Nixing Vaccines May Up Whooping Cough

[Guest guest]

I think the below statement is an oxymoron - we either have personal

freedom or we don't.......................

They really mean the rights of the person vs the rights of the corporations

to make huge profits off of vaccines and forcing all to buy them.

They are really cranking it up

Sheri

" The researchers call for a balance between personal freedom and public

health, with regard to vaccine policies. "

" States must balance parental autonomy with the tremendous public health

benefit of vaccines when considering the types of exemptions allowed and

how policies are implemented, " write Omer and colleagues. "

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/128/117069?src=RSS_PUBLIC

Nixing Vaccines May Up Whooping Cough

Whooping Cough May Be More Common in States With Vaccine Exemptions

By Miranda Hitti

WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Louise Chang, MD

on Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Oct. 10, 2006 -- Whooping cough may be more common in states that make it

relatively easy for students to skip required vaccines.

That news appears in the Oct. 11 issue of The Journal of the American

Medical Association.

" States should examine their exemption policies to ensure control of

pertussis [whooping cough] and other vaccine-preventable diseases, " write

the researchers.

They included Saad Omer, MBBS, MPH, of s Hopkins Bloomberg School of

Public Health.

Omer and colleagues studied states' vaccine requirements for students aged

18 and younger, as well as states' whooping cough rates as reported to the

CDC from 1986 to 2004.

Nationwide, all students entering school are required to " provide

documentation that they have met the state vaccine requirements, " the

researchers write.

But all over the U.S. -- except in Mississippi and West Virginia --

students may skip vaccines for nonmedical reasons, Omer's team notes.

Most of the states allow vaccine exemptions for " religious " reasons. Fewer

states allow exemptions for " personal belief. "

Vaccine exemptions are easier to get in some states than in others, the

researchers also point out.

Whooping cough rates were higher in states with " personal belief "

exemptions and in states with easier vaccine exemption processes, the study

shows.

The CDC's data might not reflect all whooping cough cases, which often go

unreported. That could have swayed the results, Omer's team notes.

The researchers call for a balance between personal freedom and public

health, with regard to vaccine policies.

" States must balance parental autonomy with the tremendous public health

benefit of vaccines when considering the types of exemptions allowed and

how policies are implemented, " write Omer and colleagues.

SOURCES: Omer, S. The Journal of the American Medical Association, Oct. 11,

2006; vol 296: pp 1757-1763. News release, JAMA/Archives.

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

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

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

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Reality of the Diseases & Treatment -

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

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

[Guest guest]

I think this article has very dangerous potential. It was in everyone's local

paper and has received a lot of attention.

What do we say to rebut the fact that those states with more exemptions has

higher cases?

Sheri B.

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

All-new - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

[Guest guest]

>

> What do we say to rebut the fact that those states with more

exemptions has higher cases?

>

****They do not cite anything about the cases except increased rates

in states with " loose " exemption laws. I'd like to know more details

about the cases, population growth etc... it's a tidbit displayed in a

manner to persuade states not to allow one to opt out of pertussis vax

on personal belief, without providing important details. Devil's

always in the details.

-- M.

[Guest guest]

At 09:47 2006-10-14 +0100, you (Sheri Nakken <vaccineinfo@...>) wrote:

>At 03:11 PM 10/13/2006 -0700, you wrote:

> >I think this article has very dangerous potential. It was in everyone's

>local paper and has received a lot of attention.

> >

> > What do we say to rebut the fact that those states with more exemptions

>has higher cases?

> >

> > Sheri B.

The best rebuttal is, I hold:

a) It has been demonstrated that diseases are not caused by bacteria

Whooping cough isn't caused by such either.

c) Thus vaccines " against it " have no positive effects whatsoever.

d) Thus there being a higher disease rate in states with fewer

vaccinations has nothing to do with that fact, of these states'

having fewer " whooping cough " vaccinations.

In connection with this: The CDC, the WHO etc etc should be asked,

by ordinary people: Please show us proof that whooping cough is

caused by a bacterium (thus that vaccinations " against it " *might*

have some positive effects, and not only negative ones).

They won't be able to do that.

Another thing (which I read about just recently): Here in Sweden,

the authorities stopped vaccinating " against whooping cough "

back in 1979. (I don't know the background to this.)

Rolf M.

