Lethal Injection: The Story of Vaccination

Storyline

Lethal Injection: The Story of VaccinationFrom the author: The definitive look into the history of vaccination. From cancer, to autism, to the purposeful sterilization of innocent people around the globe, find out why all of these things are perfectly legal according to U.S. CODE - why the government considers you no different than cattle in their own law.

When I started this project almost three years ago I, like so many researchers before me, got pulled into the same old quotes and statistics surrounding the history of vaccines and of vaccination.

And while these are important factors to consider regarding the vaccine industry, the true nature of the term vaccination is now completely and utterly foreign to what my previous misconception of that word was.

Before we can begin to comprehend just what the word vaccination really means we must first break down into simple terms what the purpose of a vaccine is.

1.5k
4.81
12345678910
Ratings: 4.81/10from 109 users.

More great documentaries

303 Comments / User Reviews

Leave a Reply to anonomyssy Cancel reply

  1. Vaccines are a means of depopulation. wanted you Bill Gates...

  2. So I've read through a good portion of the comments and wonder if any one has read the MSD (material safety data sheets) on these vaccines? I did on a few of them and was surprised by the frankness of the info provided. Lots of talk about "facts" vs "opinions" in the comments on this issue. MSD sheets which are easily found don't lie ( by the way the come from the vaccine manufacturers and the FDA) and are required for all drugs/chemicals. Perhaps a fair question to ask is after reading the MSD info is "would I put this in my body or that if my child? From reading "their info" seems like pretty nasty stuff to put in your system. Just wondering about folks thoughts on the info in MSD sheets. These sheets are not opinions but facts. Let's also not forget that humans are bio-entities that bio-accumulate stuff around us and what we put in us. Read MSD sheets gather real facts then decide let logic, reason and truth lead the way. Your conscience will give you the peace needed on this issue.

  3. Like others, I tried watching this drivel but didn't make it very far past the 'antibody' rant. It seems like every sentence was either wrong or irrelevant to the argument that the author is ostensibly trying to make.
    "What would happen if you replaced the 'horse' with the word 'human' ?" That's it for me, I'm tapping out of this one.

  4. It's astonishing how many dumb people watched this video and what they wrote in their reviews. I have seen many videos on the subject. This video gives the most detailed information. It's brilliant. Dumbing us down is our modern life dilemma. Those who are born enlightened, will find their beautiful way of life. Those who are meant to exist in darkness, will live their dark way of ignorance and unintelligence. They don't know any better. They need to get immunized and to suffer. This is their phase of life of evolution of the soul (on a spiritual level).

  5. FFS people who believe this nonsense are why the aliens wont talk to us

  6. Oh ffs! Don't waste your time with this claptrap ... unless you really feel sorry for Michele Bachmann and are trying on empathy for size. Tis all in the suit that you wear I suppose.

  7. The irony. Those who are in favor of abortion were born.

    1. and those in favour of banning it usually aren't pregnant...what's your point?

    2. and for you to criticize were born

    3. is that meant to be deep or something? because it sounds dumb. it doesn't even mean anything...those words in that order do not make grammatical sense

    4. If someone disagree, is because you are against having a child is your womb. No need to get pregnant in the first place then.

    5. No need to suffer because crap happens either. If one is raped, for example, yeah, there was no need for the dude to rape, but there is no need for the victim to live with that reminder either. And if a condom breaks, or pregnancy happens by mistake? The statement "no need to get pregnant in the first place", makes absolutely no sense to me, because it can indeed happen simply by accident.

    6. There are no accidents. Didn't you watch Kung Fu Panda?

      Just because someone uses something to keep from getting pregnant, doesn't negate the fact that they were partaking in a pro-creation activity. If they choose to have sex, then they are also choosing to rely on whatever is used to keep from getting pregnant. So if whatever they are using doesn't stop a pregnancy, then that's not an accident. It is a calculated risk. And by taking that risk, you accepted the responsibility if that risk played out.

  8. Go to about 12:25-12:30 in the "documentary", where he says he's looking up patents filed for vaccines/drugs to sterilize humans. Pause it while he's scrolling through the list and see what the abstracts actually say.

    He searched "human sterilization" and went through articles about making human drugs/vaccines using a sterile process, sterile solution, sterile equipment, etc., nothing about actually making any humans infertile.

    However, he states that the search results are "hundreds and hundreds of shocking US Government patents" implying that the US Gov't has already made hundreds of methods of making humans infertile.

    This dishonesty and deceit continues for the next 2 hours of the "documentary", so I would advise people not to take anything in this seriously, and if you have better things to do, don't even waste your time watching it.

    1. Idon"t take vaccines and i have not gotten anything even during the supposedly spread of tubercolosis iam oding well i take vitamins , d3, milk thistle, probiotics, fish oil etc.Just take natural vit"s and stuff to build and keep a healthy immune system.

  9. The documentarian probably also believes that tha Earth is only six thousand years old. He ought to find a skyscraper and throw himself off the top ... but at way less than 'free fall' speed. I'd suggest he uses a parachute: unlike conspiracy theories, they actually work.

  10. Read this.......

    1. Read what?

    2. No, not 'what', 'this'!

  11. Wow the author of this documentary just all around sucks at life. He can't even convince simple minded people of his point using a very slow and easy to understand vernacular. Thank you very much TDF for putting this into the "Conspiracy" category, because that's exactly what it is.

  12. "Nothing is so firmly believed as that of which we know least."—Montaigne.
    and then there's vaccinations...
    "The 'victory over epidemics' was not won by medical science or by doctors--and certainly not by vaccines.....the decline...has been the result of technical, social and hygienic improvements and especially of improved nutrition.Consider carefully whether you want to let yourself or your children undergo the dangerous, controversial, ineffective and no longer necessary procedure called vaccination, because the claim that vaccinations are the cause for the decline of infectious diseases is utter nonsense."--The Vaccination Nonsense (2004 Lectures)---Dr. med. G.Buchwald ISBN 3-8334-2508-3 page 108.

    Vaccinations are all about making money and culling the herds...In the last 20 years, over 145,000 children have died from an adverse reaction to vaccinations. In India, Bill Gates, an Eugenist which he doesn't deny...has paralyzed over 50 thousand children with their polio vaccination, just recently. In Africa, the mothers grab their children and hide from the "white coats", because they know it means either death or horrible reactions to the unproven, full of toxin, injections of garbage. In CA, 97% of the children vaccinated for whooping cough, ended up whooping cough. What's up with that? Did unvaccinated children give them whooping cough? How can that be? Didn't the vaccination protect them from whooping cough?

    Why would Medical doctors reject vaccinations? It is a well kept secret that medical doctors have been the greatest vaccination critics, there were 14 medical people on the board of the The National Anti-Vaccination League in 1936, and after a 100 years or so of smallpox vaccination, why, and this is one vaccinators can't answer, did a notable scientist of his day, Wallace, and many notable medical doctors Pearce, Collins, Creighton, Crookshank, Hadwen, Beddow Bayly, turn against their profession's holy creed, and become anti-vaccine? Perhaps they liked being persecuted, they tried to silence Hadwen by charging him with manslaughter. [See: Rex versus Hadwen manslaughter charge]. Ask yourself why someone, (eg Dr Mendelsohn), who was raised on vaccination would become a critic or opponent of vaccination?

    "Historically, doctors who have dared to change things significantly have been ostracized and have had to sacrifice their careers in order to hold to their ideas. Few doctors are willing to do either."--Robert Mendelsohn, MD (Confessions p 129)

    "Nearly 90% of the total decline in the death rate in children between 1860 and 1965 due to whooping cough, scarlet fever, diphtheria and measles occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization against diphtheria" (Powles, 1973)."---Second Thought About Disease by Drs Kalokerinos & Dettman 1977.

    "I've been practicing for 40 years, and in the past 10 years the children have been sicker than ever."--Dr Doris J.Rapp, pediatric allergist.

    "Since people cannot be vaccinated against their will, the biggest job of a health department is always to persuade the unprotected people to get vaccinated. This we attempted to do in three ways, education, fear, and pressure. We dislike very much to mention fear and pressure, yet they accomplish more than education because they work faster than education, which is normally a slow process. During the months of March and April, we tried education and vaccinated only 62,000. During May we made use of fear and pressure and vaccinated 223,000 people."----.Dr John Keller

    The vaccines aren't safe unless you stretch the definition of "safe" to include death, numerous diseases, and serious brain damage!

    "There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunization of children does more harm than good."---Dr. J. Anthony Morris, former Chief Vaccine Control Officer and research virologist, US FDA

    "There have never been any safety studies done for any vaccine in use today that would meet the criteria of scientific proof. All we have are epidemiologic studies, which are indicators but not proof in and ofthemselves."--- [Oct 2004] Letter to the British Medical Journal by Harold E Buttram, MD

    There is plenty of evidence, science and doctors who will tell you that vaccinations are bogus, harmful and unnecessary. I guess, it's a way to weed out the not so bright, seeing how they can't figure out how dangerous they are, especially in this world of info on our computers.

    I would assume, that these same people who advocate for vaccinations, also embrace the other toxic protocols, from chemo to fluoride to mammograms. What a great way to thin out the herd.

    You can go on believing these pharmaceutical companies and the medical mafia or actually do your own research...

    "Today we have a system in which vaccine production by the pharmaceutical companies is largely self-regulated. Of course these companies are interested in profits from their products which, in itself, is not wrong. However, when arbitrary decisions in the mandating of vaccines are made by the government bureaucracies, which are highly partisan to the pharmaceuticals, with no recourse open to parents, we have all the potential ingredients for a tragedy of historical proportions."--Harold Buttram MD

    "Did you know that the research information contained in the Physicians' Desk Reference the pharmaceutical bible used by M.D.s is supplied by the drug manufacturers themselves? Did you know that the FDA approves drugs not by actually doing the testing, but simply by reviewing studies submitted by the drug manufacturers? Did you know that a drug manufacturer needs to submit only two studies showing satisfactory results to get a drug approved by the FDA even if there are even more studies showing the drug causes adverse reactions in an unacceptably high number of cases?
    Did you know that most of the articles discussing the efficacy of drugs that are published in medical journals are studies paid for by the drug manufacturer? And that often, as the New York Times reported last summer, the academic scientists listed as lead authors are often just "window dressing", to lend credibility to papers that are really the work of drug companies. The academic scientists' main role in such studies is to recruit patients and administer experimental treatments. The scientists or their universities are paid for this work."
    And did you know that a study conducted by USA Today found that more than half of the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine had a direct financial interest in the drug or topic were asked to evaluate?

    At least 50 books have been written fairly recently that take apart vaccination (or one vaccine such as anthrax vaccine, TB vaccine, Diptheria vaccine, Swine flu vaccine, DPT vaccine, Polio vaccine,Hep B vaccine, or a vaccine ingredient such as mercury ) many written by medical doctors.

    Hey, the way I see it, if you want to shoot up yourself with aborted fetal cells, mercury, formaldehyde, insect DNA, and who knows what else they shoot into your body, then by all means, go at it, but wait until they start making them mandatory...because these sociopaths who run things, know they have to vaccinate, in order to cull the herd, dumb them down, and create a sick culture.

    The US as a whole, has never been sicker then now...allopathic conventional medicine is one of the main reasons for our decline...and vaccinations help guarantee the results.

