Anti flu vaccine vid from DI

[Apech]

Good vid from lizard conspiracy man David Icke:

 

vqMK_yu8APg

[Apech]

What do you think? Would you take the vaccine?

[Teddy]

No. Vaccines dont work. They are a con.

[Smile]

xu77FHM6GD8

cPOgYpLKl2A

rrWbibVlJzM

17MzeQZIWZY

[karen]

I put up a site gathering together some of the best articles and links on the subject. More is being added.

 

The Truth About Vaccines - The Dangers and the Alternatives

[Apech]

I put up a site gathering together some of the best articles and links on the subject. More is being added.

 

The Truth About Vaccines - The Dangers and the Alternatives

 

 

Hi Karen,

 

Swine flu hysteria seems to be well set in in the UK. At an organisation I am involved with three people have phoned in with (undiagnosed) swine flu already (out of about 200). Every day in the media there is a new story of people dieing (followed by someone on authority telling us not to panic - after they have made us panic first of course). Although David Icke has some strange ideas I like the way he speaks out on contracersial issues.

 

Thanks for the link - hope all is well with you.

 

A.

[karen]

Hi A!

 

The hysteria is here in the US too. This really plays in to irrational fear, even with people who consider themselves thinking people. There is just no way that people die from the flu per se, whether natural or produced in a lab. They die from complications arising from allopathic drugging.

 

And flu-like symptoms can come from a multitude of causes, so what they're calling the flu is often not. What a statistical mess!

 

Pretty interesting fact: Looking at the 1918 flu epidemic, none of the homeopathically treated patients died, whereas the deaths were among those who were treated with aspirin.

 

So the population starts out being weakened because they're heavily vaccinated already. Then people develop fevers, but the natural healing power of the body to expel the disease is being suppressed with antipyretics and antibiotics, or now the antivirals - now that's a recipe for serious complications.

 

On a brighter note, I'm doing well, thanks, hope you are too!

 

Karen

Edited July 17, 2009 by karen

[Desert Eagle]

9s4OQOr9qXw

[Aetherous]

At least where I am, in Wisconsin, there is no hysteria. It seems to have passed in the news...haven't seen anything about it for a few weeks.

 

I don't trust David Icke, Karen (*see below), or the government which tries to vaccinate me. In fact, I don't care about the issue unless I actually know of someone who has died from it. I haven't heard of a single person dying from swine flu, and I know a lot of people.

 

*No offense meant to you personally, Karen, but I don't think you actually know that people don't die from the flu...it's not a wise thing to say unless you're sure of it.

[karen]

Hi Scotty,

 

I understand your thought about my statement about people not dying from the flu - in a short post it's just not possible to lay out the whole background for such statements, so I'm sorry if you found the quick extracts lacking!

 

I do happen to be sure of the principle behind the statement, though. We don't need to wait for empirical evidence in order to be able to have knowledge of principles of nature and the nature of disease. Although I never advise anyone personally to make a particular health care choice - that has to be their own decision based on what they're comfortable with.

 

We need to be our own authority and decide what's right on an individual basis - not to adopt beliefs based on what government authorities say, nor what independent health consultants say

 

There's a huge problem in trying to assess what happened when someone died who had the flu. What was the condition of their immune system before - did they have autoimmune disease; were they weakend by vaccinations and suppressive drugs? Did they die of the flu, or of pneumonia, and if the flu was treated without suppressive drugs might it have resolved without leading to pneumonia?..

 

-Karen

Edited July 18, 2009 by karen

[Desert Eagle]

Legal Immunity Set for Swine Flu Vaccine Makers

[Apech]

At least where I am, in Wisconsin, there is no hysteria. It seems to have passed in the news...haven't seen anything about it for a few weeks.

 

I don't trust David Icke, Karen (*see below), or the government which tries to vaccinate me. In fact, I don't care about the issue unless I actually know of someone who has died from it. I haven't heard of a single person dying from swine flu, and I know a lot of people.

 

*No offense meant to you personally, Karen, but I don't think you actually know that people don't die from the flu...it's not a wise thing to say unless you're sure of it.

