You owe it to yourselgf and your kids......the effects of vaccination on the brain

[Marnica]

I have learned sooooooo much from listening to these webinars. https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/330298842

The list of speakers is impressive,

I just got through listening to Dr. Blaylocks webinar. He is a neurosurgeon and scientist. OMG....his talk blew my mind. It is very "sciency", but this is info you owe it to yourself and your kids to learn. If you even just listen to 1 webinar of the list of many...make it this one!!

"Vaccines on your mind? The effects of vaccination on the brain"

https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/330298842

[MountainMamaGC]

I listened to it. It was very scientific. I was still able to understand most of it even with all the scientific jargon. It made me so happy that I stopped vaccinating DD when I did and more certain than ever that none of my children will ever get vaccinated. If anything it gives a good reason to wait until age 2.

[Gitti]

Thanks for posting it. I have to update in order to receive it. I will do that tonight.

[Ritske]

That was a great presentation. Tie that in with the liver function information I found and it seems obvious that if someone really wants to vaccinate (despite the issues), they should wait till their child is at least 2 years old.

[carriebft]

Of course, there could be a million reasons why a family may choose to vaccinate before 2, despite this stuff that is being called credible science. Everyone has a different risk/benefit analysis.

[Ritske]

Must say it amazes me that every doctor, scientist, etc. who disagrees with the CDC is somehow not credible. Just saying.

[carriebft]

Blaylock has made many claims in the past that make me question him. That doesn't mean I think all claims by all people on the "other side" (ie, what I think you mean by against the CDC) are wrong. Example: Tenpenny often talks about the pertussis transmission issue- she is right to question the ability of the DTaP vaccine to prevent transmission. The CDC is wrong to put their efforts into "get vaccinated! don't spread it to your kids!" campaigns.

Baylock has made many claims in the past two months that I disagree with. His claims on squalene conveniently ignore the large body of evidence available in Europe since it's introduction. He claims that if you vaccinate, you will be afflicted with lifelong illness, be crippled, die-- etc, never with a qualifier in anything I have read by him. His ideas about free radicals in autism and ADHD are presented as fact, yet everything I have read on this points to mostly fiction-- with supplement companies and oxygen chamber peddlers doing most of the talking. He also tends to talk about adjuvants as though they are in every vaccine; his uses polio as his example many times-- which makes no sense...these are on top of the fact that he falsified his relationship to some universities.

..etc...

Does this mean there is nothing I agree with him on? I doubt it; I have found that even when I largely disagree with a certain voice in this issue, I can usually still find some ideas that I agree with. I admit with Baylock I have not found that yet, but I am sure there is something if I looked more.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by carriebft

Blaylock has made many claims in the past that make me question him. That doesn't mean I think all claims by all people on the "other side" (ie, what I think you mean by against the CDC) are wrong. Example: Tenpenny often talks about the pertussis transmission issue- she is right to question the ability of the DTaP vaccine to prevent transmission. The CDC is wrong to put their efforts into "get vaccinated! don't spread it to your kids!" campaigns.

Baylock has made many claims in the past two months that I disagree with. His claims on squalene conveniently ignore the large body of evidence available in Europe since it's introduction. He claims that if you vaccinate, you will be afflicted with lifelong illness, be crippled, die-- etc, never with a qualifier in anything I have read by him. His ideas about free radicals in autism and ADHD are presented as fact, yet everything I have read on this points to mostly fiction-- with supplement companies and oxygen chamber peddlers doing most of the talking. He also tends to talk about adjuvants as though they are in every vaccine; his uses polio as his example many times-- which makes no sense...these are on top of the fact that he falsified his relationship to some universities.

..etc...

Does this mean there is nothing I agree with him on? I doubt it; I have found that even when I largely disagree with a certain voice in this issue, I can usually still find some ideas that I agree with. I admit with Baylock I have not found that yet, but I am sure there is something if I looked more.

Carrie...how many of the webinars have you actually listened to??
and if you have which ones? just curious

[carriebft]

I have read his papers on squalene, free radicals, and excitotoxins (one book on this as well) as well as his articles that are common quoted concerning adjuvants (including the recent one on swine flu). I have read his claims on mercury toxicity and autism as well as one paper her wrote on Alzheimer's. I don't usually read this much by a certain person that I don't care too much about, but my sister was pretty obsessed with his work for a while and I got interested because of everything I have started reading based on my interest in the subject of vaccines.

(no, I did not watch a webinar yet-- though I do believe I read a few transcripts in the stuff sis gave me since it looked to be in that format)