Would you give your child a cancer preventing vaccine? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-12-2013, 06:17 AM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Currently, a lot of research is being conducted to develop vaccines that prevent cancer in general or some types of cancer (called prophylactic).

http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130606/srep01947/full/srep01947.html#discussion

 

Similarly malaria preventive vaccines are in the works http://www.nih.gov/news/health/aug2013/niaid-08.htm but I thought a cancer vaccine would be of more interest in the U.S.

 

If this vaccine ever comes to be, would you vaccinate your child with it?

 

 

P.S: HPV vaccine prevents this disease which may lead to cervical or throat cancer so I haven't counted it as a cancer preventing vaccine in this thread but that is certainly debatable.

bakunin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-12-2013, 06:21 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,666
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

i believe my kids will be grown adults by the time anything comes of light in the vaccine making business.  And, considering the debacle surrounding the gardisil and cervarix vaccines, it will be a long time before parents are swayed on this new 'cancer' preventing strategy. 

emmy526 is online now  
Old 08-12-2013, 07:32 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)

No. They have no clue what they are doing. 

 

 

"Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with at least two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person."  Dr. W. B. Clarke


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  
Old 08-12-2013, 11:41 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

No way

 

There are far more effective ways at preventing Cancer than thorugh a needle IMO


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 11:41 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

double post

 

ARg everytime I post now it shows up twice - sorry!


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 11:47 AM
 
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 Mirzam View Post

No. They have no clue what they are doing. 

 

 

"Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with at least two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person."  Dr. W. B. Clarke

I agree with Mirzam. Vaccines are not tested for carcinogenicity.  Not even Gardasil.

from http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf:

 

"GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity."  So until they do some long-term, double-blind placebo studies on vaccines and carcinogenicity, it's ridiculous to assume that they don't have the potential to cause cancer. 

Taximom5 is online now  
Old 08-12-2013, 12:21 PM
 
KistheMum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

A cancer preventing vaccine is completely imaginary thing, so sure, I would give my children an imaginary vaccine.

 

It's the only kind of vaccine I'd ever even remotely consider giving them.

KistheMum is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 12:53 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)

What emmy526 said.

 

Would you bakunin?  Would you like your child to be among the first to get it?


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  
Old 08-12-2013, 01:43 PM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)

The problem with vaccines is that they require a person to have a well-functioning immune system in order for the vaccine to be effective at instigating the production of antibodies.

 

Here is my understanding of human physiology and cancer:  We have irregular cells forming all the time in our bodies.  Our immune system usually identifies and influences the removal of irregular cells and growths.  When our immune system cannot keep up with the number of irregular cells, or is not functioning well enough to identify cancerous cells, the irregular cells continue to grow unchecked.  Apparently, the oncogene that shuts off cellular growth is not functioning or disabled so the cells grow without stop.  The unchecked growth of cells is what we call cancer.

 

So, how would a vaccine work within this scenario?  

 

Even if you create a specific vaccine for each variation of cancer cells you would still need a functioning immune system for the vaccine to be effective.  Having cancer in the first place tells me that the immune system is needing some help, not more demands.  One way to understand a vaccine is this:  it's a demand that the immune system wake up and act upon the introduced material (usually a virus or bacterium).  With a tired or overtaxed immune system, the vaccine "demand" may not produce immunity because the immune system just can't respond appropriately.

OrmEmbar is online now  
Old 08-12-2013, 03:45 PM
 
Magali's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Molten Core
Posts: 2,297
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Maybe.


 caffix.gif

Magali is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 09:08 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

About 1 in 2 men will develop cancer in their lifetime and 1 in 4 will die from it. For women the numbers are about 1 in 3 and 1 in 5 respectively.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer

So yeah, I'd give my kid the vaccine if it existed. I doubt the serious side effects can surpass those cancer.org numbers :|

bakunin is offline  
Old 08-12-2013, 09:35 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You couldn't ever vaccinate against cancer generally, so those statistics wouldn't work. You'd have to compare it to a rate of a specific cancer, as it is a very broad category.

I fully believe that environment & occupation & lifestyle are the biggest cancer risk factors, with environment being the largest factor.