  13. Hmmm very strange, I left a few comments on this documentary last night and now they do not show up. I wonder why that is? Has any one else had this problem?

    1. dekay49

      i see your comments i guess the problem is on your end. where there more than the four (five including this one i am replying to) ?

  14. This following list of common vaccines and their ingredients
    should shock anyone.

    The numbers of microbes, antibiotics, chemicals, heavy metals
    and animal byproducts is staggering. Would you knowingly inject these materials
    into your children?

    Acel-Immune DTaP - Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Wyeth-Ayerst
    800.934.5556
    * diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis
    adsorbed, formaldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, thimerosal, and
    polysorbate 80 (Tween-80) gelatin Act HIB

    Haemophilus - Influenza B Connaught Laboratories
    800.822.2463
    * Haemophilus influenza Type B, polyribosylribitol phosphate
    ammonium sulfate, formalin, and sucrose

    Attenuvax - Measles Merck & Co., Inc. 800-672-6372
    * measles live virus neomycin sorbitol hydrolized gelatin,
    chick embryo

    Biavax - Rubella Merck & Co., Inc. 800-672-6372
    * rubella live virus neomycin sorbitol hydrolized gelatin,
    human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue

    BioThrax - Anthrax Adsorbed BioPort Corporation
    517.327.1500
    * nonencapsulated strain of Bacillus anthracis aluminum
    hydroxide, benzethonium chloride, and formaldehyde

    DPT - Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis GlaxoSmithKline
    800.366.8900 x5231
    * diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis
    adsorbed, formaldehyde, aluminum phosphate, ammonium sulfate, and thimerosal,
    washed sheep RBCs

    Dryvax - Smallpox (not licensed d/t expiration) Wyeth-Ayerst
    800.934.5556
    * live vaccinia virus, with "some microbial contaminants,"
    according to the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense polymyxcin B sulfate,
    streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfate
    glycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by distillation of coal tar vesicle
    fluid from calf skins Engerix-B

    Recombinant Hepatitis B GlaxoSmithKline 800.366.8900
    x5231
    * genetic sequence of the hepatitis B virus that codes for the
    surface antigen (HbSAg), cloned into GMO yeast, aluminum hydroxide, and
    thimerosal

    Fluvirin Medeva Pharmaceuticals 888.MEDEVA 716.274.5300

    * influenza virus, neomycin, polymyxin, beta-propiolactone,
    chick embryonic fluid

    FluShield Wyeth-Ayerst 800.934.5556
    * trivalent influenza virus, types A&B gentamicin sulphate
    formadehyde, thimerosal, and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80) chick embryonic
    fluid

    Havrix - Hepatitis A GlaxoSmithKline 800.366.8900 x5231

    * hepatitis A virus, formalin, aluminum hydroxide,
    2-phenoxyethanol, and polysorbate 20 residual MRC5 proteins -human diploid cells
    from aborted fetal tissue

    HiB Titer - Haemophilus Influenza B Wyeth-Ayerst
    800.934.5556
    * haemophilus influenza B, polyribosylribitol phosphate,
    yeast, ammonium sulfate, thimerosal, and chemically defined yeast-based
    medium

    Imovax Connaught Laboratories 800.822.2463
    * rabies virus adsorbed, neomycin sulfate, phenol, red
    indicator human albumin, human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue

    IPOL Connaught Laboratories 800.822.2463
    * 3 types of polio viruses neomycin, streptomycin, and
    polymyxin B formaldehyde, and 2-phenoxyethenol continuous line of monkey kidney
    cells

    JE-VAX - Japanese Ancephalitis Aventis Pasteur USA
    800.VACCINE
    * Nakayama-NIH strain of Japanese encephalitis virus,
    inactivated formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (Tween-80), and thimerosal mouse serum
    proteins, and gelatin

    LYMErix - Lyme GlaxoSmithKline 888-825-5249
    * recombinant protein (OspA) from the outer surface of the
    spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi kanamycin aluminum hydroxide, 2-phenoxyethenol,
    phosphate buffered saline

    MMR - Measles-Mumps-Rubella Merck & Co., Inc.
    800.672.6372
    * measles, mumps, rubella live virus, neomycin sorbitol,
    hydrolized gelatin, chick embryonic fluid, and human diploid cells from aborted
    fetal tissue

    M-R-Vax - Measles-Rubella Merck & Co., Inc.
    800.672.6372
    * measles, rubella live virus neomycin sorbitol hydrolized
    gelatin, chick embryonic fluid, and human diploid cells from aborted fetal
    tissue

    Menomune - Meningococcal Connaught Laboratories
    800.822.2463
    * freeze-dried polysaccharide antigens from Neisseria
    meningitidis bacteria, thimerosal, and lactose

    Meruvax I - Mumps Merck & Co., Inc. 800.672.6372
    * mumps live virus neomycin sorbitol hydrolized gelatin

    NYVAC - (new smallpox batch, not licensed) Aventis Pasteur USA
    800.VACCINE
    * highly-attenuated vaccinia virus, polymyxcin B, sulfate,
    streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfate
    glycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by distillation of coal tar vesicle
    fluid from calf skins

    Orimune - Oral Polio Wyeth-Ayerst 800.934.5556
    * 3 types of polio viruses, attenuated neomycin, streptomycin
    sorbitol monkey kidney cells and calf serum

    Pneumovax - Streptococcus Pneumoniae Merck & Co., Inc.
    800.672.6372
    * capsular polysaccharides from polyvalent (23 types),
    pneumococcal bacteria, phenol,

    Prevnar Pneumococcal - 7-Valent Conjugate Vaccine Wyeth
    Lederle 800.934.5556
    * saccharides from capsular Streptococcus pneumoniae antigens
    (7 serotypes) individually conjugated to diphtheria CRM 197 protein aluminum
    phosphate, ammonium sulfate, soy protein, yeast

    RabAvert - Rabies Chiron Behring GmbH & Company
    510.655.8729
    * fixed-virus strain, Flury LEP neomycin, chlortetracycline,
    and amphotericin B, potassium glutamate, and sucrose human albumin, bovine
    gelatin and serum "from source countries known to be free of bovine spongioform
    encephalopathy," and chicken protein

    Rabies Vaccine Adsorbed GlaxoSmithKline 800.366.8900
    x5231
    *rabies virus adsorbed, beta-propiolactone, aluminum
    phosphate, thimerosal, and phenol, red rhesus monkey fetal lung cells

    Recombivax - Recombinant Hepatitis B Merck & Co., Inc.
    800.672.6372
    * genetic sequence of the hepatitis B virus that codes for the
    surface antigen (HbSAg), cloned into GMO yeast, aluminum hydroxide, and
    thimerosal

    RotaShield - Oral Tetravalent Rotavirus (recalled)
    Wyeth-Ayerst 800.934.5556
    * 1 rhesus monkey rotavirus, 3 rhesus-human reassortant live
    viruses neomycin sulfate, amphotericin B potassium monophosphate, potassium
    diphosphate, sucrose, and monosodium glutamate (MSG) rhesus monkey fetal diploid
    cells, and bovine fetal serum smallpox (not licensed due to expiration)

    40-yr old stuff "found" in Swiftwater, PA freezer Aventis
    Pasteur USA 800.VACCINE
    * live vaccinia virus, with "some microbial contaminants,"
    according to the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense polymyxcin B sulfate,
    streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfate
    glycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by distillation of coal tar vesicle
    fluid from calf skins

    Smallpox (new, not licensed) Acambis, Inc. 617.494.1339 in
    partnership with Baxter BioScience
    * highly-attenuated vaccinia virus, polymyxcin B sulfate,
    streptomycin sulfate, chlortetracycline hydrochloride, and neomycin sulfate
    glycerin, and phenol -a compound obtained by distillation of coal tar vesicle
    fluid from calf skins

    TheraCys BCG (intravesicle -not licensed in US for
    tuberculosis) Aventis Pasteur USA 800.VACCINE
    * live attenuated strain of Mycobacterium bovis monosodium
    glutamate (MSG), and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80)

    Tripedia - Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Aventis Pasteur USA
    800.VACCINE
    *Corynebacterium diphtheriae and Clostridium tetani toxoids
    and acellular Bordetella pertussis adsorbed aluminum potassium sulfate,
    formaldehyde, thimerosal, and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80) gelatin, bovine
    extract

    US-sourced Typhim Vi - Typhoid Aventis Pasteur USA SA
    800.VACCINE
    * cell surface Vi polysaccharide from Salmonella typhi Ty2
    strain, aspartame, phenol, and polydimethylsiloxane (silicone)

    Varivax - Chickenpox Merck & Co., Inc. 800.672.6372

    * varicella live virus neomycin phosphate, sucrose, and
    monosodium glutamate (MSG) processed gelatin, fetal bovine serum, guinea pig
    embryo cells, albumin from human blood, and human diploid cells from aborted
    fetal tissue

    YF-VAX - Yellow Fever Aventis Pasteur USA 800.VACCINE
    * 17D strain of yellow fever virus sorbitol chick embryo, and
    gelatin

    1. I wonder where you copied all this from. Once again, what is your medical and chemical background? In other words, what makes you think that you are qualified to assess the efficacy of these ingredients?

  15. To all of you who believe the garbage that your governments are feeding you, and believe that vaccinations are a good thing, I invite you to do the following: inject an apple with these ingredients and feed it to your child. Keep in mind that this is only a partial list, there are many other ingredients
    in vaccines. Bovine cow serum: Extracted from cow skin. When injected causes connective tissue disorders, arthritis and lupus; also shortness of breath, low blood pressure, chest pain and skin reactions. Sorbitol: Synthetic sweetener which metabolizes very slowly and aggravates IBS and gastrointestinal issues. Gelatin: Derived from the collagen inside animals' skin and bones. Injecting gelatin poses the risk of infection from synthetic growth hormones and BSE infectivity (mad cow disease). Sodium chloride: Raises blood pressure and inhibits muscle contraction and growth. Egg protein: Vaccines are prepared in eggs (certainly not organic). May contain growth hormones, antibiotics, and salmonella bacteria. Thimerosal: A neurotoxic mercury which causes autism: There are 25 mcg in one average flu vaccine, and the EPA safety limit is 5 micrograms, so children who are vaccinated simultaneously with multiple* vaccines receive over 10 times the safety limit of mercury in one day. Human albumin: The protein portion of blood from pooled human venous plasma; when injected causes fever, chills, hives, rash, headache, nausea, breathing difficulty, and rapid heart rate. Injecting "pooled blood" can result in a loss of body cell mass and cause immunodeficiency virus infection, or contain SV40, AIDS, cancer or Hepatitis B from drug addicts. Formaldehyde: Highly carcinogenic fluid used to embalm corpses. Ranked one of the most hazardous compounds to human health; can cause liver damage, gastrointestinal issues, reproductive deformation, respiratory distress and cancer. Plus, formaldehyde has been known to fail to deactivate the virus the vaccine is intended to cure, thus enabling a live virus to enter your blood and infect your system. Phenoxyethanol: A glycol ether/chemical; highly toxic to the nervous system, kidneys, and liver. The FDA warns "can cause shut down of the central nervous system (CNS), vomiting and contact dermatitis" in cosmetics; imagine when injected into your blood. Aluminum phosphate: Greatly increases toxicity of mercury, so caution about minimum mercury tolerance is therefore severely underestimated. CDC scientists and all doctors are well aware of this. MSG (monosodium glutamate): When injected becomes a neurotoxin, causing CNS disorders and brain damage in children. MMMM sounds so yummy and healthy doesn't it? Heck after your kid eats that apple you might want to go get them vaccinated.

