O.K., I was making a point, one which I would hope would make people think.

The government pays out claims to 100 families a year for vaccine related death. This DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL THE CHILDREN WHO ARE PERMANENTLY HAMRED BY VACCINES.

Dan Burton did not have a grandchild die, as you assumed.

He has two grandchildren and both had adverse reactions to their vaccines, resulting in permanent harm to one of them.

Ever read any of the hearings Congress conducted on vaccines?

No, obviously you haven't.

Did you even bother to read any of the information I posted, or check the links?

I seriously doubt it.

If you do not care about learning anything regarding this topic, then why even bother posting on this thread?

Biker dudes scare me.

Proof you assumed he had a child die.

Look, I apologized for getting mad when you called me a fear mongerer.

I think you are a pretty decent person and I do not want to fight with you.

Biker dudes scare me.

All I am trying to do is get people to care enough to do a little research on their own.

The media has been complicit in helping to hide infomration on the adverse effects of some vaccines.

Do I think we should do away with all vaccines?

I do not know.

Why don't I know when I seem to know everything about everything?

It's because of the deceit and tactics used by the "establishment" regarding vaccines and adverse reactions.

I do not have any children, but if I did and one was harmed by a vaccine, I would be shouting from the rooftops about the possible risks.

Is 100 child deaths a year an acceptable loss for keeping the majority of kids safer?

Depends on if one of those 100 deaths were your child I suppose.

As I already posted, less than 10% of adverse reactions to vaccines are reported to VAERS.

Why?

There are some serious problems with our vaccination policies. We do not have the long term studies that are truly needed to prove these vaccines are safe. We do not know how all these vaccines might affect long term health, how they act together, or if they might be one of the causes for the rise in Autism, or child diabetes.

More research needs to be done and making even more vaccines mandatory without the long term studies is, in my opinion, irresponsible.

I am just tired of the drug companies buying legislation and hiding evidence that any of their products might be harmful.

The FDA and the mass media are complicit in this deception and it is time the people took notice.

The point is that you can go without the monkey blood and still not get the polio.

Or more specfically, you can go without the monkey blood, the mercury, the lead, the formadahyde, (and to go further beyond topic) the benzene, the fluride, the aspertame and other phykenloids (sp?), the corn syrup and corn oil, the saccrine, the splenda, and still AVOID getting some of these things altogether.

Then, instead of living the life of an 60 year old Alzheimers patient, you can have an active 60 year old life with mental faculty, like your great grandparents did.

And for your children, instead of giving them things that the FDA, OSHA, the EPA, and every other organization in the world that regulates substances, calls toxins, carcinogens, cancer causing agents, heavy metals, and environmental hazards, they can catch a flu every once and a while, but be able to concentrate in class, and NOT have the need to slam their head into a wall over and over again as a result of diseases like ADD, ADHD, autism, and other known, but unexplained, neuro-chemical disorders that are EXPOLDING on to the scene.

Yea, yea, yea, yea, people a long time ago died because they didn't have thes vaccines.  But guess what people, this is the 21ST CENTURY, we have stuff that would prevent a pneumonia patient from dying that we just didn't have 100 years ago.  That MASSIVE escilation in "unexplained" illnesses far outweight the potential for outbreak of old time diseases in a medical 21 century.  Just like this Bird Flu (which is a swine flu, btw) scare.  You people compare it to a pandemic over 150 years ago, as if, medicine has been standing still for 150 years.  If a flu breaks out only the sickest and youngest are at serious risk according to them, the rest of you are just looking to avoid getting the inconvienient flu.  And the hospitals have come a long way in protecting people from the death of the flu.

Every year, you go out and get a flu shot, and shove mercury (and todays thymerosol has 5 times MORE mercury than it did only 10 years ago.) into your blood stream, along with all kinds of incredibly nasty stuff, used as preservatives and agents in the making of the vaccine, and just because you don't drop dead right there on the sight, statistics indicate that they are safe.

And, "FDA studies show no link," my butt.  How long did it take the FDA to determine that smoking cigarettes that contained over 500 different types of known carcinogens, definitely caused cancer?  Have they yet?  They are still legal.  The cigarette comapnies can still put every single one of those known carcinogens in the cigarette.  Use flavors, and tricks to make the smoke more "mild" so idiots can inhale deeper and for longer periods of time increasing the damage AND addiction.

As for the RNA and DNA of animals being injected into children at or near birth.  Not only is this untested.  Or it better be untested.  Sick -ss idea of injecting babies with animal blood to see what happens is repugnnt, so these things are untested on humans, except when gathering statistics after the injections.  But not obnly is this untested, our 21st CENTURY medicine is beginning to realize that RNA injected into the blood stream has the potential to change our own DNA structure. 

Let's not even mention, well, okay let's mention, the process of obtaining animal blood for the making of vaccines.  First, we are not all that protective of our human blood supply.  Google infections from transfusions and read all about the mistakes being made in that little area of science.  So to imagine the srtingent methods are being utilized to ensure that none of the blood contains anything potentially dangerous would be silly.  Not to mention anything that these animals may have that we don't understand or won't understand until the 22nd CENTURY. 

Where did AIDS come from?  Remember hearing about a male flight attendant and sex with monkeys?  Where do you think AIDS came from?  Maybe it did start of with the Rhesis Monkey.  Maybe it was in a polio shot.  Maybe the RNA of a sick money infused the DNA of a recipient of  polio.  Would you take AIDS over polio?  Is that a choice that had to be made?  Was the patient given the choice?

And what did happen to the bill that Kennedy Jr. called for that would have banned the use of thimerosol by the people I claim are bent on destroying your mind and free will?

Bush Set to Veto HHS-Labor-Education Appropriations Bill Due to Provision to Remove Mercury From Infant Vaccines
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-19-2007/0004628856&EDATE=


FreeinTX

So then, the vaccine doesn't really work then, does it?

These diseases don't just pop out of thin air. They have to be contracted from someone else.

Either the vaccine works, or it doesn't. Which is it?

All one has to do is look at other nations to see the problems with many of the diseases we are vaccinated for. It has obviously had a benefit. However, isn't it possible there some vaccines which the benefits do not outweigh the risks? Isn't it possible some of these vaccines could be made safer? Doesn't it make sense to give parents accurate information so they can make an INFORMED decision?