The More "vaccines" we take the more they attempt to FORCE into us, now at birth - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 19 Old 09-12-2012, 07:14 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Louisw's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: PNW
Posts: 575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

"In his letter Professor Gordon makes it very clear that the government knew that there was a problem with this vaccine but was choosing to ignore it. However, it was not just the whooping cough element that was proving a problem. The DPT vaccine as a whole had been causing huge problems as a document published by the WHO in 2000 (7) proved."

 

http://vactruth.com/2012/09/12/mandatory-vaccines-newborns/?utm_source=The+Vaccine+Truth+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ad8ffdf852-09_12_2012_ukgovt&utm_medium=email

 

Folks please take a little time  to COMPLETELY understand this issue. It is IMO coming HERE and perhaps soon.

 

This whole "Whooping Cough Propaganda Push" IMO is a sham designed to weaken in one way or another or BOTH your newborns immune system.

 

Are they attempting to reintroduce the DPT back into the USA? This could certainly be the case. They seem to be currently giving this proven toxin to the British and Indian kids at least.

 

Autism and the ASDs went off the chart when they started giving the Hib at birth.

Louisw is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 19 Old 09-23-2012, 12:42 PM
Administrator
 
cynthia mosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Arabia!
Posts: 38,756
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)

Moving this to the general Vaccinations forum where it belongs. 


cynthia mosher is offline  
#3 of 19 Old 09-23-2012, 12:48 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisw View Post

.

Autism and the ASDs went off the chart when they started giving the Hib at birth.

I believe it's the hep B shot that's given at birth, not Hib.
Taximom5 is offline  
#4 of 19 Old 09-23-2012, 03:59 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,231
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisw View Post

 

Are they attempting to reintroduce the DPT back into the USA? This could certainly be the case. They seem to be currently giving this proven toxin to the British and Indian kids at least.

 

Maybe?

 

From what I have read, and what the stats seem to say, DPT is more effective than DTaP.

 

Policy makers seem to be way more concerned with VPD's than vaccine reaction, so it would not surprise me at all if they moved towards DPT.

 

For what is it worth, when my son was born in 1996 people were more worried about DPT than any other vaccine (including MMR, which has had a lot more press in more recent years).  I don't think people remember quite how unpopular and reactive DPT was.

 

The other alternative is that they will introduce a booster shot around 7-10 yrs old, as the DTaP is not effective for very long.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#5 of 19 Old 09-24-2012, 03:20 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisw View Post

 

Are they attempting to reintroduce the DPT back into the USA? This could certainly be the case. They seem to be currently giving this proven toxin to the British and Indian kids at least.

 

No. British children do not get vaccines at birth. The NHS offers the DTaP/IPV/Hib (or 5 in 1) vaccine to babies (a series at 2, 3, 4 months). 

This is the link to read more about the UK recommended vaccination schedule: http://www.nhs.uk/Planners/vaccinations/Pages/childvaccines.aspx


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
#6 of 19 Old 09-24-2012, 06:30 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,231
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)

It looks like the UK is considering vaxxing newborns for DTaP:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19454493


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#7 of 19 Old 09-24-2012, 07:02 AM
 
AmandaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

It looks like the UK is considering vaxxing newborns for DTaP:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19454493

Although I do understand what they are trying to say, I particularly like this quote:

               " Whooping cough, also known as pertussis, is more dangerous for young babies because they do not get the benefits from vaccination until about four months."


lactivist.gifnovaxnocirc.gif Acd.gif'ing, winner.jpg,familybed1.gif,femalesling.GIFread.gif Momma to one DD 1/1/12 ribboncesarean.gif. Trying to goorganic.jpg and hoping for a hbac.gif next time!

AmandaT is offline  
#8 of 19 Old 09-24-2012, 07:20 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,612
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

It looks like the UK is considering vaxxing newborns for DTaP:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19454493

The article doesn't state whether it is the DTaP or the DPT vaccine. But they do speak of expanding the "vaccination programme" which I assume implies the DTaP.

 

The Department of Health doesn't seem to be able to blame the rise in incidence on the unvaccinated, but claim to no know why there has been such an increase in whooping cough; because the vaccine is ineffective, maybe?. 

 

 

 

Quote:

A Department of Health spokesman said: "We continue to see high uptake of vaccination against whooping cough and are investigating the recent increase in cases. This highlights the importance of vaccination against this and other illnesses.

 

 

 

 

Nevertheless they are pushing for more boosters,

 
Quote:
This could mean booster doses for teenagers, and jabs for pregnant women and newborn babies and their families.

 


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#9 of 19 Old 09-24-2012, 07:37 AM
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I could see a move towards DTP by politicians without regards for reaction. It was/is quite reactive. My mom said she was very worried each time we got it - 40 degrees celsius fevers, crying and so on. My parents had no choice living in a communist country were vaccines were absolutely mandatory. And even that government was smart enough to not vaccinate before 6 months, only doing one vaccine at a time (my charts show DTP at 6,8 and 10 months and OPV at 7,9,11 and measles at 12 months, done from there on out until 6 when another DTP and OPV was given a couple months apart; later on it was after the Cold War and I was simply offered rubella at 12 years; scared into HepB at 17 by a video shown at school).  