    1. Vaccinations are a good thing and the statistics prove it. Such a silly post (who would ever concoct a vaccine composed of all these ingredients) necessitates an inquiry into your medical background.

    2. Enjoy your slumber. Bill Gates would love you, he wants to use vaccines as a means of depopulating the planet. Nice guy huh? Oh I almost forgot, statistics prove nothing other than someone has skewed their report to reflect whatever it is they are trying to convince you of.

    3. Just as I thought, you have no medical qualifications so you respond with a groundless and irrelevant accusation against Bill Gates.

    4. Bill Gates wants to use vaccines to depopulate the earth?!! Yeah right, because all evil doers tell the entire world what their plan is.

      Do you have any idea just how ridiculous that statement is? Of course I do know the genesis of it. Bill Gates made the statment that if they really do a good job of getting everyone vaccinated in poorer nations it would also lower the population do to mothers not having 12 children hoping 4 or 5 will survive. Because in poor countries where children aren't vaccinated against diseases they die from them. I'm paraphrasing it. But the anti-vaxers took this comment and twisted it into him saying he wants to depopulate the planet.

      Bill Gates has done more for mankind than people like you could ever imagine. He puts his money where his mouth is, all 36,000,000,000 billion of it. And just to be clear that's BILLION not million.

    5. Maybe he thinks superhero cartoons for eight year olds are documentaries about how things work?
      How the bad guys plan always gets explained.

    6. For one thing, people in poorer countries aren't using that much CO2, so how could they even be included in the average user. Bill Gates himself isnt an average user. Cant imagine how much energy one of his many homes produce of CO2. If he was really worried about CO2, try living a more moderate lifestyle. Another thing how do vaccines lower the population if they save lives(not)? If Bill Gates truely cared for those poorer countries, why not help them with clean water, means to grow their own food, instead of spending BILLIONS on injecting them with poisons and live viruses. Majority of individuals that get these diseases are the vaccinated ones. Just because someone is vaccinated and just so happen to never get any of these deceases isnt proof that they work. There are plenty of non-vaccinated individuals that also never get these deceases. Just continue getting your facts from the mass media machine, because we all know theyre want whats best for us, as does the FDA...

    7. I know these comments are old and I'm hoping that Robertallen1 has awakened since 2013. Having said that,proof that Bill Gates is a eugenecist... straight from the horse's mouth.

  16. unless you have really done any study relating to vaccines and their many forms and contents then all you can really express here is opinions. The fact that my attempted studies on this subject is met with closed mouths and classified files speaks volumes. Truth loves light and lies must hide in the dark places where nobody can see.

    1. You've said absolutely nothing. So how about specifics?

  17. What a load of tinfoil-hat bulls*it. Vaccines have saved millions of lives that would otherwise have been lost to childhood diseases.

  18. 7 minutes of faulty semantics and my intelligence antibodies kicked in.

  19. OMG, I see this is over 2 hours long...I could have read the USGS thing on horses in half the time this dude is highlighting and reading it to meeeee!!! TORTURE...I want to hear what you are saying...step it up already, I have stuff to do! Don't take hours to do what you can do in minutes... You are losing me. 20 minutes in and you are just reading to me...can't go on any more.

  20. You are a wise man! Thank you for your work. Not only vaccines are covered with corporate lies and are made for profit, population control for progress of death culture, but you will find energy suppression even worse. Our modern civilization is based on available energy. Study Nikola Tesla works and you will find options for heaven on Earth (more than 100 years old inventions).

    I just wanted to say - you will never be alone.

    And for all the others who are opposed to the truth about vaccination - WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? YOU ARE ALL VACCINATED!

  21. Thank you, for this educational video it was needed. If you offered this on DVD I would pay any price this information needs to be out in the open. I refuse to get vaccinationed when martial law is declared in the States & they come into my house to take me & my family to the nearest FEMA CAMP I will lose my life that day. Thanks for this info. We must get the word out.

    1. So not only do you refuse to get vaccinated, but you're going to stand in the way of your family getting vaccinated as well. You are not only ignorant but the lowest of the low.

    2. It is easier to be fooled, then it is to convince someone they have been fooled.

    3. Without evidence, this is no more than a smoke screen and makes you even more despicable.

    4. OMG I just clicked on your profile.

      I guess you took all your vaccines :)

    5. Yes, I did. Whatever the doctor prescribed--and that's makes me a lot smarter than those who didn't.

    6. that is so funny...

    7. That makes you a sheeple!

    8. are you fooling?

    9. I'm sorry, but you need to relax. They are not coming to take you and your family to a FEMA camp. Please don't live in fear.

    10. The last time someone sent me a email on my comment "they called me stupid & ignorant" your very kind. But I'm having a problem with this topic. Do FEMA Camps exist? Our freedoms are being dismantled checkpoints. Peaceful protesters are being beat. Why do sheeple believe that one day Martial Law will be in effect. If people aren't prepared it will be hell. It took me some time to read THEIR AGENDA.
      Every second your thinking about someone's dreams your taking seconds from your own!

    11. I'm different then most people I'm able to see the forest & everything inside of it that most people can't see. After hearing about these camps I googled maps & there it was. Train railroads platform behind trees where you would never go. About 2:00am I heard a voice tell me to wake up & go online & type in the DEPOPULATION AGENDA I've never heard of the word depopulation but that morning it was an eye opener for me. I've went so far down this rabbit hole & seining people who look like us but aren't from here. The universe has life oh yes more than one.
      Every second your thinking about someone's dreams your taking seconds from your own!

    12. So you hear voices. You need to have this checked out.

    13. I need to have what checked out?

      Every second your thinking about someone's dreams your taking seconds from your own!

  22. if we need to reduce the population, then NOT vaccinating would be the way to do it...

  23. @people who keep writing me... please stop. I said I Stopped vaccinating my children, i did not specify what age, nor what ones they already had. none of your business. but I feel the need to say, they were both vaxd up to K (that was 22 injections of 4 viruses each. Enough is enough.

    1. If you didn't want to be responded to, you shouldn't have posted.

      At least your children are vaccinated--and that's what's important. Bear in mind, that unless you have a medical background, you do not know more than your doctor.

  24. Thank you for this documentary it only firmed up even more my decision to stop immunizations on my children after watching my son have a horrible but thank God not permanent reaction.... from being given one I did not give permission to. I cannot believe they are using aborted fetuses... that makes me sick to my stomach

    1. Unless you were instructed by your doctor to discontinue immunizations for your child , you've made a stupid decision.

    2. You might seriously want to revise that decision for several vaccines especially tetanus which doesn't benefit from herd immunization and is easily contracted from rather minor wounds. It's fairly easy for a kid to have a wound contaminated with soil and the symptoms are extremely painful and can lead to death.

    3. I completely disagree. I would recommend the following:

      You should first ask your doctor for short and long term studies on negative effects of the vaccine. You should then multiply that risk by the number of injections you'll need to stay imunized.

      You should then compare that risk to the risk of getting tetanus, for your country, for unvaccinated people.

      You should then compare both risks and make a decision based on critical thinking and not fear.

      If there are no long term studies or no high quality data to make long term studies, then you should try to evaluate this (i.e. try to attach a risk factor to this lack of knowledge).

    4. So you're saying that every time a vaccine is prescribed, you should conduct an in-depth statistical analysis on it. How idiotic! As if you have the qualifications, not to mention the time, to make an accurate assessment. If you don't do what the doctor who knows far more than you about vaccines tells you to do, why go to the doctor in the first place?

    5. Multiplying the risk by the numbers of shots is ludicrous. The risk remains the same for each shot. The risk studies are made for the whole course of the vaccine, not each individual injection. Actually, it's pretty clear the risk decreases for short term negative effects if you don't have any effect for the first shot.

      Long term studies are almost impossible to realize so I have no idea how you would come up with a risk factor attached to the lack of long term studies. How do you attribute a risk factor to something unknown? You invent some possible consequence then come up with imaginary numbers of negative effects then calculate a risk factor???

    6. This backs up what I've been saying: that for statistics and the mathematics behind them to be accurate and effective, you have to know what you're dealing with.

    7. If you weigh up the risks for unvaccinated people you are essentially relying on the fact that others around you are vaccinated. You are still protecting yourself with that vaccine. If everyone did the same as that, eventually you would reach a tipping point. With fewer people giving their children the MMR jags for example, the risk to children without it increases and so will the need for it. The risk also increases for those that can't (for medical reasons) get the vaccines themselves. By doing what you think is best for you and yours, you might be putting others in harms way. There is a fourteen year old boy at my daughters school who has cancer (fairly sure it's a form of leukaemia) and cannot attend because there are so many other kids there whose parents chose not to vaccinate.

    8. We're talking about tetanus, of which there is no "herd immunity" (tetanus is in the environment, it's not caught from other people).

      For other vaccines, second order risks of infecting people with copromised immune systems would be part of the risk analysis. Though, since there are relatively few people in this situation, it's unlikely that it would be worth putting millions of people at risk to protect a few people. Also, we know there are carcinogens in vaccines, so if these carcinogens are contributing to more cancer, it seems like a vicious circle if the reason to take the vaccines is to help people with cancer.

      So this often toted argument is meaningless. It may provide motivation to get vaccines and so increase profits, but doesn't somehow replace a long-term risk-benefit assessment of the vaccine.

    9. "Also, we know there are carcinogens in vaccines . . . " Where is your peer-reviewed article supporting this?

    10. @ Erjewi : Also, if you can prove there are carcinogens in vaccines, let us know what the concentrations are and please demonstrate how the concentrations present increase the risk of cancer and which cancers are most likely to get triggered by them. You can't throw in "WE KNOW" without demonstrating it scientifically. If you can't, I suggest you edit your post and replace "WE KNOW" for "I BELIEVE".

    11. I believe you meant to respond to Erjewi. Is this correct?

    12. Kind off, I wanted to ad my request to your "Where is your peer-reviewed article supporting this?" request. It takes a while for a post to get sorted correctly, for a little while new posts show up on top.

    13. For those of us who do not vaccinate nor poison our children with them either, we are not relying on other people's vaccines...we are relying on our uncontaminated immune systems. Herd immunity is something that only comes from natural immunity; not from vaccinating, which we are seeing more am more from the outbreak of diseases among the vaccinated populations/ Cancer kids can NOT be around children who HAVE been recently vaccinated; they can not even be around their siblings who have been vaccinated. I know, by 12 year old daughter was a cancer victim. That is when I started this long journey of the falsehood of vaccinations...

    14. There is a fine article on herd immunity in Wikipedia which, considering the ignorance of your statement, I suggest that you read. Also, on what do you base your statement that cancer kids cannot be around children who have been vaccinated? And while we're at it, what are your medical credentials?

    15. Vaccines do not contain aborted fetuses. That is a myth spread by the anti-vax crowd.

    16. "The fact that certain vaccines are grown in cell strains derived decades ago from an aborted fetus is a concern for some. To understand such concerns, a standardized search identified internet sites discussing vaccines and abortion. Ethical concerns raised include autonomy, conscience, coherence, and immoral material complicity. Two strategies to analyse moral complicity show that vaccination is ethical: the abortions were past events separated in time, agency, and purpose from vaccine production."
      source: Science Direct

      Nowhere does she say it contains aborted fetuses.
      1i

  25. @over the edge
    I don't see where I require reasonable evidence for some things and unreasonable evidence for others.