 

Hi Scotty,

 

For me its not about trust - I don't know what its like in the US but here in the UK the government and the media like to promote public health issues in a particular way. Same for terrorism, climate change and even the economy. We are given a certain line and then its pushed until we are made to feel nervous enough to comply with whatever regulations they might want to bring in. What I like about David Icke (although I think he's a bit crazy on the lizard thing to be honest) is that he is prepared to give a strong alternate view in the face of huge pressure to conform to the official view. I find this helpful because it gives me a chance to balance up my own view.

 

My basic position is though, to make up my own mind - with a leaning to the maverick view!

[karen]

A, I think that's exactly it - the agenda is being promoted with no interest in engaging any critical thinking.

 

I saw a TV interview with some people who wanted to do some critical thinking on the vaccine issue. They were just saying, let's take an unbiased look at this, rationally, and examine the assumptions we've been told. Fair enough?

 

The head of some major pediatric medical association was there, and all she could do was to defend "policy." The other people asked her how she responds to the fact that in Europe many of these vaccines are banned.. (and a thinking person would be interested in looking at that). But she could only reply with non-sequiturs about "policy." She actually said that she had no concern about what other countries do, because "this is what we have decided." It almost sounded like a child's retort, "Just because!"

 

People often say they're too scared to go against policy or the doctor's orders. Well, personally I'd be more scared to go against irrationality . But it's a personal choice, and many people choose to indulge fear.

 

-Karen

[Apech]

Just read "The Guardian" (supposedly serious UK newspaper) on swine flu and it is completely descriptive - in other words there is no analysis - except when they come to the statistics about predicted number of cases and death rates (these are based on previous flu epidemics) and project on assumptions which could vary easily by a factor of three or more.

 

When swine flu first came to light we were told it was something to do with Mexicans and pig farms. We were shown pits with pig carcasses in on TV and people walking around with masks on. Then it spread to US and Europe at high speed. The first people were hospitalized but now they don't bother. They are handing out Tamiflu to anyone with flu like symptoms and also finding that people with underlying health conditions can die (or rather they die of 'something' and are then found to be carrying H1N1). I have never known anti-virals used like this before.

 

The way in which it has spread doesn't make any sense and I would suggest that H1N1 has been present in the population for a long time and that the publicity from Mexico caused anyone with a bad cold or flu to report in (rather than just rest up for a few days as they normally would have). This looks on the surface like a rapid global spread. I doubt for instance that it started in Mexico anyway - but I have no confidence that those who should be looking at this actually are doing so.

 

I would like to see a proper study of the actual disease that people are reporting, how does it start? how long does it last? what are the actual symptoms that distinguish it from seasonal flu, why is it hitting young people more - and so on - this would be quite interesting ... instead we get this vagueness coupled with 'public health' messages. I quite accept that it may be too early for the scientists and recall the early AIDS documentaries which concentrated on gay people and Haitians (wrongly) - but there isn't even that kind of questioning going on.

[karen]

They are handing out Tamiflu to anyone with flu like symptoms and also finding that people with underlying health conditions can die (or rather they die of 'something' and are then found to be carrying H1N1). I have never known anti-virals used like this before.

 

Exactly. They're conflating correlation with causation. A virus shows up at the scene of a crime - do we blame the virus in all cases? Strange that they blame the virus for the whole course of the illness, when the person may be in a weakened condition to begin with, and usually has also had dozens of highly toxic chemicals pumped into them which suppresses the immune system and the body's ability to throw off a self-limiting illness.

 

I would like to see a proper study of the actual disease that people are reporting, how does it start? how long does it last? what are the actual symptoms that distinguish it from seasonal flu, why is it hitting young people more - and so on - this would be quite interesting ... instead we get this vagueness coupled with 'public health' messages. I quite accept that it may be too early for the scientists and recall the early AIDS documentaries which concentrated on gay people and Haitians (wrongly) - but there isn't even that kind of questioning going on.

 

Yup, because this is more about politics than science. Real science would be rigorously investigating those questions, even though it may be too soon to know all the answers.