>find the proof that that is true or not true

>find the stats of who was diagnosed with whooping cough and what their

>vaccine status was

>test everyone with a cough as those that have been vaccinated are rarely

>thought to have whooping cough and therefore aren't tested, but really have it

>those that have a cough and aren't vaccinated are tested and found to have

>whooping cough and therefore the stats are skewed

>

>all part of the issue

>

>they have published this to influence the fearful public and keep them in

>fear and divide us

>Sheri

[Guest guest]

That is not accurate.

They withdrew the whole cell pertussis vaccine and introduce the acellular

pertussis vaccine in 1995

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN & cpsidt=14758619

Sheri

>The best rebuttal is, I hold:

>

>a) It has been demonstrated that diseases are not caused by bacteria

> Whooping cough isn't caused by such either.

>c) Thus vaccines " against it " have no positive effects whatsoever.

>d) Thus there being a higher disease rate in states with fewer

>vaccinations has nothing to do with that fact, of these states'

>having fewer " whooping cough " vaccinations.

>

>In connection with this: The CDC, the WHO etc etc should be asked,

>by ordinary people: Please show us proof that whooping cough is

>caused by a bacterium (thus that vaccinations " against it " *might*

>have some positive effects, and not only negative ones).

>

>They won't be able to do that.

>

>Another thing (which I read about just recently): Here in Sweden,

>the authorities stopped vaccinating " against whooping cough "

>back in 1979. (I don't know the background to this.)

>

>Rolf M.

>

>

>>find the proof that that is true or not true

>>find the stats of who was diagnosed with whooping cough and what their

>>vaccine status was

>>test everyone with a cough as those that have been vaccinated are rarely

>>thought to have whooping cough and therefore aren't tested, but really

have it

>>those that have a cough and aren't vaccinated are tested and found to have

>>whooping cough and therefore the stats are skewed

>>

>>all part of the issue

>>

>>they have published this to influence the fearful public and keep them in

>>fear and divide us

>>Sheri

>

>

>

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

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

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

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Reality of the Diseases & Treatment -

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

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

[Guest guest]

>

> So with the introduction of the acellular pertussis vaccine in

Sweden, what can we say to refute the fact that the numbers of WC

cases went down?

**** There isn't enough data to make a conclusion, one way or

another. Need to research the cases etc... as Sheri N. mentioned in

previous post.

-- M.

[Guest guest]

At 12:46 2006-10-14 -0700, you (Sheri B. <tallchick1966@...>)

wrote:

>So with the introduction of the acellular pertussis vaccine in Sweden,

>what can we say to refute the fact that the numbers of WC cases went down?

Sorry, I don't know.

>And Rolf, I know you are well-intended, and I'm not knowledgeable enough

>to say you're right or wrong, but if I go up to the powers that be and

>tell them that bacteria don't cause disease I think I'd be thought of as

>insane and highly uncredible in this day and age.

We non-experts could write to them saying that certain experts are maintaining

this, and what might the CDC, the WHO have to say as to refutation of it?

And above all, people like us could (as I suggested) write to them asking

for proof that (for instance) whooping cough really is caused by a certain

kind of bacteria.

True enough, for evaluating the possibly resulting replies, it would

be best to have as consultants some people who really know about

these things. Some such they do have in Germany.

>We may very well discover that you are right on the money, but, as Sheri

>said, we have to meet people where they are. It's going to be hard enough

>to convince them that these vaccines don't confer immunity.

I think it's necessary and very important anyway to tell people, firstly:

There are

NO diseasecausing bacteria or viruses, and secondly, Don't just take the

writer's

word for this. Check that proposition out for yourselves. At the h and of some

websites whose addresses I've kept repeating.

It's kind of like telling people: For chrissake, don't sit down on that barrel.

It's a bomb which might go off at any time. Many will say: " What? That's

ridiculous! " But then you can say: " OK, don't take my word for it. But

you can check that out yourself. " This will be well received by many.

Some will say, of course: " But all the doctors and all our so very reliable

politicians and mass media are saying: 'No bomb! You're just insane.' "

For those, there will be no remedy. They will just have to go on believing

this.

>Which goes back to my question above.

>

>Sheri B.

And yes, all the answers I don't have. Just have recently learned

a few things which I realize must be correct and important.

Rolf M.

[Guest guest]

>

>At 12:46 2006-10-14 -0700, you (Sheri B. <tallchick1966@...>)

>wrote:

>

>

>>So with the introduction of the acellular pertussis vaccine in Sweden,

>>what can we say to refute the fact that the numbers of WC cases went down?