    What I say is that there are medical advances or changes (i.e. what the medical community sees as advances), so any statistical study on vaccines has to try to take these changes into account. A study on the impact of hand-washing would equally have to try to take vaccines into account. However, in the case of hand-washing there's not only statistical evidence but direct experimentation and a clear mechanism (the bacteria on the hands can be observed to die in experimentation). In terms of the negative affects of hand-washing, they do exist (in a comment below I bring up the risks of being "too" clean).

  26. A great documentary!

  27. Havnt watched the doc. I believe there could be a link between vaccines and immune system problems. We have more kids now a days who have compromised immune systems due to bad diets, toxicity, antibiotics, etc. Giving a kid with a normal immune system a vaccine works fine and produces a predictable result. Giving someone whos immune system is already compromised can tip the balance and cause problems like excma asthma and allergies to occur or inflame.

    I really do believe the health of the general population is slipping. Maybe its just our supression of natural selection, prolonging weaklings who should be dead. I know because I feel like one of them, my whole life I have a cloud following me around, just causing me all sorts of problems like allergies, excma, asthma, depression, fatigue, and the list of problems is just growing longer and Im starting to slip, what makes it worse is I feel like im ignored. I sometimes think I would rather have a brain tumor or something tangible that would show up on a scan, such is my frustration. The psuedo scientists are the only people that actually take me seriously it feels like, but all the measures I have tried to get healthy have failed. But that could just mean I havnt encountered the right "pseudo scientist" because everyones got their own unique set of problems. Im open to any proper science aswell but the problem is I havnt found anything remotely encouraging.

    If all my s***- is caused by our modern lifestyles, and some think it is, as the increasing number of immune problems like excma, asthma, allergies would suggest, then our race is in for a big wake up call. Your complacency will be anihilated and the new era of science, once laughed at and labelled psuedo science will make you all recall with shame the ignorant stubborness that you once clung to and were blinded by. That would make me do the I told you so dance, but I dont really care, I just want to get healthy. The question is can the damage be undone.

  28. Thanks for you source. I don't see where it says in wikipedia or which source defends your claim that Dr Hilleman has as a single doctor saved 200 million people.

    I have come accross this typical statement "Working on a hunch, he and a colleague found (after nine 14-hour days) that it was a new strain of flu that could kill millions. Forty million doses of vaccines were prepared and distributed. Although 69,000 Americans died, the pandemic could have resulted in many more US deaths."

    Notice it simply says "could have".

    As for hepatitis B, plenty of other measures were also taken to decrease incidence, so again it's difficult to establish causation.

    And without properly understanding what part, if any, vaccines played in decreasing diseases, all already on a downward slope for plenty of other reasons, and without detailed long term studies of the risk, it's impossible to do a cost-benefit analysis.

    1. What I notice is that although you admittedly have no medical background, you feel qualified to call into question the accomplishments of Dr. Hilleman, one of the most respected and revered immunologists in the history of medicine and that you also feel yourself qualified to comment on vaccines and vaccination in general. In other words, you place your medical "knowledge," especially about vaccines, on a par with the knowledge of professionals, i.e., those with education and experience.

      Did it ever occur to you that without a knowledge of what you're dealing with, in this case medicine, your so-called statistical methods are worthless? All that basically matters is whether the number of incidents of the disease go down after the application of the vaccine. Everything else is b.s., including your cost-benefit and risk analyses.

      Why don't you wake up? If vaccines were not effective, there would be a lot more small pox, diphtheria, influenza, bubonic plague and other scourges than there are in today's civilized world.

    2. Yes, I don't have a doctors degree. But if you've read anything I've said, I haven't evaluated any person's health nor any medical study, I've asked to see studies but so far recieved none with any real data supporting the claim "vaccines", as in all vaccines, are perfectly harmless.

      I have done 4 things:

      1. Point out cases of clearly erroneous reasoning. Do I need to be a doctor to apply basic rules of logic? Or should there be a critical thinking void around the subject of vaccines?

      2. I've laid out criteria of what a good statistical study would have to fulfill to prove that the benefits outweigh the risks for a given vaccine and person, and to a lesser extent I've addressed all the subject of all vaccines past and future, for the benefit of interlocutors such as yourself who seem to think there's data out there supporting the claim all vaccines are perfectly harmless, which you make. Now I don't say such rock-solid studies don't exist, I just haven't seen them, please share if you have them.

      3. I've given my personal approach to the issue. That we know the ingredients are toxic: A) we wouldn't normally be injecting them for fun, B) we know vaccines aren't guaranteed to work (there are plenty of cases of people getting disease they had a vaccine for), and C) yes we do know there are side-effects as the CDC and the manufacturers tell us so. So we need a real risk-benefit analysis for each vaccine and each person.

      In the least, my personal approach would be that if ever somoeone did convince me a specific vaccine is worth the risk, I'd demand a freshly made vaccine with no preservatives that minimizes toxins as much as possible, I'd also demand a test to see if my biology is compatible with the vaccine if such a test is possible. If these two further measures cost money, I'd seriously consider paying.

      Please tell me where in my approach I need a doctor other than to provide rock-solid data on vaccines and evaluate my biology?

      I.e. I see the burdon of proof being on the people that want to inject me with something. You seem to think I'm a paranoid radical. But it's mass injecting people with vaccines (no tests, few long term studies) that's the radical proposition, and if all vaccines are really as risk free and life giving as you say, there should be rock solid evidence, easilly available supporting that. If there's a measure of risk involved, then there should be not only rock solid data, but it should be easilly navigable, and there should be a medical culture of reviewing the risk in a transparent and fully informed way, and whatever tests to minimize risk for a given biology developed and administered before vaccination (instead of asking if someone has allergies, why not test them first?). My personal opinion of why the data and culture of critical thinking doesn't exist around vaccines is because it would reduce profits.

      4. I've also asked for solid data backing up the claims people are making. For instance backing up the claim Dr Hilleman has saved 200 000 000 people as a single doctor, meanding preventing single handedly 1 billion diseases with a 20 percent mortality rate, but have been given very few with real (not proxi) data.

    3. If you want absolute guarantees, I'm afraid that no studies will ever give you that. People die, all of us will die eventually. Since vaccines have not prevented our eventual demise, it does not mean that they have been ineffective in prolonging life. Since almost everyone in the western world has had immunization shots at one point in their life, you would think that your disaster scenarios would have been realized by now. In fact the opposite has happened. Life expectancy is at the highest it has been in recorded history. Child and infant mortality rates are at the lowest in history, especially deaths from contagious diseases. These are facts. The maladies that you have named, cancer, allergies, autism, diabetes, are not contagious diseases and are not generally bacteria driven. If you eliminate the contagious killers, smallpox, diphtheria, polio and others that were at one time the number one killers in the world the killers down the list will move up the list until, as vaccines effectively slow the more dangerous diseases, they become number one. That is inevitable.

      If smallpox, polio, whooping cough or any other virulent disease does show its ugly head in your neighbourhood, I would hope that you make sure that family is immunized and you don't wait around for vaccine manufacturers to complete studies of long term effects of their vaccines. You may find that the possible long term effects may be irrelevant, in light of the short term effects of not being immunized. It is no accident that the last cases of smallpox were in areas of the world that did not have immunization programs at the time...or that polio exists in areas of the world where people believe that vaccines are instruments of death being used against them from western cultures. If for some reason you did have to live in Pakistan for a time, I wonder what your feelings of the polio vaccine would be then. It is one thing to safely ponder hypothetical or possible side effects and quite another when the disease has been manifested down the street.

      Yes, the drug companies do make profits. So what? If my house is on fire, I don't question the fire fighters about possible exorbitant wages or their excellent retirement package. I let them do the job they are trained to do.

    4. "Since almost everyone in the western world has had immunization shots at one point in their life, you would think that your disaster scenarios would have been realized by now."

      This is another typical example of invalid reasoning.

      By your logic, there's no reason smoking is bad for the health, as no disater scenario has been reaslized for smoking either. In fact, people have been living longer since smoking became popular, so if anything smoking makes us live longer.

      Also I have never said results would be disasterous, so your striking at a straw man. My position is there are risks and so risk-anslysis is needed (for each disease, vaccine and person).

    5. Jack was talking about immunization (vaccination), not about smoking. "Since smoking became popular" does not give us a time period. Also, did it occur to you that due to all the scares and scandals affecting the tobacco industry people are now smoking less--not that this has anything to do with vaccines? In other words, you're comparing apples to cumquatts and employing the causation/correlation fallacy in a vain attempt to refute Jack. It doesn't wash.

      What makes you think that the medical/pharmaceutical industry isn't running risk analyses on these vaccines, especially in light of the information produced by Vlatko, Jack1952, Over_the_Edge and Fabien L'Amour in his last post? Have you gone through the Cochrane Collaboration yet? I doubt it.

    6. You seem determined that vaccinations are bad for you. You have given no specific reason why, except that there have been no studies done on long term effects and therefore you think that something is being hidden from us. You don't know what exactly and can't quite put your finger on it but you seem to believe it anyway. You have not shown anything specific or anything even close to being specific. It all seems based on hunches, inordinate fear and mistrust. I tell you that polio is wiped out in all areas of the world except those where people are afraid of the immunizations and you ignore it. Could you answer one question, straight out, yes or no. If you had to move to Pakistan where polio is still a problem, would you require your children to be vaccinated? Would the real threat of polio supersede the the vague threat of some long term danger that may or may not exist? Remember, polio vaccinations are not necessary in the west but Pakistan is a country where the threat of contracting this horrible disease still looms.

    7. Risk analysis for each person???
      Please define what kind of risk analysis you are suggesting is needed.

    8. Ok, if you agree that risk analysis is needed (and so accept vaccines do have risks), there there is plenty to consider.

      I'll give a few examples.

      First the disease. Some diseases are known not cause immunity even if you get the disease. Tetanus is a good example. Tetanus is a bacteria that develops in a wound and creates a neuro-toxin. It's definitely something desirable to prevent. However, in a wound with dead tissue to feast upon, antibodies don't magically solve the problem; the white blood cells actually have to get to the tetenus bacteria and fight them. So, you can't get immunity to tetanus. So there's no reason to believe the tetanus vaccine gives anti-bodies magic powers, and indeed people vaccinated against tetanus get tetanus. What we can do against tetanus is clean the wound and give antiboitics if there seems to develop an infection (tetanus is a bacteria, so antibiotics work extremely well, and may be a large part of the reduction of tetenus cases and death, not vaccines). And indeed, the pharmacoprs don't even claim that the vaccine gives you immunity, they infact claim that it doesn't but somehow "fades away" which is why you need to get the vaccine regularly (i.e. anyone who get's tetanus after a vaccine, had the immunity fade away on them). Now, some people claim that though the vaccine doesn't give immunity, it does somehow help. I haven't seen evidence to suppor this, but I just want to provide an example of how diseases are different. Another example is the flu, we can get it every year. Even if the vaccine worked for one year, getting the real flu might build up better immunity for next year and remove any vaccine specefic risk (certainly fighting the real flu is the best practice for the body against fighting the real flu, and as we saw with the dirt study, the immune system needs excercise).