People have some power to dramatically alter their relationship with carcinogens. I am not worried about Vaxing for cancer when Joe Homeowner still huffs petrochemicals maintaining his lawn with a fumey mower, spraying RoundUp with no protective equipment, while puffing on a Newport & then comes into a home reeking of Glade Plug Ins & Yankee Candles & kept 'clean' by carcinogens before heading off to his job @ Terminex or a Coal Plant or a Plastics manufacturer, kwim? Not to mention all of the pharmaceuticals with cancer as a LISTED side effect, from Premarin to Oral Contraceptives to immunosuppressants for Psoriasis & RA . . .
dinahx is offline  
Old 08-13-2013, 08:23 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,033
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)

Do you think they'll develop a vaccine to combat the SV-40??

wink1.gif


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Old 08-13-2013, 02:07 PM
 
OrmEmbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 472
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

About 1 in 2 men will develop cancer in their lifetime and 1 in 4 will die from it. For women the numbers are about 1 in 3 and 1 in 5 respectively.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer

So yeah, I'd give my kid the vaccine if it existed. I doubt the serious side effects can surpass those cancer.org numbers :|

Yes, many many of us dance with cancer within our lifetimes and many of us die from it.  I have a very hard time wrapping the huge complexity of cancer into a neat little bundle of statistics as presented above.  Applying a simple remedy of a single vaccine to that neatly wrapped bundle would be awesome, but is so far away from the reality of human cancer physiology that I wouldn't even use that approach even in a futuristic science fiction novel.  Hmmm. . . or maybe I would use it and show how well-meaning researchers and physicians unleashed an unexpected human disaster through their efforts to boost proper immune response to cancer.  Hey!  It could use SV-40 and its implications in there too!    

 

I wish it were that easy.  I really do.  I know many who have danced with cancer - are doing so now - and I personally have had 3 friends die from it.    

 

The reality is that rat studies are fascinating, and sometimes they give enough clues as to how we can replicate the results in a human clinical setting.  But rat physiology is very different than that of a human.  Watching deer and rabbits happily eating poison hemlock gave me the first clue as to the vast divide between animal studies and human in-vivo studies. So, the concept of supporting our immune function through a vaccine based on placental components is interesting, but I am not holding my breath.

OrmEmbar is online now  
Old 08-14-2013, 12:13 AM
 
fayebond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Fringe Central, Oddballstate, USA
Posts: 1,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

No. They have no clue what they are doing. 

 

 

"Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with at least two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person."  Dr. W. B. Clarke

 I agree with you but I totally laughed at this.

 

Cancer is not one of those things I plan to vaccinate or advance amputate for.  Thank you but no thank YOU.

fayebond is online now  
Old 08-14-2013, 12:38 AM
 
LLQ1011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

No way... I saw "I am legend"...
 

LLQ1011 is offline  
Old 08-14-2013, 02:06 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The question does indeed rely on the possibility of a general cancer preventive vaccine, something that at the moment seems very unlikely to be possible (there is some research on this and on preventive vaccines for specific types of vaccines). As the link in post #1 implies, it is not impossible, but much more work is needed.

However, the question about using a cancer vaccine, puts the vaccine debate in a different context: based on a disease which we all recognize as a serious danger in our children lives. The debate about current vaccines deals with many diseases that the vaccines themselves helped dramatically reduce or eliminate. These diseases caused many generations ago the fear that cancer causes on us these days. Now that these diseases have been greatly reduced, society has focused on the side effects of these vaccines, and rightfully so. The problem is when we refuse to acknowledge what the experts say about it, and instead focus on subjective opinion.

 

Anyway, a cancer vaccine would be something I would consider to give my kids. Of course I would look at the research evidence, and based on it, I would consider if the benefits outweigh the risks. I'm not sure if that's the case with the Gardasil vaccine for example. But it would be quite something if a more beneficial than harmful general cancer vaccine would ever come to be. According to the numbers in post 11, at least when it comes to a general cancer preventive vaccine, the chances of harm would need to be very high to not make the vaccine worthwhile

 

For some specific cancers, well breast cancer affects 1 in 9 women in the western world, so a breast cancer vaccine would have to be quite risky to decide against it too

bakunin is offline  
Old 08-14-2013, 04:19 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

However, the question about using a cancer vaccine, puts the vaccine debate in a different context: based on a disease which we all recognize as a serious danger in our children lives. The debate about current vaccines deals with many diseases that the vaccines themselves helped dramatically reduce or eliminate. These diseases caused many generations ago the fear that cancer causes on us these days. 