>

>Sorry, I don't know.

>

>>And Rolf, I know you are well-intended, and I'm not knowledgeable enough

>>to say you're right or wrong, but if I go up to the powers that be and

>>tell them that bacteria don't cause disease I think I'd be thought of as

>>insane and highly uncredible in this day and age.

She is right Rolf. There is too much unknown about this whole issue.

yes, I am of the inclination that bacteria and viruses do not 'cause' illness.

But there have been too many lies for too long. You can understand it, I

can understand it, and even it is true, it doesn't matter. It makes no

difference. The train has left the station and is barrelling down the

mountain.

>

>

>We non-experts could write to them saying that certain experts are

maintaining

>this, and what might the CDC, the WHO have to say as to refutation of it?

>

>And above all, people like us could (as I suggested) write to them asking

>for proof that (for instance) whooping cough really is caused by a certain

>kind of bacteria.

>

>True enough, for evaluating the possibly resulting replies, it would

>be best to have as consultants some people who really know about

>these things. Some such they do have in Germany.

>

>>We may very well discover that you are right on the money, but, as Sheri

>>said, we have to meet people where they are. It's going to be hard enough

>>to convince them that these vaccines don't confer immunity.

This is not where we go. It is too late.

>

>

>I think it's necessary and very important anyway to tell people, firstly:

>There are

>NO diseasecausing bacteria or viruses, and secondly, Don't just take the

>writer's

>word for this. Check that proposition out for yourselves. At the h and of

some

>websites whose addresses I've kept repeating.

>

>It's kind of like telling people: For chrissake, don't sit down on that

barrel.

>It's a bomb which might go off at any time. Many will say: " What? That's

>ridiculous! " But then you can say: " OK, don't take my word for it. But

>you can check that out yourself. " This will be well received by many.

>Some will say, of course: " But all the doctors and all our so very reliable

>politicians and mass media are saying: 'No bomb! You're just insane.' "

>For those, there will be no remedy. They will just have to go on believing

>this.

>

>>Which goes back to my question above.

>>

>>Sheri B.

See my previous post.

Sheri

>

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

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

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

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Reality of the Diseases & Treatment -

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

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

[Guest guest]

At 23:43 2006-10-14 +0100, you (Sheri Nakken <vaccineinfo@...>) wrote:

> >

> >At 12:46 2006-10-14 -0700, you (Sheri B.

> <<mailto:tallchick1966%40>tallchick1966@...>)

> >wrote:

> >

> >

> >>So with the introduction of the acellular pertussis vaccine in Sweden,

> >>what can we say to refute the fact that the numbers of WC cases went down?

> >

> >Sorry, I don't know.

> >

> >>And Rolf, I know you are well-intended, and I'm not knowledgeable enough

> >>to say you're right or wrong, but if I go up to the powers that be and

> >>tell them that bacteria don't cause disease I think I'd be thought of as

> >>insane and highly uncredible in this day and age.

>

>She is right Rolf. There is too much unknown about this whole issue.

>yes, I am of the inclination that bacteria and viruses do not 'cause' illness.

>But there have been too many lies for too long. You can understand it, I

>can understand it, and even it is true, it doesn't matter. It makes no

>difference. The train has left the station and is barrelling down the

>mountain.

>

Certainly this matters. Certainly it's important to inform as many as

possible about this truth. Certainly most people will understand it.

Of course a widespread knowledge of this will be an important pressure

on the politicians etc against continued vaccination enforcement.

Arguments of the types " no use telling people " , " perhaps not true

anyway " etc are misdirected and will only help the establishment

continue its harmful practices.

As I wrote, broad information on this has brought considerable

success in Germany. For instance, after many letters from the public

on the question of the non-existing " HIV " , the German health minister

was forced to admit, on 05.01.2004, that its existence was only due

to " an international consensus " . And the government there has been

forced to give up mandatory vaccinations.

> >We non-experts could write to them saying that certain experts are

>maintaining

> >this, and what might the CDC, the WHO have to say as to refutation of it?

> >

> >And above all, people like us could (as I suggested) write to them asking

> >for proof that (for instance) whooping cough really is caused by a certain

> >kind of bacteria.

> >

> >True enough, for evaluating the possibly resulting replies, it would

> >be best to have as consultants some people who really know about

> >these things. Some such they do have in Germany.

> >

> >>We may very well discover that you are right on the money, but, as Sheri

> >>said, we have to meet people where they are. It's going to be hard enough

> >>to convince them that these vaccines don't confer immunity.