      Second, the vaccine. Even if there's 100% evidence one vaccine worked in the past, doesn't somehow magically extend to all vaccines. So obviously accepting all vaccines without question because "vaccines work" isn't reasonable.Another vaccine may simply not work (or be for last years flu), or have higher risks (difference ingredients; for instance, squaline may have mor risk).

      I go over some individual related risk assessments in the other comments.

    9. You write in such detail about disease and vaccination, but considering that you admittedly have no medical training, where does all your "information" come from, certainly not your background? In all your myriad contentions, you haven't provided one peer-reviewed source. So who do you hope to convince?

    10. The reason for the absenceof immunity to Tetanus is not what you described. You can't build an immunity to Tetanus because very little of the potent toxin is required to cause the disease. On the basis of weight,
      tetanospasmin is one of the most potent toxins known. The estimated minimum human lethal dose is 2.5 nanograms per kilogram of body weight.

      The vaccine is made by chemically treating the tetanus toxin to render it nontoxic yet still capable of eliciting an immune response in the vaccinated person. You aren't immune to Clostridium tetani, you are immune to the toxin produced by the bacteria. The antibodies don't magically solve the problem, they attack the tetanospasmin that enters your bloodstream...

      Lifelong immunity is not guaranteed by natural infection for several diseases so I don't see why it should be the case for vaccines. Contracting pertussis will give you a protection of 4 to 20 years and the vaccine gives you a protection of 4 to 12 years.

      7 to 10 years immunity to Tetanos is way better then no immunity at all.

      For influenza, there are several strains and the virus mutates. Seasonal flu vaccines protect against the three influenza viruses (trivalent) that research indicates will be most common during the upcoming season. The viruses in the vaccine can change each year based on international surveillance and scientists’ estimations about which types and strains of viruses will circulate in a given year.

      Even when the viruses are not closely matched, the vaccine can still protect many people and prevent flu-related complications. Such protection is possible because antibodies made in response to the vaccine can provide some protection (called cross-protection) against different, but related strains of influenza viruses.

      Multiple studies conducted over different seasons and across vaccine types and influenza virus subtypes have shown that the body’s immunity to influenza viruses (acquired either through natural infection or vaccination) declines over time.

    11. My point was that getting the real disease doesn't provide immunity. And yes, immunity from the disease would involve stopping the bacteria before they become a problem. In the real disease anti-bodies would be generated against both the bacteria and the toxins. And, if you don't develop immunity from getting the real disease, then we shouldn't expect simulating the disease or the toxins will provide immunity.

      My point of bringing up diseases of which there's no permanent immunity, was to point out that diseases are different from each other, and why each disease must be considered in itself (not all diseases and all vaccines together).

      I'm glad you agree with this fact.

      For, if there's no life-long immunity 2 things happen. Obviously it changes the risk-benefit assessment. Second, it makes it very hard to establish this temporary immunity satistically.

      Please site you sources if you want to establish a fact.

    12. CDC Pink Book Tetanus, you can google it, as linking need approval from a moderator. It's a 10 pages read so won't take much of your time.

      They even immunize after you had the disease because the toxin is extremely potent (well if you survived because even if you get treated, you still have a 10% chance of dying). After a primary series (three properly spaced doses of tetanus toxoid in persons 7 years of age and older, and four doses in children younger than 7 years of age) essentially all recipients achieve antitoxin levels considerably greater than the protective level of 0.1 IU/mL.

      They give 0.5 ml of Tetanus toxoid in each dose which is far more then the lethal dose for tetanospasmin hence the production of enough antibodies to destroy the toxin in subsequent infections.

      (You can google Tetanus Toxoid Dosage if you want source)

      Another interesting read will be found if you google :

      Prevention of tetanus during the First World War

    13. I don't see any citations in this post or any of your others. So why are you demanding this of Fabien L'Amour?

    14. I would like to add that the individual risk analysis that you are asking for is impossible at this time. The technology does not exist as yet. It is the hope of the medical establishment that someday this will be possible and that medicines will be tailor made for each individual. A long term goal and a laudable one but what you are asking for just isn't ready yet. In the meantime, we are forced to muddle along as best we can. Human health is a complex issue. It will be a long time before anything even close to a guarantee will be possible.

      Not everyone in the west smokes. Almost everyone has been vaccinated. Health risks associated with smoking have been well documented and is a leading health problem in our society. Smokers have been shown to have a lower life expectancy. Not so with those who have been vaccinated. All you have is a suspicion without any solid reason for your suspicions.

    15. Individual risk analysis is very much possible.

      Allergies would be one easy example. Is this technically impossible as you say, even with all our towers of sciense rallied to the cause? Or is it just technically unprofitable (allergy tests don't cost much, but it would still raise the cost of vaccine and cut into profits)?

      But more importantly there are plenty to go into a risk analysis that has nothing to do with a lab.

      For instance, new borns are regularly vaccinated for diseases that they have extremely small chance of getting. Also we know that growing babies and children are the most vulnerable to toxins, and developing allergies (which still no one has explained why stimulating a the immune system to attach the injected proteins wouldn't also likely stimulate it to attack other protiens that happen to be there).

      So just now vs. later for children is a basic risk assessment.

      Other risks are that I've mentioned are the cases of diseases that aren't lethal to a healthy individual. Do we need to accept any risk for a non-lethal disease?

    16. From Jack1952, "You have not shown anything specific or anything even close to being specific. It all seems based on hunches, inordinate fear and mistrust." This post is a prime example.

    17. "After the controversy [re Wakefield] began, the MMR vaccination compliance dropped sharply in the United Kingdom, from 92% in 1996 to 84% in 2002. In some parts of London, it was as low as 61% in 2003, far below the rate needed to avoid an epidemic of measles. Murch S (2003). "Separating inflammation from speculation in autism." Lancet 362 (9394): 1498–9. "By 2006 coverage for MMR in the UK at 24 months was 85%, lower than the about 94% coverage for other vaccines." McIntyre P, Leask J (2008). "Improving uptake of MMR vaccine". BMJ 336 (7647): 729–30. "After vaccination rates dropped, the incidence of two of the three diseases increased greatly in the UK. In 1998 there were 56 confirmed cases of measles in the UK; in 2006 there were 449 in the first five months of the year, with the first death since 1992; cases occurred in inadequately vaccinated children. Asaria P, MacMahon E (2006). "Measles in the United Kingdom: can we eradicate it by 2010?". BMJ 333 (7574): 890–5.

      "Mumps cases began rising in 1999 after years of very few cases, and by 2005 the United Kingdom was in a mumps epidemic with almost 5000 notifications in the first month of 2005 alone." Gupta RK, Best J, MacMahon E (2005). "Mumps and the UK epidemic 2005". BMJ 330 (7500): 1132–5. "The age group affected was too old to have received the routine MMR immunisations around the time the paper by Wakefield et al. was published, and too young to have contracted natural mumps as a child, and thus to achieve a herd immunity effect. With the decline in mumps that followed the introduction of the MMR vaccine, these individuals had not been exposed to the disease, but still had no immunity, either natural or vaccine induced. Therefore, as immunisation rates declined following the controversy and the disease re-emerged, they were susceptible to infection. "Mumps". Health Protection Agency. Retrieved 2008-07-10.
      "Measles and mumps cases continued in 2006, at incidence rates 13 and 37 times greater than respective 1998 levels. "Confirmed cases of measles, mumps & rubella". Health Protection Agency. 22 March 2007.

      If you feel like refuting any of the above, do so with peer-reviewed reports, not statistical double-talk, not empty what-if's, not with pseudo issues such as correlation vs. cause which is amply demonstrated in the above. My guess is that you can't do it not so much because do not have an M.D., but because you admittedly have no medical training at all and without it, you are incompetent to judge the logicality of any medical articles on vaccines or comment on the makeup and effectiveness of any of the vaccines discussed. therein. Without the required medical background, you cannot formulate anything approaching an intelligent statistical study, which is why your comments have no bearing on reality.

  29. Sorry I missed this comment before responding to your latest one.

    I don't, nor have, claimed to have medical qualifications. I claimed to have studied math and I use math and statistics in my job (I develop solar systems).

    The only strong points I've been making have been to point out obvious misuse of statistics and obvious confusions of correlation with causation. Something I'm qualified to talk about. I give my opinion on other things, such as the burden of proof on the person trying to convince me to inject things into my bloodstream. And burden of proof not just about historical things, but that in my individual case, for the disease in question, for my location, etc. the benefits of taking the vaccine outweigh the risks.

    I don't know what psuedo statistics your refering to. I haven't done any statistics here, just pointing out what needs to be established to draw a conclusion from statistics, and that the statistics that I've addressed don't draw the intended conclusions validly.

    1. If you have no medical qualifications, then you have no business writing about what you consider the ineffectiveness of vaccines; you have no business dictating how clinical testing should be performed and you also have no business accusing the pharmaceutical industry of unsafe practices.

      As a_no_n has so cearly pointed out, none of your statistical nonsense has any basis in reality.

  30. Ok, what about if you've never been tested for allergies?

    Would your nurse recommend you get tested first? Seems like a wise thing to do, seen as it's easy to test for allergies and may not be obvious otherwise (a lot of people mistake allergies for something else, or don't have enough contact with the allergen to notice) ... but it does cost some money ... thus increasing the cost of the vaccine.

    Likewise, other tests could be carried out to see what your biological reaction to the vaccine would likely be, to ensure your not one of the "problem people" you point out. Again, why not try to develop such tests ... except the money thing again.

    Now, if the risk is non-zero as you seem to agree, obtusely through acknowledging problem people, then what's your evidence that this risk is less than the risk of first getting the flu and second the risk/costs of being sick for a few days?

    As in, even if you assume the flu shot will protect you from this years flu (and not last years, or at all), how do you measure the risks associated with shot and how do you conclude that the benefit outweighs the risk?

    For instance, I didn't get the flu shot, and maybe got the flu this autumn, some sniffles for a few days. The cost was slight discomfort, if we assume it was the flu, would the non-zero risk of the flu shot have been worth avoiding this slight discomfort?

    1. You heed what your doctor tells you. He's the one most knowledgeable about risk factors, not you.

  31. Can someone please tell me what is exactly in a vaccine shot?

  32. A really informative thread!
    I'm far from expert - all I know is that vaccinations almost cost us our first child, leaving me so paranoid that I delayed vaccinations for the second. Ultimately and with our GP's input, we went ahead without any problems.

    This leads me to my personal view - that the benefits far outweigh the risks involved. I cannot help suspect though. that the large drug companies have a vested interest [most probably contrary to public health].

    The real danger is our ignorance.

    1. About three weeks ago, I had my flu shot; however, prior to the injection, the assistant asked me if I had any allergies. This is certainly one way to guard against any potential ill effects. For example certain people are allergic to dairy products, eggs in particular, and, as I understand it, eggs play a role in the production of vaccines. One way or the other, you did the right thing by consulting with your GP rather than listening to any of the all-too-prevasive quackery.

      Yes, the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks; however, what you suspect is as nothing compared to what you can prove, but bear in mind that there are areas for improvement within the pharmaceutical as well as other large industries, all with vested interests.

      Let me just make a slight change to your conclusion: The real danger is our wilful ignorance.

  33. An interesting research on parental age and autism incidence :

    Advanced parental age and the risk of autism spectrum disorder.