 

But material medicine doesn't even have the means to distinguish the real nature of one disease from another - all it can do is look at the outer symptoms and group them into arbitrarily defined conditions. That's how the disease called influenza is difficult to distinguish from other diseases that cause flu-like symptoms. If a microbe is found to be correlated with a particular condition, it's assumed to be causative. There's no real understanding of causation - because material science limits itself to the material realm, whereas the causative level is etheric, or energetic.

 

We can, though, use a principled system of disease classification based on true causation, and know that it doesn't matter so much what's going on on the symptom level with this flu. It might be different from natural flu but the essence of the disease is energetically the same for all cases of influenza. Dr. Hahnemann called this a "constant wesen" disease - its essential nature is the same in all cases. It's possible for a skilled practitioner to see into a particular case and know whether it's actually influenza or symptoms related to other diseases. Even when the constant disease can't be known, we can treat based on the unique symptom picture in each case.

 

With the natural flu, every year the viral strain is different anyway, but the law of similars is forgiving and we can use it prophylactically and to treat the disease if it manifests (which it almost always doesn't for those who've had the homeopathic vaccine .

[BrainDance]

Hi A!

 

The hysteria is here in the US too. This really plays in to irrational fear, even with people who consider themselves thinking people. There is just no way that people die from the flu per se, whether natural or produced in a lab. They die from complications arising from allopathic drugging.

 

And flu-like symptoms can come from a multitude of causes, so what they're calling the flu is often not. What a statistical mess!

 

Pretty interesting fact: Looking at the 1918 flu epidemic, none of the homeopathically treated patients died, whereas the deaths were among those who were treated with aspirin.

 

So the population starts out being weakened because they're heavily vaccinated already. Then people develop fevers, but the natural healing power of the body to expel the disease is being suppressed with antipyretics and antibiotics, or now the antivirals - now that's a recipe for serious complications.

 

On a brighter note, I'm doing well, thanks, hope you are too!

 

Karen

The 1918 epidemic fact isn't actually true at all, the homeopathic practitioners reported low mortality. They never came out and said there was none, not at all. Even that claim though, it's really shaky. At the time no one really looked into their claims, there wasn't any verification, and most people seriously looking into the issue admit that it looks like the key word there is "reported." They reported a low death rate, but that doesn't make it the case. Most homeopathic practitioners I've met admit that it's highly suspect.

 

And second, this whole vaccine hysteria is terrifying to me. It's okay to have distrust in modern medicine, and you yourself can take whatever course of treatment you want for whatever. When children don't get vaccines though, other children die. This is already the case, the fact is vaccines do at least vaccinate against the disease they are meant to (I think most people are worried about other effects, because you can't honestly argue that polio just happened to vanish do to shear coincidence.) Some children can't have their vaccines, either they just don't take or they will have problems with it and the doctors have identified. So they go through life with no immunity to some of these terrible diseases. That's okay though, up until the past decade and a half or so, maybe a little less, those kids were protected by herd immunity. The simple fact that, if one kid doesn't have immunity to something, but all the other kids do, there isn't really much of a way for him or her to get it.

 

In the UK for example, a lot less children have been getting vaccinations recently. And there has been a death count, of these children who couldn't get their vaccinations (not to mentions the ones whose parents refused to get them.) It's drastically higher than it used to be, and while I can't say theres true evidence that it's the drop in vaccinations (correlation doesn't equal causation and all that) it looks to be the case. I mean, medicine isn't making up these deaths. These kids really died, and more of them will die.

 

I'm sure your heart is in the right place, and there has to be something for that. I just worry that this is incredibly dangerous advice, and it's not something for people to toy around with if they don't have a strong understanding of the issue. It's tricky stuff, and I just worry that the people who are really pushing for this, when all is said and done the blood will be on their hands. I mean honestly karen, can you afford to be wrong? I don't mean to be offensive, this is just far more serious than people realize. There are innocent victims at risk.