>

>This is not where we go. It is too late.

Certainly it's never " too late " to inform people about a fact so

important for the question of their health.

Only the vaccination enforcers it is that would want their critics

to say " This is not where we go " .

Rolf M.

[Guest guest]

>SUBJECT: Re: Nixing Vaccines May Up Whooping Cough

>

>

>>She is right Rolf. There is too much unknown about this whole issue.

>>yes, I am of the inclination that bacteria and viruses do not 'cause'

illness.

>>But there have been too many lies for too long. You can understand it, I

>>can understand it, and even it is true, it doesn't matter. It makes no

>>difference. The train has left the station and is barrelling down the

>>mountain.

>>

Rolf wrote..........

>Certainly this matters. Certainly it's important to inform as many as

>possible about this truth. Certainly most people will understand it.

Rolf, I hear your passion and I agree to keep telling people, but not in

this context. You will turn more off than you will get to listen by

harping on this.

You have to be judicious. You have to build up to it. You have to start

where people are. And this situation is not where you bring this in.

No, most people will not understand it. Even on homeopathy lists i am on

people don't get it.

>Of course a widespread knowledge of this will be an important pressure

>on the politicians etc against continued vaccination enforcement.

Yes, but there needs to be more 'proof' first and we have very little of that.

>

>Arguments of the types " no use telling people " , " perhaps not true

>anyway " etc are misdirected and will only help the establishment

>continue its harmful practices.

Its of use sharing information but not in this situation.

You have to be judicious.

>

>As I wrote, broad information on this has brought considerable

>success in Germany. For instance, after many letters from the public

>on the question of the non-existing " HIV " , the German health minister

>was forced to admit, on 05.01.2004, that its existence was only due

>to " an international consensus " . And the government there has been

>forced to give up mandatory vaccinations.

I don't think that is the case. There never were mandatory vaccinations in

Germany that I know of (maybe Nazi times)

>

>

>> >We non-experts could write to them saying that certain experts are

>>maintaining

>> >this, and what might the CDC, the WHO have to say as to refutation of it?

>> >

>> >And above all, people like us could (as I suggested) write to them asking

>> >for proof that (for instance) whooping cough really is caused by a certain

>> >kind of bacteria.

>> >

>> >True enough, for evaluating the possibly resulting replies, it would

>> >be best to have as consultants some people who really know about

>> >these things. Some such they do have in Germany.

>> >

>> >>We may very well discover that you are right on the money, but, as Sheri

>> >>said, we have to meet people where they are. It's going to be hard enough

>> >>to convince them that these vaccines don't confer immunity.

>>

>>This is not where we go. It is too late.

>

>Certainly it's never " too late " to inform people about a fact so

>important for the question of their health.

No, it is not too late to teach people. But you were talking about using

this information with government.

>

>Only the vaccination enforcers it is that would want their critics

>to say " This is not where we go " .

Sorry Rolf, I don't agree

You do what you will, but I only speak about this issue where those that

have ears can hear or are inclined that way.

You will only make matters worse in most cases trying to deal with

governments and allopathic types.

I encourage you to take a different approach.

Its about approach and sensitivity to where people are to better reach them.

Sheri

>

>

>Rolf M.

>

>>

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

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

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

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Reality of the Diseases & Treatment -

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

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

[Guest guest]

i'm inclined to think that a " cough " could be caused by a bacterial

infection such as whooping cough. the illness would be a reaction to

the presence of foreign bodies and therefore would be more serious for

those with an inexperienced immune system. i don't doubt the vaccine

could be effective (as low as 61%). my reason for not vaccinating

against pertussis is that i think an acute lung infection early on

would strengthen the immune system against chronic illnesses and more

serious diseases like pneumonia. but i am not aware on specific

studies on this matter. i don't understand why we would universally

vaccinate children, teenagers and adults against a disease that is

most harmful to infants under two months old. where's the common sense

to keep new moms and young babies away from sick people? if there are

more cases of whooping cough so be it. that would be my argument

against the vaccine. (just my two-cents )

[Guest guest]

At 11:04 AM 10/15/2006 -0700, you wrote:

>All of this makes sense, but you are contagious before you know that you

are sick, which is their logic behind the vaccine. Obviously if people

knew that they were sick most people would stay inside (you'd like to think).

>

> Sheri B.