    Firstborn offspring of 2 older parents were 3 times more likely to develop autism than were third- or later-born offspring of mothers aged 20-34 years and fathers aged <40 years (odds ratio = 3.1, 95% confidence interval: 2.0, 4.7). The increase in autism risk with both maternal and paternal age has potential implications for public health planning and investigations of autism etiology.

    3 times more likely! Now that points to a serious factor compared to the quasi non existent statistical difference between vaccinated and non-vaccinated kids.

  34. Quote form Bildeberg Video " let the culling begin". Mass vaccination and mass murder. Gotta get that population down

    1. What are you talking about?

    2. Mass vaccinations have been around for over fifty years. When is this mass murder going to start? If mass vaccination is actually a mass murder strategy it hasn't been too effective. World population at seven billion and rising.

      Bilderberg meetings are closed to the public. How can you or I or anyone know what is being said in those meetings? Speculative nonsense and the fodder for conspiracy theorists who like to think that they have a special insight into the inner workings of our world. No need for evidence. Their special talents allow them to understand things that the normal lay person cannot. They are led by the likes of the loud mouth Alex Jones. Unfounded rants and wild accusations are the basis of their world view. Adults behaving as children.

    3. Isn't it Ironic that the conspiracy theorists terrified of a one world government are the ones arguing FOR big brother to be implimented so that groups like the Bilderburgs can have their private meetings spied on.

      the sheer short sightedness of some people is outstanding.

  35. Lost some credibility with me over abortion bias.

  36. I can't believe the ignorance in the statements I have been reading. First of all every one has the right to choose what they believe. People over use the word science. Science does not mean fact. "Science" changes every day. Vaccines do cause injury and death. That is a fact. Ask the parents who have to watch their children suffer and try to convince them that it was worth it to save others. Absolute garbage. There is no proof that vaccines work or got rid of any of the diseases stated. I know a child who has autism because of the vaccine. Dr. Wakefield's study is completely credible and he is not the only one involved in these studies. Ask the parents whose children suffer because of the vaccine and received help from him. To completely suppress any evidence that they do harm is criminal and that is just what the medical community has done. There is no magic shot. There are many factors to the health of people or nations. To generalize it to say shots save the world is an absurd myth. Educate yourself on just the smallpox vaccine and you will see they had to stop it because it caused smallpox. To live in a world where people force their beliefs and their "science" is not a civilized world. I think I would be more worried about all of the childhood cancers and other diseases that should not be among the young. I would stop judging others for their decisions whether you believe them or not. We are all given the God given right to choose what we put in our bodies. We have to be responsible for our health and what we put in our bodies. You protect your body from disease by building health, not destroying it with poison. Every one must do the research for themselves and find their "truth." There are many false truths given to us through the media and they have fooled many. They have also hurt many.

    1. Let's see about your Dr. Wakefield:

      Summarized from Wikipedia: Sources provided in article.

      Four years after the publication of Dr. Wakefield's paper in Lancet linking administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to the appearance of autism and bowel disease, researchers were still unable to reproduce Wakefield's findings or confirm his hypothesis of a relation between childhood gastrointestinal disorders and autism. A 2004 investigation by Sunday Times reporter Brian Deer identified undisclosed financial conflicts of interest on Wakefield's part and most of his coauthors then withdrew their support for the study's interpretations. The British General Medical Council conducted an inquiry into allegations of misconduct against Wakefield and two former colleagues, centering on Deer's numerous findings, including one that autistic children were subjected to unnecessary invasive medical procedures as colonoscopy and lumbar puncture and that Wakefield acted without the required ethical approval from an institutional review board.

      On January 28, 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the General Medical Council found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children. The panel ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted both against the interests of his patients, and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his published research. The Lancet immediately and fully retracted his 1998 publication on the basis of the GMC’s findings, noting that elements of the manuscript had been falsified. Wakefield was struck off the Medical Register in May 2010, with a statement identifying dishonest falsification in the Lancet research and is barred from practising medicine in the UK.

      To top it all, in the London Times of December 2006 Brian Deer reported figures obtained from the Legal Services Commission showed a payment of £435,643 in undisclosed fees to Wakefield for him to build a case against the MMR vaccine, payments which The Sunday Times reported had BEGUN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE LANCET PAPER.

      As a result of Wakefield's study and public recommendations against the use of the combined MMR vaccine, there was a steep decline in vaccination rates in the United Kingdom and a corresponding rise in measles cases, resulting in serious illness and fatalities.

      You'll also find more in "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre.

      And this is what you're defending?

      Now let's see about you.

      "Vaccines do cause injury and death. That is a fact." So you know it's a fact, then there should be plenty of evidence to support it. So why haven't you produced any? In case you didn't know it, stating that something is a fact is assertion, not proof.

      "There is no proof that vaccines work or got rid of any of the diseases stated. " Does this apply to polio, rubella and small pox? And speaking of small pox, why is it that in America one case of this dreaded disease is considered an epidemic? Could it have anything to do with the vaccine which you claim actually causes the malady. Perhaps you should read up on Edward Jenner.

      "To completely suppress any evidence that they [vaccines] do harm is criminal and that is just what the medical community has done ." Once again, evidence, evidence, evidence, where is it? What's really criminal is when you and those like you make false and ignorant statements and someone with not a whole lot of brains or education takes you seriously and does himself and others considerable harm, all too often resulting in needless fatality.

      "I think I would be more worried about all of the childhood cancers and other diseases that should not be among the young." Are there some cancers and other diseases which should be among the young? Why do you just think this. Is there something in your statement that's raising some doubt?

      "I know a child who has autism because of the vaccine." How do you know it was because of the vaccine. Do you have the mainstream medical qualifications (the only type that count) to determine this. If so, what are they?

      "To live in a world where people force their beliefs and their 'science' is not a civilized world." Did it ever occur to you that what you call "science" has nothing to do with belief, but only hard evidence obtained through rigorous clinical testing?

      "There are many false truths given to us through the media and they have fooled many." This senseless oxymoron aside, once again, do you have the medical qualifications (the only type that count) to determine the pseudo from the genuine?

      In short, your ignorance is astounding and what you promote frightening.

    2. You are like so many who will not look at what is in plain sight. You have a belief and refuse to believe anything that is said contrary to that belief. I never questioned vaccinations. It was not to be questioned. As in all ages there are beliefs that should not be "questioned." I have since opened my eyes and truly see them for what they are.
      As for Wakefield, he is an ethical man who truly cared about the children. He lost so much to question the "holy water" of vaccination.
      If you would stop being blinded and go to the source-to Dr. Wakefield -and to the parents of the afflicted children-you will find the truth.
      If you look into Brian Deer, you will be shown what an unethical man he is. You are trying to pay tribute to a false theory-one with many holes.
      The child who was injured after the vaccination was a healthy, intelligent boy, who after receiving his mmr vaccine lost his ability to speak clearly right away. He went downhill after that.
      Go ahead and put me down and others who do not believe in these concoctions of poison, or who question them. That is up to you, but you are so wrong.
      I am so thankful for men like Dr. Wakefield and others who are awakening to the dangers of vaccinations, and other dangerous practices. They are true men of honor and will not bow to the men who worship any false god or promote harmful practices. They will warn others and help those around them no matter what the cost.
      People who force their beliefs on others are the people who scare me.

    3. cscott1986
      you state "like so many who will not look at what is in plain sight". but you cannot provide reliable,repeatable demonstrable proof for your position.

    4. Right. Dr. Wakefield was so ethical and so true a man of honor that he's now ex-Dr. Wakefield, stricken off the medical roster for fraud and medical misconduct.

      Now let's take see how much ex-Dr. Wakefield cared about children. Obviously, I need to repeat from my previous post, On January 28, 2010, a five-member statutory tribunal of the General Medical Council found three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children. The panel ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted both against the interests of his patients, and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his published research. The Lancet immediately and fully retracted his 1998 publication on the basis of the GMC’s findings, noting that elements of the manuscript had been falsified. Wakefield was struck off the Medical Register in May 2010, with a statement identifying dishonest falsification in the Lancet research and is barred from practising medicine in the UK.

      Now for your further deglutition. Writing in the Daily Mail on December 10, 2007, Rachel Ellis indicates that an extension of Wakefield's project caused life-threatening complications in one child who received substantial compensation in an out-of-court settlement.

      I can produce more.

      I am not the only one who has accused ex-Dr. Wakefield of unethical conduct, as has been extensively documented, so has the entire British medical profession--and the courts have upheld these charges. In addition, all of ex-Dr. Wakefield's libel suits have failed and one of them has been withdrawn. On the other hand, if you're accusing Brian Deer of unethical conduct, you'd better be able to prove it--and, quite frankly, I doubt if you can.

      "The child who was injured after the vaccination was a healthy, intelligent boy, who after receiving his mmr vaccine lost his ability to speak clearly right away. He went downhill after that." To be able to link the MMR vaccine to this child's loss of speech requires an extensive medical background, as does claiming that there are no benefits, only harm, to vaccination. Once again, what makes you think you are competent to adjudge vaccination as mephitic? And what makes you think that the parents of the afflicted children are qualified to do this either?

      Once again, you fail to understand that medicine is not a set of beliefs, but rather hard evidence obtained through rigorous clinical testing. Thus, trying to relegate the matter to the forcing of one's beliefs on others is not only beside the point, but is merely a cover- up for your wilful ignorance and support of the despicable, which is why you and others like should not just be put down, but stomped down. So you just keep posting and I'll just keep warning.

    5. I am not a parent and not sure you are one being born in 1986 but I puzzle if a parent would rather risk having an autist child or risk having a child dying before he is 15 years old. The following stats are really cold blooded but here they are anyway.

      Odds of giving birth to an autist child = 1:150 in USA

      Infantile mortality rate in Pakistan = 65.14/1000

      Infantile mortality rate in Afghanistan = 121.63/1000

      Even if vaccines were responsible for autism, I would personally risk it.

    6. Please reference your sources

    7. The Epidemiology of Autism Spectrum Disorders
      Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Drexel University School of Public Health

      UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs
      World Population Prospects, the 2010 Revision Standard variants (Updated: 28 June 2011) Infant Mortality Rate (IMR)

    8. I'm impressed by the medical knowledge revealed in your last few posts. From your citations, it appears that you have a medical background. Am I correct?

    9. I have no medical background but I can understand medical scientific studies.

    10. You certainly had me fooled. I learn a lot from reading your posts. Keep up the good work.

    11. You are right on about childhood cancers when i was growing up it was never so prevailent as today kids don't have to have it but they do because of parents who dont educate themselves on vaccines who only take the word of a doctor doctors are not god also of course our great government who approves of the deadly vaxs and the media of course.

  37. Jack Hemsworth In 1975...I made the decision not to vaccinate my future 5 children based on the freedom of information Act info available at the time
    36 minutes ago · Like

    1. And you should be thankful that your neighbours did vaccinate which meant your five children were never exposed to the diseases those vaccinations prevented. Those vaccinations still protected your children.

    2. In other words, his chidren got a free ride. The problem is what if they come in contact with an infected person.

      The problem with those like Jack Hemsworth is that they boast about their own stupidity and worse yet, hold themselves and at times their offspring out as poster children for anti-vaccination--and even worse yet, there are those who believe them.

