO has identified just the way to do this:

" Promote the use of mass media sources, such as

internet, to address the value of immunization and vaccines

Identify community leaders to act as advocates

for immunization programmes and vaccines "

And these four aims, scattered in different places of the book:

" establish a clear agenda of action for decision

makers including ascertaining that vaccine

supplies, immunization infrastructure finance and

support systems (such as training; education and

communication materials; and monitoring systems) are adequate … "

" develop recommendations that encourage all

countries to implement the widest practical range of vaccination activities…. "

" create , or strengthen National Control

Authorities responsible for vaccines; "

" inform decision makers on the benefits of

immunization and vaccines to their communities. "

But never mind the risks. After all, there aren’t any, are there.

Bear in mind, while considering these objectives,

that there must be another reason. Can the

following bit of humour floating around offer a

clue? " Epidemiology is like a bikini. What is

revealed is interesting. But what is concealed is crucial "

As so it is with the Vaccine Agenda. It isn’t

actually about disease prevention. That’s just

the make-up on the face, to make it look altruistic, and caring.

It’s about a " delicate fabric of cooperation " .

It’s about money. Now, and in the future.

Consider this,… WHO stated that Global

expenditure on vaccines in 1994, with only the

more basic vaccines was a " mere " estimate of $

USA 10 billion dollars (pg 48). In the context of

what it might be today, let us not forget that

KlineBeecham’ s Engerix B vaccine sales

alone, exceeded $1 billion dollars in 1995(15).

The figures now are staggering with sums you

can’t even imagine. As Dr Hilleman is quoted as

saying (21): " this is the golden Era of vaccine

research. " In the very next breath Duke University’s Dr Katz enthuses:

" Spell it " b-o-o-m " . Protection from frivolous

lawsuits has given large companies increased

freedom to stay in the vaccine business, which

biotech companies are turning out wonderful new scientific advances. "

The key issue is how to get the most dollars with

the least risk to shareholders.

Unfortunately, that is not by developing the

older type vaccines.. As Signals Magazine put it:

" A killed virus yields little hope for broad

patent protection, but identifying a critical

subunit protein to use in a vaccine offers

prophylaxis, patentability and the promise of fatter profits. "

" Some of these new products with be plenty pricey. "

A good example was the Hepatitis B vaccine, which

when first introduced was made from pooled human

blood from American homosexuals, because this

contained huge amounts of antigen. But it ran

into both professional and consumer resistance.

In 1986, the first recombinant viral subunit

vaccine by Merck came out, and like Kline’s

version, is, according to Signals Magazine, " a billion-dollar- a-year item " .

The other way to do it is proprietary vaccine

combinations, which Merck has right up its sleeve….

A conclusion in the WHO book on pg 42 puts this

in a larger context as they see it:

" There have been significant new developments at

the early stages of the vaccine continuum. Much

of this has, however, only been applied in

industrialized countries, and even there

incompletely. The pace of innovation is

increasing. This highlights the need for

concerted action so that the potential for public

health benefits in all areas of the world is accelerated and maximized. "

But to continue with WHO’s adoption of the media as the key to success:

Pg 91 To increase advocacy for vaccines and

immunization through widespread inclusion of the

media in the summit, preparations for the Summit, and follow-up activities.

A fourth group of participants in such forums are:

" 4) consumers of vaccines, including doctors and

national immunization program managers. "

And when you read this book, you cannot help but

notice, that NOWHERE does this book mentions the

concerns of the real consumers who are the lay

people to whom vaccines are given. Because " we " ,

the uninvited, are their means to their end.

Therefore, this whole strategy is aimed at us. We

must not know that this is all so masterfully manipulated.

And in their eyes, what would we know, and so why should we be consulted?