>

>tourmalin79 <tourmalin79@...> wrote:

>

> i don't understand why we would universally

>vaccinate children, teenagers and adults against a disease that is

>most harmful to infants under two months old. where's the common sense

>to keep new moms and young babies away from sick people?

But I would also suggest new babies & mom's need to be home and not out and

about as they are nowadays.

Just a thought.

Sheri

>

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

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

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

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Reality of the Diseases & Treatment -

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

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

[Guest guest]

Sheri N.,

You and I agree that vaccinating is a harmful practice and

that people should be told about this, as you have been doing

since a long time back.

This is a main thing in this context, I believe. Probably rather

many still don't know this fact, since the political, media and

medical establishment keeps denying it. It's important to

keep telling people about it, and showing them the arguments

for this.

Your arguments (in our discussion as shown below) why people

should not (or should not always) be told about that other fact,

relatively recently demonstrated by some experts, that bacteria and

viruses don't cause diseases, and that thus vaccines cannot even do

any good whatsoever, I don't understand.

I've been writing that this is so, and that people should not just

take my word for it but should check it out for themselves.

You've written that you're inclined to believe this too, only you

haven't seen enough proof of this to be certain of it.

Well, then, what you're telling others on this list is that at least

there are some indications in that direction.

Then there doesn't seem to be any big disagreement between

you and me on this point.

The idea that bacteria and viruses don't cause diseases no doubt

is new to many (as is the one that vaccinating is a harmful

practice). It's an idea that the political, media and medical

establishment doesn't want people to consider at all.

Since you're saying that you've seen some indications, at

least, that this idea is correct, then with this you're encouraging

people too to look into it for themselves. I've been saying that I

on my part hold that it certainly is correct (also mentioning that I'm

no expert at all on medicine or biology), and have suggested that

others take a look at certain websites so as to check this out,

whether it's true or not.

Thus there's not a very big difference between your suggestions

and mine to other people on this, I think. We both are mentioning

this idea (very impopular with the establishment, and one that

many will find surprising and even strange, because of this), and

thus, hopefully, are arousing an interest in others to take a closer

look at it themselves.

On the question, how many others then will want to take a closer

look at this themselves, and how many will conclude that it really

is true that bacteria and viruses don't cause diseases - and thus

that the establishment is lying terribly on this - we still disagree,

it seems. But it's not that important, I hold, whether my " prediction "

on this or yours is correct.

Also, we still disagree, it seems, on whether the correct answer

to the question, do bacteria and viruses cause diseases, makes

a difference or not. I hold that it does make a difference, a big one

too. You're saying that, while you're inclined to doubt that they

cause diseases, it doesn't make any difference whether they do

or not. I don't think this disagreement between us is very

important, in practice, either. Others on this list of course can

make up their own minds on this question anyway.

Once again: Even if our respective approaches differ, you and I

actually basically agree on what to suggest to others concerning

the establishment's " germ theory " : It's clearly, or possibly, wrong,

and the arguments against it can be found at certain websites

(addresses to them shown earlier in some postings of yours and

in some of mine).

Rolf M.

At 10:14 2006-10-15 +0100, you (Sheri Nakken <vaccineinfo@...>)

wrote:

> >SUBJECT: Re: Nixing Vaccines May Up Whooping Cough

> >

> >

> >>She is right Rolf. There is too much unknown about this whole issue.

> >>yes, I am of the inclination that bacteria and viruses do not 'cause'

>illness.

> >>But there have been too many lies for too long. You can understand it, I

> >>can understand it, and even it is true, it doesn't matter. It makes no

> >>difference. The train has left the station and is barrelling down the

> >>mountain.

> >>

>Rolf wrote..........

> >Certainly this matters. Certainly it's important to inform as many as

> >possible about this truth. Certainly most people will understand it.

>

>Rolf, I hear your passion and I agree to keep telling people, but not in

>this context. You will turn more off than you will get to listen by

>harping on this.

>You have to be judicious. You have to build up to it. You have to start

>where people are. And this situation is not where you bring this in.

>No, most people will not understand it. Even on homeopathy lists i am on

>people don't get it.

>

> >Of course a widespread knowledge of this will be an important pressure

> >on the politicians etc against continued vaccination enforcement.

>

>Yes, but there needs to be more 'proof' first and we have very little of that.

>

> >

> >Arguments of the types " no use telling people " , " perhaps not true

> >anyway " etc are misdirected and will only help the establishment

> >continue its harmful practices.