  38. I have not watched the documentary yet. I have been pretty busy lately. I have read a lot of the comments though. I can only add my experience as a person. My experience being very different from most, I think. I am 25 years old. I have been a pro athlete for a number of years. I also graduated high in my class. I have never had a single shot in my entire life. No vaccinations, no flu shots, nothing. My parents are religious nuts though. I am highly educated (formally and informally) now and I do disagree with them heavily on most things. But, I have never had to go to the doctor because I was sick. I have seen the inside of a hospital many times due to broken bones, torn ligaments and so on from injuries due to my sport. But never because I felt sick. The most sick feeling I get is a lethargic feeling, so I might try to get another hour or two of sleep or something. That's only once or twice a year. I do eat very well and exercise heavily. I'm not saying vaccinations are bad or that they give you autism. But, I can say that I have never got one and life is pretty good. I do understand that true cognitive thought is looking at all the information that plays a role in what you are trying to understand. Like, possibly everyone else took the bullet for me by getting vaccinations and now there is no sickness around for me to catch and so on. I don't know the answer but I hope we work together to figure out fact from fiction on this subject. With the knowledge learned through dialogue from everyone that has facts or experiences regarding this subject, bias, money, and reputation aside, I hope it is used to build a better, closer nit world.

    1. @WakeTen,

      It didn't occur to you that those who are vaccinated are protecting you too? You live in an almost sterile environment, where there are virtually no people who'll transmit diseases to you.

      Yes it is possible to be healthy without a single vaccination shot, but only in places where the majority is vaccinated.

      If you really want to test your "vaccination free" health you should move to a place where there are disease outbreaks, like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nigeria.

    2. whooping cough was contracted by people who were vaccinated in CA...almost 97%. Are you telling me that the people who didn't get vaccinated, gave whooping cough to people vaccinated against it? Do you actually read what you post?

    3. Evidence? Source?

  39. Fabien L'Amour @ you mean like when the scientists told us that we should put fluoride into our water, then 25 years later we find out it effects our bones, kidneys and all other sorts, good old USA, whos to say that the vaccinations are correct and not doing damage? I myself haven't had any vac's in my life and i get a cold no more then anyone who has, and to this day i refuse to have any,
    But saying that, my son has had all his jab, because of a previous comment below I would not forgive myself if something were to happen, i'm a hipocrit really when i think about it,

    Kind of driffting off the subject, do you know about the gerson's theory? cure to cancer and other diseases, doctors wont reccommend it because it's not "mainstream" science but facts show it works, what would you do if you had cancer? go with what the doctor says and poison your body of radiation, or follow the path of nature and allow your body to heal it's self, who do you trust?

    also
    Conspiracys have it that vaccinations have ways to control fertility, i am a conspiracy theorist but this is for upto you to decide, it's "suppose" to help reduce and help control the population, you can ignore this and choose not to reply but it is a theory.

    1. Fluoridation has little effect on risk of bone fracture. National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia)"A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation (2007). There is no clear association between fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer, both for cancer in general and also specifically for bone cancer and osteosarcoma. Other adverse effects lack sufficient evidence to reach a confident conclusion.[ McDonagh M., Whiting P. et al, A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation, 2000. However, like anything else, excessive doses can have deleterious effects. So get your facts straight.

      As for Gerson therapy, from Wikipedia, attempts to independently check the results of the therapy have been negative. A group of 13 patients sickened by elements of the Gerson Therapy were evaluated in hospitals in San Diego in the early 1980s; all 13 were found to still have active cancer. An investigation by Quackwatch found that the Institute's claims of cure were based not on actual documentation of survival, but on 'a combination of the doctor's estimate that the departing patient has a reasonable chance of surviving,' plus feelings that the Institute staff have about the status of people who call in." A 1994 article in the Journal of Naturopathic Medicine attempted to follow 39 Gerson patients in Tijuana. Patient interviews were used to confirm the existence and stage of cancer; most patients were unaware of the stage of their tumor and medical records were not available. Most patients were lost to follow-up; of the patients successfully followed, 10 died and 6 were alive at their last follow-up. Review of this study pointed out its obvious flaws, including the majority of patients lost to follow-up, lack of access to detailed medical records, and reliance upon patients for disease stage information; the authors themselves regarded the results as unclear.

      The American Cancer Society reported "[t]here is no reliable scientific evidence that Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer, and the principles behind it are not widely accepted by the medical community. It is not approved for use in the United States." In 1947, the National Cancer Institute reviewed 10 claimed cures submitted by Gerson; however, all of the patients were receiving standard anticancer treatment simultaneously, making it impossible to determine what effect, if any, was due to Gerson's therapy. A review of the Gerson Therapy by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center concluded: "If proponents of such therapies wish them to be evaluated scientifically and considered valid adjuvant treatments, they must provide extensive records (more than simple survival rates) and conduct controlled, prospective studies as evidence." In 1959, the National Cancer Institute again reviewed cases of patients treated by Dr. Gerson. and found that the available information did not prove the regimen had benefit. Cancer Research UK states, “Available scientific evidence does not support any claims that Gerson therapy can treat cancer ... Gerson therapy can be very harmful to your health.”

      So the facts are that it doesn't work and claiming that it does makes you a liar.

      "What would you do if you had cancer? go with what the doctor says and poison your body of [sic] radiation, or follow the path of nature and allow your body to heal it's self [sic], who do you trust?" Answer: In light of the ignorance you've displayed, how do you know that such a choice exists?

      My guess is that you haven't anything approaching a medical background which means that you are writing on matters of which you know nothing which makes you a dangerous ignoramus rendered even more pernicious by the intelligence of a conspiracy theorist.

    2. Jesus Christ,you use Wikipedia as a source,how about reading some congressional testimony....1953 Fitzgerald report,testimony to a special Senate committee ....

    3. What's the matter with using Wikipedia as a source, especially since Wikipedia gives the sources it draws from? And all the sources are 50 years after the 1953 report.

    4. you are very rude rob, i've been scanning alot of what you right on here and you do nothing but attempt to belittle people and insult them, I think you need to reel your neck in sometimes and listen to other peoples opinion,

      "So the facts are that it doesn't work and claiming that it does makes you a liar"

      is rude, i'm not a liar, i work with people who have autism and i dont think i would be very good at my job if i was a so called liar, or bring up a son, for that matter, I just follow facts, documentation that I find, there's nothing wrong with that, just like everyone else here or on TDF,

      "My guess is that you haven't anything approaching a medical background which means that you are writing on matters of which you know nothing which makes you a dangerous ignoramus rendered even more pernicious by the intelligence of a conspiracy theorist"

      sigh... again with the insults, let me guess, your single, lonely and live on trolling the net, what makes you think that what you say is correct eh? it seems to me that what you say has to be the right way or nothing at all.

      get a life mate.

    5. When you state that the facts show that Gerson "treatment" works, you deserve all the opprobrium that can be hurled at you. By putting out this baldfaced lie in an attempt to promote dangerous quackery. you deserve to be treated with nothing but contempt and derision.

      I'll take what mainstream medicine says over the statements of a pernicious ignoramus such as you who really has no facts to follow.

    6. I would give credibility to what you wrote if you cited some peer reviewed scientific research on the effect of fluoride on kidneys and bones from fluoridation of water. I am not talking some research on mice with mega doses of fluoride here, I am talking same dosage as is used in water fluoridation.

      You have to be critical, sometimes medias will distort an unrelated research to make a headline and when you scrutinize, the dosage or way of administration has nothing to do with what you will find is commonly used. I could prove that salt is extremely deadly if I wanted to distort reality, table salt has a lower lethal dose then several pesticides.

      Saying you didn't get vaccination and are healthy proves nothing in a mostly vaccinated population. You were lucky enough to not get exposed because you didn't come in contact with someone diseased, that's it. With the mobility across continents nowadays where a carrier can move pretty much anywhere around the world in 24 hours, I think vaccination is a must for kids and immuno-depressed citizens. I am pretty sure if a deadly strain of influenza like we had in 1918 did occur, you would be in line to get your vaccine. Up to 3% of the world population died of it. If you knew someone that died of it, are you seriously telling me you wouldn't want the vaccine?

      Has for the Gerson therapy, it has been peer reviewed and rejected. Feel free to try it if you ever have cancer yourself but I don't think it's a good idea to recommend it when proven treatments with radiation give you a better chance of surviving. I can't see scientifics and doctors going for extremely invasive radiation treatments if a diet can cure cancer but then I am not a conspiracy theorist that thinks people that took the Hippocratic Oath are cruel people that want to make me suffer or kill me.

    7. If vaccinations are being used as a method of population control it hasn't been too effective. World population is over seven billion and growing. The only places where birthrates have gone down are the countries where people voluntarily decide the size of their families. They don't need secret sterilization projects to control birthrates. The people are doing it of their own choice.

    8. thinking about it who needs vaccinations when you have the USA and Israel to control population.

    9. You can't possibly compare the death toll of all casualties from these 2 countries wars to the death toll of pandemics in history :

      100 000 000 died from Bubonic plague in Europe and Asia in 1338–1351

      More recently, 75 000 000 died because of influenza alone in 1918-1920. And the current death toll for AIDS is now above 25 000 000.

      The highest estimate for World War 2 is 75 millions and most casualties weren't attributed to U.S.A. and Israel but Russia, Japan and obviously Germany.

    10. For WWII, iI'm sure it was an accident, but you left out Poland.

    11. I was talking about the countries that killed, not the countries that got killed ;)

    12. It took a while but someone finally figured a way to get their anti American rhetoric into the mix. Conspiracy guys are incredibly predictable.

      Robertallen1 can be a little gruff at times and maybe he should tone down the personal attacks but he knows what he is talking about. He is well read and understands how facts are gathered and interpreted. He doesn't need me to defend him as I know he is quite capable of defending himself but I have had discussions with him in the past and I respect the fact that he researches thoroughly the topics in discussion.

      As for that Gerson therapy, it has been around long enough that there should be warehouses full of meticulous patient records. Records that would include independent oncologist prognosis's, daily patient progress reports and success/failure charts. In fact, the more effective the treatment the more likely these records would exist. That these records are not forthcoming says myriads about the effectiveness of the program. Until those meticulous records are produced and shows any success I place this therapy in the same league as Benny Hinn and his ilk.

    13. What gets my dander is when those like xxconspiracyxx try to spread their ignorance a la Benny Hinn by falsely stating, for example, that Gerson therapy has been proven effective when, as both of us have pointed out, the opposite is the case and not only is the opposite the case, but the "therapy" itself is dangerous. Then someone reads this garbage, believes it, doesn't seek mainstream medical treatment, but instead goes to one of these quacks--and we both know the results.

      It's amazing how those of the intelligence level of xxconspiracyxx respond to issues such as those posed in your second paragraph--it's the fault of the mainstream medical profession and big pharma who are in cahoots to suppress these "proven" "treatments." It never seems to occur to these quack rooters that If there were anything to Gerson therapy and the like, the mainstream medical profession and big pharma would jump at the chance to make medical history and, of course, a considerable and richly deserved profit.

      All in all, promoting bogus treatments is as contemptible as practicing them.

  40. I tried to watch this doc but I kept falling asleep. You would think the reek of this bovine excrement would have prevented this from happening, but, apparently not.

  41. If you don't vaccinate your children you are endangering others. Anything that tells you otherwise is bad science.

    This video is such a load of crap.

    I like to watch these kind of videos though because it shows me how people can convince and manipulate others who are ignorant of science.

    And yeah, there are too many people.