They only want to involve those critical to the

success of the fulfillment of the stated goals:

Pg 91 " Participants critical to the success of

the meeting will be selected by the Summit

Steering Committee and will be financially supported. "

This document was written around the time that a

medical journal (16) described what they call

" United States Vaccine Research: A Delicate

Fabric of Public and Private Collaboration. " On

pages 1015 — 1016 the article read:

" To achieve the full promise of modern science

and technology …America’s cooperative and

collaborative relationships in vaccine research

and development are interwoven into a fabric of

innovation. This must be maintained and

strengthened. It is important to understand the

nature of these relationships to prevent

inadvertent damage to this delicate fabric. "

More about this " delicate fabric " a little later…

but on page 1018 the article continues:

" This delicate fabric of partnerships is highly

sensitive to environmental changes, including

changes in policy and market opportunities. A

squeeze on funding in one area will have an

adverse impact on discovery and development

across the board…. Reductions in federal funding

for vaccine research and development will have a

secondary effect in academia and thereby on the

United States capacity to engage in vaccine research. "

" If the regulatory climate becomes cumbersome,

regulation itself can become a hurdle, making it

more difficult for new companies to enter the

vaccine research and development area. "

" Price controls are a source of concern… because

investors fear the potential profits will be compromised. "

" Collaboration and cooperation of government

agencies, such as NIH, CDC, FDA, USAID, DOD,

large vaccine companies, small research companies

and academia are essential to continue success

and fulfill the promise of recent advances in science and technology. "

" Threats to any part of the delicate vaccine

research and development network jeopardize the

rapid development and supply of new… vaccines for

the American people….These National Vaccine

Advisory Committee recommendations will help to

ensure that public policies take into

consideration this research and development

network, and foster and sustain it to facilitate

the timely introduction and supply of new vaccines. "

In other words: we want to do what we want, when

we want, unregulated, with no price cap, and with

the NIH, CDC, FDA, USAID and DOD in our back

pocket. So, how do we best get what we want?

One way, was for vaccine manufacturers to fund

Bush’s inauguration (17) to the tune of $1.7

million US dollars. Not only that, Public

Citizen, a congress watchdog group published in

November 2000, that in the lead up to the election:

" The prescription drug industry is spending

approximately $230 million this election cycle on

lobbying, campaign contributions and issue ads as

it tries to shape public policy in the face of

increasing public hostility to its price-gouging and profiteering. "

Which included:

$170 million for lobbying,

$15 million in direct campaign contributions

at least $35 million in campaign ads

at least $10 million to the US Chamber of

Commerce for pro-drug industry campaign ads.

A delicate fabric indeed.

What goes around, is expected to come around.

And clearly a plan which the WHO is delighted to

participate in, judging by a 1998 comment in one

of their newsletters in which Dr Jong Wook Lee,

Executive Secretary of the Children’s Vaccine

Initiative talks about the fact that:

" …to people outside the international vaccine

community… new syndromes…. like prion diseases,

viral haemorrhagic fevers like Ebola, Marburg,

hantavirus, Lassa, dengue or tick-borne diseases,

or a new kind of flu, not to speak of Aids … are bad news. "

He goes on to say B-U-T:

" To people like me and my GPV colleagues, its

good news. All right, we have a daunting task.

And maybe we won’t win in the end.. Maybe as

vaccine researcher and developer Stanley Plotkin

said, prevention by vaccination is " the El Dorado

of research in infectious diseases. " .

" Maybe. But for me it’s good news mainly because,

unlike El Dorado, vaccines are for real….they are

already preventing more than 3 million deaths

every year and could prevent another 9 million if

we make new and better vaccines and find ways of

ensuring they are fully used. And there’s no

reason why we shouldn’t succeed: Just 3 years

ago, there were " only " about 150 vaccine

candidates in development; today, only 4 years

after GPV was created, there are about 240. "

" Yes, indeed, the news for us in the vaccine business is good. "

" And yes, we’re human beings and have got to eat,

and the continual emergence of new diseases means

our jobs aren’t likely to disappear in the near future. "

The promise of vaccines, however, in the late 80s

was under threat, as court cases swept the USA

and UK, threatening to cause all vaccine

companies to fold. So they said. Fortunately for

these booming money-makers, with considerable

help from the medical professionals and other

misguided individuals, the USA government passed

legislation which shielded vaccine producers from

all liability not related to manufacturing error (20).

But the funny thing is, that publicly, people

associated with vaccine argue that vaccines are

such a small part of their inventory, that making

them really isn’t worth their while. Unless, that

is, there are no impediments. Funny how that

wasn’t the story when the USA DPT supply fiasco was front page headlines.