>

>Its of use sharing information but not in this situation.

>You have to be judicious.

>

> >

> >As I wrote, broad information on this has brought considerable

> >success in Germany. For instance, after many letters from the public

> >on the question of the non-existing " HIV " , the German health minister

> >was forced to admit, on 05.01.2004, that its existence was only due

> >to " an international consensus " . And the government there has been

> >forced to give up mandatory vaccinations.

>

>I don't think that is the case. There never were mandatory vaccinations in

>Germany that I know of (maybe Nazi times)

>

> >

> >

> >> >We non-experts could write to them saying that certain experts are

> >>maintaining

> >> >this, and what might the CDC, the WHO have to say as to refutation of it?

> >> >

> >> >And above all, people like us could (as I suggested) write to them asking

> >> >for proof that (for instance) whooping cough really is caused by a

> certain

> >> >kind of bacteria.

> >> >

> >> >True enough, for evaluating the possibly resulting replies, it would

> >> >be best to have as consultants some people who really know about

> >> >these things. Some such they do have in Germany.

> >> >

> >> >>We may very well discover that you are right on the money, but, as Sheri

> >> >>said, we have to meet people where they are. It's going to be hard

> enough

> >> >>to convince them that these vaccines don't confer immunity.

> >>

> >>This is not where we go. It is too late.

> >

> >Certainly it's never " too late " to inform people about a fact so

> >important for the question of their health.

>

>No, it is not too late to teach people. But you were talking about using

>this information with government.

>

> >

> >Only the vaccination enforcers it is that would want their critics

> >to say " This is not where we go " .

>

>Sorry Rolf, I don't agree

>You do what you will, but I only speak about this issue where those that

>have ears can hear or are inclined that way.

>You will only make matters worse in most cases trying to deal with

>governments and allopathic types.

>

>I encourage you to take a different approach.

>

>Its about approach and sensitivity to where people are to better reach them.

>Sheri

[Guest guest]

The medical establishment, supported by the political and media

one, does say that some people under certain circumstances are

" contagious " .

Certain experts however are denying this and are saying that there

are no diseasecausing bacteria or viruses. This means, then, that

there is no sense in vaccinating nor (even) in staying away from persons

who are sick. I on my part have found the arguments of those experts

convincing, and am suggesting that others look into them too (at

some websites indicated in earlier postings). Sheri N. is inclined

to believe they're right too, she wrote recently, but holds that more

proof of this is needed. Clearly, nixing vaccines may not " up "

whooping cough at all; this is a matter for people who're interested

in the truth on it to look into further.

Rolf M.

At 11:04 2006-10-15 -0700, you Sheri B.<tallchick1966@...> wrote:

>All of this makes sense, but you are contagious before you know that you

>are sick, which is their logic behind the vaccine. Obviously if people

>knew that they were sick most people would stay inside (you'd like to think).

>

>Sheri B.

>

>tourmalin79 <<mailto:tourmalin79%40>tourmalin79@...> wrote:

>

>i don't understand why we would universally

>vaccinate children, teenagers and adults against a disease that is

>most harmful to infants under two months old. where's the common sense

>to keep new moms and young babies away from sick people?

[Guest guest]

At 09:19 AM 10/16/2006 +0200, you wrote:

>Sheri N.,

>

>You and I agree that vaccinating is a harmful practice and

>that people should be told about this, as you have been doing

>since a long time back.

>

>This is a main thing in this context, I believe. Probably rather

>many still don't know this fact, since the political, media and

>medical establishment keeps denying it. It's important to

>keep telling people about it, and showing them the arguments

>for this.

>

>Your arguments (in our discussion as shown below) why people

>should not (or should not always) be told about that other fact,

>relatively recently demonstrated by some experts, that bacteria and

>viruses don't cause diseases, and that thus vaccines cannot even do

>any good whatsoever, I don't understand.

Rolf, I have gone over and over this. One step at a time.

>

>I've been writing that this is so, and that people should not just

>take my word for it but should check it out for themselves.

We only have a few people saying what we are saying and some old

researchers (over 100 years old) writing about it.

We can't prove this very easily and it is even more ingrained in people

than vaccines are.

People can see vaccines harming - some people anyway. Very few can get

their heads around bacteria and viruses causing disease.

You certainly can do what you want but it doesn't help on this list to keep

going over and over it.

People are hear to learn about vaccine dangers. We have to walk in 2

worlds with this disease issue.