 

Shouldn't they be more worried about parapertussis and how DTaP vaccinated individuals are more susceptible to it? And maybe a whole different vaccine than aP or P? There seems to be no incentive. A vaccine that looses as much as 40% effectiveness yearly does not appeal to me especially since it is so reactive. We choose to give it as we want tetanus protection, if there only was a DT licensed for kids formulated like Daptacel... Or tetanol pure, which is available in Europe.... Ay. 

nia82 is offline  
#10 of 19 Old 09-24-2012, 12:17 PM
 
threenorns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

this is a fact:  when a baby needs a new heart, they try to get it done before they're a year old.  why?  bec the heart doesn't need to be a tissue match and the baby will never need anti-rejection drugs.

 

why is this?  bec at about a year old, the immune system kicks fully online and registers the mistyped heart as belonging to the body.

 

what i wanna know is, if the infant's immune system is so nonfunctional that it can't tell the difference when there's a huge chunk of the wrong type of tissue in the body, how ARE these vaccines supposedly working?

 

my second daughter was brought up from zero to fully up to date for school when she was 4yrs old - given in two shots, one month apart.    if that is sufficient, why are we blasting babies, at the most neurologically delicate time of life, over and over and over again?

threenorns is offline  
#11 of 19 Old 09-24-2012, 06:12 PM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,666
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by threenorns View Post

this is a fact:  when a baby needs a new heart, they try to get it done before they're a year old.  why?  bec the heart doesn't need to be a tissue match and the baby will never need anti-rejection drugs.

 

why is this?  bec at about a year old, the immune system kicks fully online and registers the mistyped heart as belonging to the body.

 

what i wanna know is, if the infant's immune system is so nonfunctional that it can't tell the difference when there's a huge chunk of the wrong type of tissue in the body, how ARE these vaccines supposedly working?

 

my second daughter was brought up from zero to fully up to date for school when she was 4yrs old - given in two shots, one month apart.    if that is sufficient, why are we blasting babies, at the most neurologically delicate time of life, over and over and over again?

mo money mo money mo money for pharma and the dr's administering them

emmy526 is offline  
#12 of 19 Old 09-24-2012, 06:33 PM
 
emma1325's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post

mo money mo money mo money for pharma and the dr's administering them


Plus to train the patients and doctors.


Loving mother, Devoted Wife
emma1325 is offline  
#13 of 19 Old 09-24-2012, 08:02 PM
 
eska's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 33
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Great point. It's pretty scary and there is no data to support these new decisions for earlier and earlier vaccines.


Happy Mom of radiant twin girls. Information gives you the power to choose.

eska is offline  
#14 of 19 Old 09-25-2012, 04:55 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)

The UK's department of health are currently considering this idea and weighing the data. They say 

 

 

 

Quote:
"The joint committee on vaccination and immunisation is looking at whether more people need to be vaccinated. Careful consideration is always needed around expanding any programme.

 

So they are thinking carefully about it. There's a good article about it on the BBC website. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19454493

 

Also note vaccinations in the UK are not mandatory - this is a consideration of making in availalble (free on the NHS) to all newborns. 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
#15 of 19 Old 09-25-2012, 06:06 AM
 
mom of twins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Hi emmy526,

I am just wondering ... when you said that your daughter was up-to-date in two vaccines, can you let me know how you did this?  My children are 4 and have not had vaccines yet...on the fence about which ones to give.   Maybe I read your post wrong, but just wondering if there are ways to catch them up for school if we decide to.

thanks so much!

mom of twins is offline  
#16 of 19 Old 09-25-2012, 06:10 AM
 
mom of twins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

oops...just realized, the above question is for "threenorns".  Thanks.

Mom of Twins

mom of twins is offline  
#17 of 19 Old 09-25-2012, 12:27 PM
 
threenorns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

first off, i'm in canada - dunno if that makes a difference.

 

the only shots she had were the original basics:  she had the dtp...t... whatever, then the MMR a month later.  apparently vaccines are a whole other kettle of fish when you have a fully-functioning immune system so one shot was sufficient.

 

f.ex, they want to give 3 shots of the hepB vaccine to infants.

 

me, i had ONE shot when i was 18yrs old.  it made me sick as two dogs so i never went back for the second shot.  when i was pregnant with my youngest daughter, nearly 30yrs later, i tested positive for exposure to HepB.  i had forgotten about the vaccination so the hospital was about to go on red alert until public health replied with the record of the shot received.  once that came in, they just advised me to get the second shot any time it was convenient for me to which i politely replied where they could put that shot.

threenorns is offline  
#18 of 19 Old 09-28-2012, 07:32 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Louisw's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: PNW
Posts: 575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmandaT View Post

               " Whooping cough, also known as pertussis, is more dangerous for young babies because they do not get the benefits from vaccination until about four months."

 

Whooping cough is more dangerous today because MANY mothers DO NOT pass whooping cough immunity to their children as they once did. The reason they do not pass immunity to their children is because they were "vaccinated" for Whooping cough. This "vaccination" problem is intergenerational and is sure to grow worse and worse as more and more vaccine damaged mothers have children.

 

NO VACCINATION is an answer.

 

"Whooping Cough Vaccination" is most of the Whooping Cough problem.

Louisw is offline  
#19 of 19 Old 09-28-2012, 07:37 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Louisw's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: PNW
Posts: 575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by threenorns View Post

 

  apparently vaccines are a whole other kettle of fish when you have a fully-functioning immune system so one shot was sufficient.

 

With a good immune system you do not need "vaccinations" IMO.

 

With a poor immune system "vaccines" may severely damage you; Autism IMO.

 

With a VERY weak immune system "vaccinations" may kill you; SIDS IMO.

Louisw is offline  
Reply

Tags
Vaccinations

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off