Ban vaccines, mercury, or both?

[Guest guest]

Hi All, & GRPorter,

 

> The results indicate that the trends in newly diagnosed NDs

> correspond directly to the expansion and subsequent contraction of the

> cumulative mercury dose to which children were exposed from TCVs

> through the U.S. immunization schedule

 

GRPorter replied:

> Should we change our stance then? Shall we insist that we are against

> the injection of mercuric compounds rather than to say we are against

> vaccinations?

 

I am personally against the use of mercury in any medical product for

injection.

 

I am also against mass vaccination of HUMANS, especially with

multiple antigens, unless there is compelling evidence that there is high

risk of serious infection with the relevant viruses and/or bacteria.

 

I know of some serious conditions in humans - such as fatal Hodgkin's

disease and non-fatal childhood autism - that developed soon after, and

(IMO) as a direct result of, vaccination with multiple antigens

 

However, I accept vaccination of ANIMALS (that usually have a much

shorter life-span than humans) if there is high risk of exposure to the

more virulent animal pathogens.

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/15/2006 9:32:09 P.M. Central Standard Time,

writes:

 

I know of some serious conditions in humans - such as fatal Hodgkin's

disease and non-fatal childhood autism - that developed soon after, and

(IMO) as a direct result of, vaccination with multiple antigens

 

 

 

 

Dear Phil:

 

The study that I quoted (which was quoted by someone before me) indicated

that the issues with vaccines appear to be due to mercury, not the antigens. The

ANOVA study showed that the autism incidence was due to mercury , not

antigens.

 

So, if the autism isn't due to the antigens, but rather to the mercury, and

if a vaccine is not prepared with mercury, why are you against it?

 

Guy Porter