Years later, the publicity machine that has been

so carefully orchestrated, that delicate fabric

of partnership between vested interests, is now

in full swing. Just about every other day, you

can turn to the New Zealand Herald and see the

next, newest, greatest pharmaceutical magic

bullet, uncritically paraded to continue the

subtle sheeple conditioning process so carefully

conceived by WHO and their consorts.

So the enthusiastic " reportage " which flowed from

St ’s pen was to be expected. It probably

never occurred to her that " investigative

journalism " , or " balanced journalism " was even a

possibility. She most likely saw her job simply

to " report " , uncritically, what happened there.

And I’m glad she did, because to those who know,

it does the drug company no favours.

It will come as no surprise to you, that Dr

Vernon, the vice president of public

health and vaccine medical affairs for Merck

Vaccine Division’s opening shot in the article was:

" New Zealand should consider mandatory

vaccination for children as a way of quickly

raising the country’s low immunization rates. "

He goes on to say that vaccine preventable deaths

are not justifiable in New Zealand and that:

" New Zealand has laws requiring children to wear

seatbelts and questions why this form of

protection is not extended to include vaccination. "

He also said:

" the UK system of assigning each child to a GP

and giving financial incentives for GPs who

achieve high rates of vaccination has resulted in

high levels of vaccination without mandate. "

Let’s look at what this meant, for GPs in

England. In a magazine called Financial Pulse,

dated 8/2/97, there were two articles about this.

The first was by a GP in Radlett, Herts, called

" The Problem " In this, Dr Jan Gold tells us that

they analysed their accounts, and found their

earnings from vaccinations and immunizations were

well below the national average, and " should

represent between 5 — 10% of item-of-service

income…It is therefore an important source of earnings. "

She goes on to detail the two levels of target

payments — one at 70% vaccination rates (5,790

pounds), and a higher one at 90% coverage (at the

lower level plus 11,580 pounds). She considers

that improving her income by 17,370 pounds is

worth the effort, and sets out how to do this. Some memorable quotes are:

" There is no item-of-service fee for some public

policy immunizations, for example influenza,

pneumococcus and hepatitis B. It is still worth

generating income from these through the

reimbursement scheme. This practice could

generate up to 3,700 pounds from an effective

annual influenza vaccination campaign if it immunized 10% of the practice "

" and immunizing 5% of " targeted " patients would bring in 3,000 pounds. "

" Many practices are finding this (foreign travel)

a growth area, so it could be costly to ignore…

the GPs in this practice should consider starting

a travel clinic, run by the practice nurse. They

should first direct this at their own patients,

but there might be scope later to expand it to a

private service for patients registered with other practices. "

" Good marketing is the secret of increasing uptake in this area…. "

Why only 10%, or 5%? I mean, if it matter so much

about people protection, why not everyone?

Or, when you look at those projected figures,

would that just look a bit too greedy?

The other article is by Dr Mike Townsend, and is

entitled " Travel vaccines — broaden your

earnings, " where he explains how GPs can take

advantage of patients’ trips to exotic destinations… .

As you can see, the interweaving web of who can

make more money, and how, just gets bigger and bigger.

Back to the New Zealand Doctor article.

Does Dr Vernon have a limited appreciation of the

difference between his money making products

which go INSIDE a body, and an inert restraint

which goes around part of a body in a car — or

like helmets, on the head? Or steel-capped boots

on the feet, which prevent foresters from chain-sawing their toes off?

None of these external restraints or barriers

require a changing of the vital inside defence workings of the body.

When the New Zealand doctors are offered a gold

mine similar to that of their English

counterparts, I am sure that any serious

tolerance for the concept of informed choice will

fade, and we will see a huge increase in the

stridency of call for Mandatory Medical

Regulation. For our own good, of course.

(All references will be published at the end of Part Two)

TO BE CONTINUED (hasn't come out yet)

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

Vaccines -

http://www.wellwith in1.com/vaccine. htm Vaccine

Dangers & Childhood Disease & Homeopathy Email classes start again in September

July 14, 2008

At 08:24 AM 7/14/2008, you wrote:

>Hi

>I have a question: why do vaccines only have an effect on some kids

>and on others not. Is there a long term effect on all human beings?