>

>You've written that you're inclined to believe this too, only you

>haven't seen enough proof of this to be certain of it.

I am more certain from being a homeopath but I can't convince others with

the limit info we have.

>

>Well, then, what you're telling others on this list is that at least

>there are some indications in that direction.

certainly

>

>Then there doesn't seem to be any big disagreement between

>you and me on this point.

>

>The idea that bacteria and viruses don't cause diseases no doubt

>is new to many (as is the one that vaccinating is a harmful

>practice). It's an idea that the political, media and medical

>establishment doesn't want people to consider at all.

>

>Since you're saying that you've seen some indications, at

>least, that this idea is correct, then with this you're encouraging

>people too to look into it for themselves. I've been saying that I

>on my part hold that it certainly is correct (also mentioning that I'm

>no expert at all on medicine or biology), and have suggested that

>others take a look at certain websites so as to check this out,

>whether it's true or not.

Yes, and we need more than those websites.

>

>Thus there's not a very big difference between your suggestions

>and mine to other people on this, I think. We both are mentioning

>this idea (very impopular with the establishment, and one that

>many will find surprising and even strange, because of this), and

>thus, hopefully, are arousing an interest in others to take a closer

>look at it themselves.

>

>On the question, how many others then will want to take a closer

>look at this themselves, and how many will conclude that it really

>is true that bacteria and viruses don't cause diseases - and thus

>that the establishment is lying terribly on this - we still disagree,

>it seems. But it's not that important, I hold, whether my " prediction "

>on this or yours is correct.

>

>Also, we still disagree, it seems, on whether the correct answer

>to the question, do bacteria and viruses cause diseases, makes

>a difference or not. I hold that it does make a difference, a big one

>too.

Yes, it makes a difference but it isnt' one likely to be proven without a

doubt.

Vaccine dangers are proven.

The diseases exist that are named measles, etc. Whatever the cause.

You're saying that, while you're inclined to doubt that they

>cause diseases, it doesn't make any difference whether they do

>or not. I don't think this disagreement between us is very

>important, in practice, either. Others on this list of course can

>make up their own minds on this question anyway.

>

>Once again: Even if our respective approaches differ, you and I

>actually basically agree on what to suggest to others concerning

>the establishment's " germ theory " : It's clearly, or possibly, wrong,

>and the arguments against it can be found at certain websites

>(addresses to them shown earlier in some postings of yours and

>in some of mine).

Yes I agree Rolf, but it is time to stop answering every query with 'germs

don't cause disease'.

That is my opinion.

I don't want people to leave the list when they are just now figuring out

vaccines are harmful and then we give them another HUGE stretch.

So please, I ask, to not keep going into this.

Sheri

>

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

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

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

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Reality of the Diseases & Treatment -

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

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

[Guest guest]

I don't think Sheri is saying there is anything " wrong " with your posts, but

I think what she is trying to say is you're beginning to sound like a

" broken record, " Rolf. We all know now what you believe concerning

bacteria and viruses, but the focus of this list is vaccines. We're here

to offer information and support on vaccines. Perhaps you should start your

own list and invite members from this one to carry on the topic of bacteria

and viruses over there?

I for one have stopped reading most of your posts, Rolf, as they are pretty

redundant. Not trying to be mean. I know you are passionate about what

you believe, but you've presented your thoughts and given people ample links

to research for themselves. It does get a bit old when your replies to

many of the posts are pretty much the same.

This IS Sheri's list, and if she is requesting a change, then that's her

right. : ) That's why I'm suggesting maybe you would be better off

starting your own. The OT4VAX list sprouted off of this vaccination list,

too, in order to keep the focus as much as possible on vaccines.

HTH

Kay, co-moderator

Re: Nixing Vaccines May Up Whooping Cough

> I don't see what could be wrong with my writing, as I have done:

>

> Some medical experts are saying that bacteria or viruses don't

> cause diseases. (A fact which you have mentioned too.) I on

> my part (though not knowing much about medicine) have concluded

> that they're right on this. (You have written that you're inclined to

> believe they're right, but that you hold there's not sufficient proof

> on the matter for anyone to be certain of it.) The arguments which

> those scientists are advancing for this thesis of theirs can be found

> at some websites (mentioned earlier by you, and by me). I recommend

> those who want to check out this matter for themselves to take a

> look at those websites.

>

> I cannot see how anybody on this list could be offended by this.

> Nobody is being asked by me to believe anything, for instance.

> I've always written: This others can check out for themselves.