 

This is very disease dependent.  I doubt something like chicken pox or rubella (unless you were pregnant) in past generations caused the amount of fear cancer causes today.  Something like diphtheria might have - although I do not buy that vaccination is  a key contributor to todays low diphtheria rate in developed nations.  


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  
Old 08-14-2013, 04:58 PM
 
MeepyCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,679
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
If a safe and effective preventive treatment existed for cancer, why would you not use it?
MeepyCat is online now  
Old 08-14-2013, 05:55 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
A preventative & a treatment are two different things. The nature of 'cancer' is not such that it can be treated as one disease. It also thrives in a weakened immune system. Also define safe & effective. Oopherectomy can totally prevent ovarian & partially prevent breast cancer, but there are so many great reasons to keep my ovaries.
dinahx is offline  
Old 08-14-2013, 09:02 PM
 
KistheMum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post

If a safe and effective preventive treatment existed for cancer, why would you not use it?

 

Many of us use safe and effective preventative action every day of the week.  We detox.  We eat organically.  We don't let umbilical cords get cut right away.  We breastfeed.  We use homeopathic medicine.  We don't inject ourselves or our children with toxins that hinder the immune system and cause developmental disorders.

 

My previously recurring cancer hasn't come back in over 8 years, and I have no fear of it ever coming back or having any other kind of cancer.

 

I'd say it's been a lot more effective at both treatment and prevention than anything allopathic medicine ever did for me.

KistheMum is offline  
Old 08-14-2013, 09:36 PM
 
MeepyCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,679
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
I just wonder if people are getting hung up on the word "vaccine" here.

There are a ton of preventative things that we do - just look at how we talk about breastfeeding. We push breast feeding and delayed cord clamping for much smaller benefits then the ones we're talking about in this thought experiment.

So put it another way, what would you do to prevent cancer? Would you take medicine? Would you take a dietary supplement? Would you follow a diet? Would you accept an injection?

This is a hypothetical question, so it seems not that interesting to me - assuming a totally safe miraculously effective shot that reduced the risk of cancer and had no adverse effects, yes, of course. I'd sign up the whole family. (I'm also considering when to have a second mastectomy, so that I don't have to worry as much about recurring cancer, or get more surgery to maintain the reconstruction. Or maybe just so I don't have to finish the reconstruction.) I'd sell it on street corners. No one should have to go through this.

This shot doesn't exist, and is probably impossible. But if it existed? Of course I'd be on board.
MeepyCat is online now  
Old 08-14-2013, 10:35 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,226
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post

I just wonder if people are getting hung up on the word "vaccine" here.

.

Perhaps.  I think they are also getting hung up on cancer.  The idea that any drug could prevent all or most cancers is very much beyond the scope of our understanding of cancer.  

 

Now, is it possible that in my lifetime they will invent a drug that prevents cancer?  Sure, anything is possible.  I will probably not be the first taking it, however.  I am pretty cautious where drugs are concerned.  Might I pay for it?  Yes, I might.  I might wander around at greater risk for cancer because of my reluctance.  OTOH, people who jump on new drug invention also take risks - risks that the drug will not be safe.  We have seen it before with many prescriptions.  

 

In any event, I would look just as reluctantly at a new cancer prevention injestible drug  as I would an injection.  


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  
Old 08-14-2013, 10:48 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Cancer isn't a monolithic disease and there's no one monolithic prevention or treatment for it, so this seems on the order of a hypothetical question not worth considering. The discussion of "curing cancer" drives me bonkers. Every cancer is different. Even two cancer patients with the same type of cancer won't necessarily respond to the same treatment. What the 'race for the cure' really is, is fundraising to discover more possible treatments. 

erigeron is offline  
Old 08-15-2013, 02:56 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

It looks like many cancer have enough in common ... CD47, a protein, found on the surface of cancerous cells that acts as "dont-eat-me" signal to our immune system.  They're developing anti-CD47 antibodies and starting clinical trials soon. 