[karen]

Hi BrainDance,

 

I think that differing viewpoints are what discussion is all about.. and I don't think discussion is ever dangerous - I never suggested that I was giving medical advice - actually, the discussion has been largely about people taking responsibility for their own health care decisions.

 

I do think it's important for people to have input they can use in making their own decisions, and to do their own research. In short posts like these, it's not possible to present exhaustive research but to point to ideas that people may not have come across before, or expand on ones they have, and if they want to follow up and consider them, fine. Maybe you're reading into my posts an agenda that isn't there.

 

What I promote is thinking . Not mandates that prevent freedom of choice - even if the mandate was for homeopathy. I don't promote any belief system but support people making personal, conscious choices.

 

Can I afford to be wrong - I honestly don't think I have as much power as you seem to think . There's a vast body of evidence that supports what I've briefly summarized, and I only intended to talk about that. For those who want to follow public policy whatever it may be, all ideas to the contrary can be easily dismissed. For those who want to challenge the assumptions that don't add up, they can do their research.

 

The issue of how vaccines have affected (or haven't affected) infectious disease, historically, is rife with statistical error. We can either just accept the statistics as they're being handed to us, or examine them more closely.

explains exactly how the statistical error happens, and I haven't seen this explained so clearly anywhere else.

 

What I think is dangerous to consciousness is the fear that if people start doing their own research they'll make dangerously false conclusions. That leaves us like children dependent on parent-like health authorities to tell us what's best for us. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't trust anyone, but a healthy state of mind relies on one's own judgment and resonance with ideas.

 

I sincerely hope you can come to terms with the issue in whatever way resolves it for you.

 

Best,

Karen

[Apech]

Hi Karen,

 

Thanks for that video link. I think what it is demonstrating is that improvements in public health measures, sanitation, good water and food and other aspects like housing - and especially education improve general health irrespective of vaccination. I think you see this same kind of approach in Africa for instance where drug companies prefer to say, dose rivers with copper sulphate to prevent schistosomiasis (sp?) rather than improve sanitation, water supplies and sewage - because that would mean building infrastructure and educating people - rather than just injecting them.

 

I am not against vaccination per se - I just want to be told the truth. I understand fears about polio and so on because I come from a generation when there were kids in school who were disabled through that disease and it is especially frightening for parents. I think it is one thing to make a decision for yourself but another to make a decision for your children - but everyone has to make the best call they can.

 

A.

[karen]

Hi A,

 

Then you might also be interested in the other videos there by pleromicproductions, especially the series on polio. It's fascinating to me, to see a different view that challenges certain perceptions we've grown very attached to. Wild, natural polio is very different from the paralytic polio that we know of, and that's a good place to start asking questions about what that paralytic polio really is and what effect the polio vaccine had.

 

Often when the subject comes up with various people, I ask them how much they know about vaccines - where they got their information, and how do they know that they're safe and effective. Most people, including myself until I decided to make a study of it, realize that what they know about this is what the "authorities" have always said, a kind of belief system that we grew up with. For most people, that taps into some very deep issues of safety and security.

 

So I think that looking for the truth with this kind of issue is usually not just a matter of doing the research and discerning facts with an unbiased mind, but it requires a whole inner process of confronting fear and the whole issue of how we feel safe - do we depend on belief in outer authority and borrow a false sense of security, or do we develop a true sense of security from within. And it's not an either/or, and most of us are somewhere in that process of spiritual development. So I have a great respect for the difficulty of that personal, emotional challenge and what it takes for people to go through that process consciously.

 

Karen

[Smile]

http://www.examiner.com/x-11705-NY-Holisti...18-flu-pandemic

[karen]

Thanks for finding/posting that article! Using Oscillo or Influenzinum, or remedies based on the specific symptom picture can usually be done on one's own for this type of first-aid/acute homeopathy, and it can be very empowering for people to learn the basics of that.

 

Although for prophylaxis it's best to have a skilled practitioner decide on the proper remedies, dosage and potency for the individual. And to monitor any reactions and adjust treatment accordingly. If the person has had the flu vaccine in the past, taking a homeopathic vaccine could trigger a healing reaction that could be difficult to know how to handle otherwise.