>

> You yourself have pointed out on this list that there at least are

> some indications that bacteria and viruses don't cause diseases,

> indications which have made you inclined to believe this is true,

> although you're not certain of it. That is, the theme of this theory

> has already been touched on, by you too. You're calling that

> proposition, " germ theory is wrong " , " a HUGE stretch " . But

> it's one that neither of us is " giving " others. By mentioning it and

> by indicating where those interested can find the arguments for

> it, we've been making it possible for others to make up their own

> minds about it. That is, they can decide for themselves whether

> or not to make such " a huge stretch " . Since we've both mentioned

> this theory before, and indicated where the arguments for it are

> to be found, it seems unreasonable to me that this should now not

> be done any more.

>

> Rolf M.

[Guest guest]

At 17:26 2006-10-17 -0400, you (Kay <dr-ky@...>)

wrote:

>I don't think Sheri is saying there is anything " wrong " with your posts, but

>I think what she is trying to say is you're beginning to sound like a

> " broken record, " Rolf. We all know now what you believe concerning

>bacteria and viruses, but the focus of this list is vaccines. We're here

>to offer information and support on vaccines. Perhaps you should start your

>own list and invite members from this one to carry on the topic of bacteria

>and viruses over there?

>

>I for one have stopped reading most of your posts, Rolf, as they are pretty

>redundant. Not trying to be mean. I know you are passionate about what

>you believe, but you've presented your thoughts and given people ample links

>to research for themselves. It does get a bit old when your replies to

>many of the posts are pretty much the same.

>

>This IS Sheri's list, and if she is requesting a change, then that's her

>right. : ) That's why I'm suggesting maybe you would be better off

>starting your own. The OT4VAX list sprouted off of this vaccination list,

>too, in order to keep the focus as much as possible on vaccines.

>

>HTH

>

>Kay, co-moderator

I think the question of whether bacteria and viruses do cause

diseases or not is very relevant and on focus precisely concerning

vaccines - might they do any good or not.

Sheri N. has written that she's inclined to believe they don't cause

diseases, I that I've concluded that they don't. Websites arguing

this we both have pointed to, by both of us, so that others can check

them out. Isn't this precisely information and support concerning

vaccines?

And yes, it may get boring if this is repeated too often.

But from time to time, questions have been put to the list on

this matter, and sometimes, quoted articles have been posted

saying that such germs actually do cause diseases. In such

cases, might it not be relevant, and of interest to many, to reply

that there are arguments by some experts against this, and

show people where they can find those arguments?

Those repeated articles, by representatives of the medical establishment,

which are saying that " of course bacteria and viruses cause diseases " and

that thus " of course, vaccines at least do some good, regardless of some

perhaps negative side effects " , don't they sound like a broken record?

Although hopefully, many or most people on this list have already

seen the references to websites arguing why this is not so, it cannot

be bad, I think, sometimes to post a reply to one of those recurring

articles with the medical establishment's germ scare in them.

Rolf M.

[Guest guest]

At 05:26 PM 10/17/2006 -0400, you wrote:

>I don't think Sheri is saying there is anything " wrong " with your posts, but

>I think what she is trying to say is you're beginning to sound like a

> " broken record, " Rolf. We all know now what you believe concerning

>bacteria and viruses, but the focus of this list is vaccines. We're here

>to offer information and support on vaccines. Perhaps you should start your

>own list and invite members from this one to carry on the topic of bacteria

>and viruses over there?

>

>I for one have stopped reading most of your posts, Rolf, as they are pretty

>redundant. Not trying to be mean. I know you are passionate about what

>you believe, but you've presented your thoughts and given people ample links

>to research for themselves. It does get a bit old when your replies to

>many of the posts are pretty much the same.

>

>This IS Sheri's list, and if she is requesting a change, then that's her

>right. : ) That's why I'm suggesting maybe you would be better off

>starting your own. The OT4VAX list sprouted off of this vaccination list,

>too, in order to keep the focus as much as possible on vaccines.

>

>HTH

>

>Kay, co-moderator

Thanks Kay - you are exactly right.

Thanks for helping to clarify for me!

Sheri

>

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

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

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

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Reality of the Diseases & Treatment -

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

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

[Guest guest]

You're very welcome. : )

Kay

Re: Re: Nixing Vaccines May Up Whooping Cough

> Thanks Kay - you are exactly right.

> Thanks for helping to clarify for me!

> Sheri