 

More here:

http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2013/may/cd47.html

http://stemcell.stanford.edu/CD47/

 

 

On a related note ... broad-spectrum anti-viral study:

http://www.ll.mit.edu/news/DRACO.html


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
Old 08-15-2013, 06:45 AM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,560
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post

I just wonder if people are getting hung up on the word "vaccine" here.

There are a ton of preventative things that we do - just look at how we talk about breastfeeding. We push breast feeding and delayed cord clamping for much smaller benefits then the ones we're talking about in this thought experiment.

So put it another way, what would you do to prevent cancer? Would you take medicine? Would you take a dietary supplement? Would you follow a diet? Would you accept an injection?

This is a hypothetical question, so it seems not that interesting to me - assuming a totally safe miraculously effective shot that reduced the risk of cancer and had no adverse effects, yes, of course. I'd sign up the whole family. (I'm also considering when to have a second mastectomy, so that I don't have to worry as much about recurring cancer, or get more surgery to maintain the reconstruction. Or maybe just so I don't have to finish the reconstruction.) I'd sell it on street corners. No one should have to go through this.

This shot doesn't exist, and is probably impossible. But if it existed? Of course I'd be on board.


I think one difference between a lot of the measures you mention, and a cancer-preventing vaccine is that most of those measures are health-promoting (a positive action) whereas the hypothetical vaccine would be cancer-fighting (a negative action), and putting something positive and strengthening into our bodies is a lot more appealing than putting something aggressive into our bodies.  Also, the pharmaceutical industry has earned itself a bit of suspicion.

rachelsmama is offline  
Old 08-15-2013, 07:23 AM
 
MeepyCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,679
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post


I think one difference between a lot of the measures you mention, and a cancer-preventing vaccine is that most of those measures are health-promoting (a positive action) whereas the hypothetical vaccine would be cancer-fighting (a negative action), and putting something positive and strengthening into our bodies is a lot more appealing than putting something aggressive into our bodies.  Also, the pharmaceutical industry has earned itself a bit of suspicion.

 

I have put a lot of aggressive things into my body to fight cancer.  They were not appealing, or particularly safe. (Although I find chemo requires less self-control of me then sticking to a diet does, which makes it "easier" in some subjective sense.)  If I could spare my kids the experience of cancer by simply imposing on their self-control to sit still for one shot, I would absolutely do it.

 

I agree that the pharmaceutical industry has earned some suspicion, but since the shot we're talking about is imaginary, I'm free to imagine that it's perfect.

 

I think the line you draw between "positive and strengthening" and "aggressive" is interesting, but I personally find that line very fuzzy.  When I get a cold and take vitamin C to help my body fight it, that's both positive and strengthening, AND aggressive (I'm supporting my body in fighting a virus).  When I get a vaccine, I'm teaching my immune system to fight a disease.  When I talk about making my body stronger, I am often considering increasing my aggressive capabilities, at either a micro or a macro level. 

MeepyCat is online now  
Old 08-15-2013, 08:04 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My philosophy around Vax & medicine in general centers on the idea that there has never & will never be an man made intervention that is 'perfect'. Yk, the flawed products of man.

I think the idea of vaccine as teacher is very whimsical. Really I prefer to think of vaccine as possibly immune system triggering injection.
dinahx is offline  
Old 08-15-2013, 08:38 AM
 
MeepyCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,679
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
That is kind of the point of vaccines, no? To trigger the immune system?

We all use metaphors to talk about the immune system. I guess the teaching metaphor is more whimsical than the gun metaphor, but I'm okay with that.
MeepyCat is online now  
Old 08-15-2013, 09:28 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post

That is kind of the point of vaccines, no? To trigger the immune system?

We all use metaphors to talk about the immune system. I guess the teaching metaphor is more whimsical than the gun metaphor, but I'm okay with that.

Considering vaccines act as immune system cluster bombs, you could say it 'triggers' the immune system (to go haywire), I don't know of any cluster bomb that teaches though.

 

http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/vaccines-as-%E2%80%98cluster-bombs%E2%80%99/

 

http://www.beyondconformity.org.nz/hilarys-desk/can_vaccines_become_cranial_and_immunological_cluster_bombs


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  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


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