 

(I'm not offering this at the moment but can refer anyone who's interested to a practitioner who does and can work by phone consult).

Edited July 20, 2009 by karen

[Smile]

Personally I would do a combo of MMS, colloidal silver breathing (through nebulizer) and zapper.

[Magitek]

What the newspapers/media do is just a kind of sorcery.....

 

When you get a pain the body deals with it, it doesn't need anything else. What they have created is just a business created on our paranoia.

 

If you cannot deal with the pain you can take a painkiller, for your sake not your bodies. To think anything can surpuss the intelligence of the body is plain ridiculous.

 

People get a pain and become paranoid. They go to the doc because they think he knows something. He doesn't, he poisons you instead. Any natural healing is stopped right there.

 

I had to study some of this healthcare crap, personally I saw it as really ugly stuff. I wouldn't wish what they do to my enemies.

 

But people can do what they want. But if people try to force it on me (lucky for me I have no children, but i'm sure i'd try to protect them if i did), i'd hope i'd do whatever I could to stop them.

 

 

Aw, social welfare eh?

 

[Magitek]

Personally I would do a combo of MMS, colloidal silver breathing (through nebulizer) and zapper.

 

Can you really believe in that stuff also? Well if it has worked good for you I guess. I have heard of people of people using zapper developing problems later on, like people who have lost cancer then got it again. How is this "alterative" stuff different from the "mainstream" medicine.

 

Bacteria are not necessarily there to harm you. How can you know that?

 

Sorry I'm not having a go at you. Just throwing out some zen koans.

[karen]

Magitek, I know some of your questions were asked rhetorically, but I think there really are practical answers to them anyway .

 

I think it's actually an important point - how do we know what we know, and is there a difference between truth and belief. I think that a true medical system has to be scientific and systematic rather than completely empirical. But the conventional system is limited to materialism and anything that's happening outside of the material realm is just not within its radar.

 

If a system is based on empiricism and looking at the results in each case, then you have to ask, what does it mean to get favorable results as opposed to unfavorable results? If a treatment "worked" for you, how do you know whether it simply calmed down the symptoms temporarily but left the (hidden) cause of the problem to continue to develop? This is the trouble with evaluating a treatment or approach based on "what works for me."

 

In order to make sense of things there has to be a map of the territory, an underlying system of principles based on laws of nature to guide our choices. Using such a map, I would say that the things that Smile mentioned all fall into a certain category of things that strengthen the life force and shore up the natural defenses of the body.

 

We can understand the principle behind doing that, and know that that helps us reduce our susceptibility to infectious disease. All such supplements and treatment methods use the "law of opposites" (remove excesses or fill deficiences to restore balance) to support the system.

 

But if you want to remove an energetic disturbance - and that is based on a different principle of nature - you would need to use remedies based on the law of similars, not the law of opposites. And similarly, if you want to use the principle of vaccination - which means to stimulate your body against a particular disease, you need to use the law of similars. In practice, you can use both - vaccinate, plus support the system. But they are two different, complementary principles.

 

The difference between allopathic medicine and natural medicine - well, it's hard to generalize about natural medicine. But an allopathic drug will generally suppress symptoms and create a chronic energetic disturbance in the process. Something like the zapper may kill microbes, but it doesn't leave an energetic disturbance in the way that an antibiotic drug would. That's one important difference.

 

The reason why people using the zapper might have a worsening of their condition later is because the microbe wasn't the real cause of the disease, so killing it may help with symptoms temporarily but it doesn't pull up the roots of the disease, which are lodged in the etheric, energetic body.

 

Mostly people are trying to make symptoms go away without understanding the difference between the causative level of disease and the symptoms that are the *result* of that. It's important to be able to identify cause vs. effect and know what is being treated.

 

-Karen

 

Edit: I should clarify.. when I used the term "vaccinate" above, I meant to vaccinate according to natural law, which is very different from the allopathic vaccine. And about the zapper, that can be very useful as a supportive measure but can't remove the cause of disease.

Edited July 20, 2009 by karen