Well, it depends on susceptibility. Some are stronger than others and

able to through off the adverse affects - same as some get colds that

last 2 days and others' colds last 7 days or never well since the cold.

And all effects are not seen right away - some take awhile to appear

and then often not even associated with the vaccine

The serious chronic illness in our world can be related to all the

vaccines and suppression of other conditions with drugs

>Also if anybody can supply a link detailing how one deals with any

>of the diseases we can get that vaccines are supposed to prevent, ie

>polio, measles, chicken pox etc. What I mean by detailing is what

>particular food to give (if any), natural medication etc.

That is a huge subject and one I teach a class on so you will be more

comfortable.

It is too much to go into on a list - although you will find some

info in the message archives

But to give it to you in a methodical organized way and it takes 1

year to cover it all!

Next class starts in September

Sheri

listowner

July 14, 2008

At 08:24 AM 7/14/2008, you wrote:

>Hi

>I have a question: why do vaccines only have an effect on some kids

>and on others not. Is there a long term effect on all human beings?

Well, it depends on susceptibility. Some are stronger than others and

able to through off the adverse affects - same as some get colds that

last 2 days and others' colds last 7 days or never well since the cold.

And all effects are not seen right away - some take awhile to appear

and then often not even associated with the vaccine

The serious chronic illness in our world can be related to all the

vaccines and suppression of other conditions with drugs

>Also if anybody can supply a link detailing how one deals with any

>of the diseases we can get that vaccines are supposed to prevent, ie

>polio, measles, chicken pox etc. What I mean by detailing is what

>particular food to give (if any), natural medication etc.

That is a huge subject and one I teach a class on so you will be more

comfortable.

It is too much to go into on a list - although you will find some

info in the message archives

But to give it to you in a methodical organized way and it takes 1

year to cover it all!

Next class starts in September

Sheri

listowner

July 14, 2008

Hi Brigitte,

I don't believe that vaccines just injure some children. I believe that

there is damage, albeit subtle sometimes, with everyone who has vaccines.

It's just a matter of time before the damage shows up. My husband had a

raft of vaccines back in 1995 before going to work for three weeks in Saudi

Arabia - we were told they were necessary and didn't know differently. My

husband feared for his job if he didn't comply. Within months, he had gone

from someone with lungs strong enough to swim several lengths of a pool

underwater without surfacing, to someone with crippling asthma attacks. The

damage wasn't obvious immediately but we are both convinced that is where

his problems started. I really don't believe anyone gets away with it - it

s just a question of how much and when it becomes noticeable or starts

interfering with normal life.

As far as dealing with *VPDs* - in my opinion the best way to deal with them

is just good home nursing, and lots of TLC. Some folk advocate using

megadoses of vitamin C when illness strikes - we don't. We use homeopathic

remedies if required, and mostly let our bodies deal with whatever is wrong.

My daughter has had CP for sure, and we think minor doses of mumps and

rubella, but we're not sure. She had a bad dose of flu last year. We know

she hasn't had measles - yet - I'm hopeful that all the circulating measles

from us unvaccinated lot will have an effect before she gets too much older.

But she has been fine through it all.

I had measles, my mates all had measles, my family all had measles, all

without any drama at all. I have yet to meet anyone who has had serious

problems from measles. I'm not saying they aren't there, but not in my

experience. When I had measles, my mum tucked me up in bed, in a darkened

bedroom, and I rested. My fever - what there was of it, I don't remember -

was *managed*, I was given light, nutritious food if I felt like it, and was

generally looked after.

Biggest issues - fever suppressors, because fever is necessary;

nutritionally poor diet; and mostly, trying to send kids off to

daycare/nursery/kindy when they're sick. Sick kids belong at home, with mum

(or dad), and in bed.

Sue x

-- Re: question

Hi

I have a question: why do vaccines only have an effect on some kids and on

others not. Is there a long term effect on all human beings?

Also if anybody can supply a link detailing how one deals with any of the

diseases we can get that vaccines are supposed to prevent, I.e. Polio,

measles, chicken pox etc. What I mean by detailing is what particular food

to give (if any), natural medication etc.

Regards

Brigitte

July 14, 2008