    1. What renders all this more pernicious is that once these people (who never had much intelligence in the first place) have been brainwashed by these mountebanks, nothing, not even the most rigorous efforts of modern medicine, can dissuade them from their belief in this charlatanism which they try to pass on to suceeding generations.

  42. WOW! is this painful to watch...

  43. There is a ton of evidence to refute virtually every claim made by this documentary. A ton, I'm pretty sure that the actual weight of the documents would be close to that. The original claim that vaccinations cause autism was put out in the lancet many years ago and has since been entirely refuted by the scientific body. The doctor who MADE that claim was found to have been taking kickbacks from a company trying to make competing vaccines. What annoys me MOST is that there is not ONE SINGLE citable source that has not either been investigated for fraud or prosecuted for malpractice quoted in this entire film. It is truely sad that people believe this nonsense.

    1. You must be referring to the MMR scandal and Andrew Wakefield who was stricken off the medical roster because of it. There's a fine on article on this on Wikipedia as well as a detailed chapter in "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre.

  44. Giant load of unsourced BULLSH*T quoted in this documentary. Sad that the conflictinator conspiracy nonsense has spread to such a vital field as vaccinations.

  45. I know a woman that blame the autism of her child on vaccines thanks to such documentary. The problem is the first symptoms of autism are close to some major vaccines for kids so many will do the correlation. Having a guy presenting such nonsense and say he is a researcher that spent 3 years on it might give it an aura of truth it by no means deserve. Some parents trying to explain the death of their child might even think it is 100% right and spread the misinformation.

    1. And that is just why we have all these counters.

    2. As for the genesis of claims of autism in children due to vaccines, you might want to read "Bad Medicine" by Ben Goldacre.

  46. Every one has their right to their opinion whether other people agree or not,however if you think your privy to all information on any matter that may be a mistake.

    1. Everyone has a LEGAL right to his opinion, but not to child endangerment. You're the one who's making the mistake.

    2. Every parent makes those choises every day life is full of them you make them for your children and others for theres

    3. Preventing your children from being vaccinated constitutes child endangerment, a CRIMINAL ACT. If any one of your children come down with the disease against which they should be vaccinated, you are guilty of not only child endangerment, but also at the very least reckless endangerment, CRIMINAL ACTS. If any one of your children die from the disease against which you prevented them from being vaccinated, you are guilty of MURDER and not only should you do considerable prison term, but any other children should be removed from your care.

      Your thoughts might at least give the appearance of intelligence if you learned to spell.

    4. and there is the possibility that we don't know everything and we could be doing the wrong thing we at one time thought the earth was flat.

    5. There are scientific proof and practical proof vaccines work. Prevalence of several diseases has severely decreased thanks to vaccines. Polio, Smallpox, rabbies, you only have to look at pre-vaccines prevalence of these diseases to see we are doing the right thing.

    6. We are having two different conversations here.

    7. You say you aren't siding with one side or another. I take it you don't side for or against vaccines, isn't it the topic at hand or you have 2 sides unrelated to the documentary???

    8. When it comes to vaccination, middle-of-the-roaders are just as bad as those who opt against it.

    9. Agreed.

    10. I don't know which country you reside in, but in the U.S., small pox has been completely wiped, so completely that one case is considered an epidemic, the same for a number of other diseases such as bubonic plague, polio and scarlet fever. So, we must be on the right track.

      Sick people believe the earth is round and so do healthy ones. There is even a Flat Earth Society composed of both the sick and the healthy (and I don't mean mentally). So whatever you believe in this regard has nothing to do with solubrity and hence this discussion.

  47. I don't see a problem with this doc if you disagree with it vaccinate your kids if you agree don't simple as that.

    1. as_above
      "if you disagree with it vaccinate your kids if you agree don't simple as that." no it isn't that simple. of you do not vaccinate your kids you are not only putting them at risk but everyone else they come in contact with.

    2. so you suggest people shouldn't have the right to make the choice?

    3. When it comes to their children, absolutely not.

    4. as_above
      "so you suggest people shouldn't have the right to make the choice?"not at all. i do suggest they make an informed choice after reviewing the studies and opinions of the experts.

    5. Let me know when you find the perfect source of information then maybe we can start making perfect decisions.

    6. as_above
      now you are being unreasonable. the best source for information is the experts in the field of study. how about making the best decision you can based on the evidence?

    7. I see my point isn't being seen ,the point is your born into life having to decide for your self with what you know and that is an imperfect process

    8. as_above
      lets cut to the chase shall we? list the top two or three pieces of evidence you base you decision concerning vaccination on. if you cannot i will consider you a troll

    9. And my point and the point of several others is that you can do no better than consult the MAINSTREAM experts, especially in medicine.

    10. When it comes to vaccines, the best source of information is the MAINSTREAM medical profession.

    11. Right--and run the far greater risk of placing them in danger if you don't

    12. No one lives forever do you wish to always live in fear?

    13. Here is the deal with children vaccination. You view that nonsense and decide not let doctors vaccinate your kid. He contracts a deadly disease then gets in contact with other kids that haven't yet been vaccinated for that disease. So you kid dies and several other die too because you believed the nonsense in a video a guy made in his basement.

    14. i am not siding one way or another just saying every one makes their own decisions call it evolution.

    15. Evolution? If you want pure evolution, say no to all vaccines, medicine and medical treatments. Let the battle between germs and immune system run it's course like in nature. Of course you will have to accept a 40 years old life expectancy and high infantile death. I side for modern medicine including vaccines. Heck, I'd be long dead if I vouched for pure evolution.

    16. Im having a philosophical conversation with you nothing more

    17. Evolution merely describes the process in which life changes; it doesn't prescribe it. Of course, there is a great side benefit, its use in immunology.

    18. No, evolution has nothing to do with it.

    19. No. That's why I got my flu shot three weeks ago.

  48. I would suggest a BIG WARNING IN RED stating the "facts presented as science in this video" have not been peer reviewed and are mostly opinions or purely untrue, just to make sure it is understood it is pseudo-science garbage.

    1. Isn't the idea to have the viewer decide for himself?

    2. The doc already says, "from the author."
      Vlatko offered a good disclaimer, any more said might present a bias on his part.

      I am sure docs of this nature people can put two and two together.

    3. I think we'd both be happier if more people could put two and two together.

  49. Vaccines work, they eradicated smallpox and polio. I don't understand why this was posted on here, it's not a documentary, it's disinformation.

    1. Fabien L'Amour and David Stammel
      while i agree that this doc is "disinformation." or"a piece of garbage." a lot of people do not. if documentaries such as this one are only viewed where people who already agree or are likely to agree then they will never hear the counter arguments. this forum is a great place to expose these misleading ideas. also for those of us who try to argue against these lies it allows us to sharpen our arguments and see the thinking process (or lack of) of the other side. please see Vlatko's earlier post

    2. Perhaps it was posted to reveal allow the anti-vaccinationists to reveal themselves for the ignoramuses and liars they are.

  50. This website is called "top documentary films" why is this on here?
    it's a piece of garbage. The narrator clearly has no clue what he's talking about. Don't waste your time. I'm only listening to it because it's humorous.

  51. Oh dear god... the first 20 min is nothing but pro lifer projectile vomit.
    I would like to see some scientific data on that cancer/vaccine link though, it is reasonable considering viruses cant replicate until they invade a cell and hijack its functions.
    I can see the possible complications of using squaline, but really, does it always have to be a government conspiracy ?

  52. my moms 2 brother died one of diptheria and the other pertusis my mom saw her little brother fall off his chair dead

  53. maybe the authors of lethal injection are Jehova Witness, vaccinations were forbidden up to 1952, and now they are a personal conscience issue.

  54. another bogus story that has been disproved over and over again folks the guy who started this scare was a con artist

  55. My spidey senses are telling me this is troll science :/

    1. As usual, your spidey (read down to earth) senses are playng you true. For an in-depth study on vaccine scares, you might want to try "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre

    2. better yet try Vaccination Hoax Whale...

  56. Just what, exactly, does the USGS have to do with vaccines? Do they vaccinate rocks or what? This doc is pseudoscience.

  57. i tried . i really did. made it twenty or so minutes in and wow.the presenter tries to infer some evil plot by highlighting particular words "fertility management" or feigning shock when humans are called animals and so are pests.

    could vaccines be safer? yes could they be more effective? yes will vaccines be developed that have less side effects? yes but not getting recommended vaccines leads to outbreaks and the suffering and death of others. there are those who are either allergic to the ingredients or have a condition(s) that prevents safe vaccination and they rely on the rest of us to get vaccinated to keep them relatively safe. if you wish to know about a vaccine read the peer reviewed articles (in their entirety) or review the medical communities (as a whole) stance on the particular vaccine.instead of getting medical advice from some from some random poster such as myself or some conspiracy theorist

    1. As I advised Dewflirt, you might want to try "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre.

      P.S. Your last sentence is not reading as I think you intended it to as the clause "such as myself" might be taken to apply both to conspiracy theorest (which I know you aren't) and random poster (which I know you are). Suggest "from some random poster such as myself or some conspiracy theorist."

    2. I fell asleep 10 min in. but I still think vaccines are corporate bull$hit

  58. The links and documentation are in this. He shows it.

  59. If you want to show me that a vaccination is bad for my health or causes infertility then please do so by scientifically breaking down the vaccine and showing me exactly how and why it does what you say by using the scientific method. If you can't do that you simply have another conspiracy theory and nothing more. Simply showing me how a medication that prevents fertility in horses could also be called a vaccine means absolutley nothing, its simply a way of SUGGESTING that a vaccine COULD be harmful, not that they are harmful. Were are the cases of people being infertile due to vaccination, were are any cases that conclusively link vaccination to harmful outcomes? Were are the double blind studies and journal publications? This is psuedo-scientific fear mongering for conspiracy theory nuts in my opinion. I have no doubt that the pharmaceutical industry is corrupt and that many of the newer designer meds out there are dangerous, but vaccines have vastly impproved the quality of human life- period. My dad remembers when we didn't have vaccines for deseases like polio, ask him if he thinks it was a good thing. It is hard to deny that many deseases such as polio were all but eradicated by the use of vaccines. This conspiracy theory has been around long enough for them to conclusively prove that vaccines are harmful, for them to have specific cases to site were vaccines have been conclusively linked to harmful results- but they choose instead to dissect U.S. legal code and compare horse medications to vaccines- that should tell us something.

    1. It is important to also spell "were and where" properly in order for anyone to take you seriously.

  60. I really like Top Documentary Films and the diversity of views that it presents - but this film is purely and simply a presentation of fraudulent pseudoscience and dangerous medical misinformation. The person who created this film shows a classic Schizophrenic misinterpretation/ decontextualization of language (listen their rant on the term "anti-body") which suggests their misinformation comes from paranoia and delusion rather than malicious intent - however unless the host of this website suffers a similar illness, there is no excuse for perpetuating such dangerous misinformation.

    1. @Georgina,

      I agree, it is pseudoscience and complete medical misinformation, and I'm thus guilty for perpetuating this doc.

      However, lot of commentators will challenge the content (@Waldo already did a great job) and hopefully expose the misinformation in it.

      Plus I hope that lot of people who are already aligned with the reasoning behind this doc, will be confronted with intelligent and rational explanations of why they're possibly wrong.

    2. I understand your reasoning Vlatko but aren't you worried you give credibility to this nonsense by posting it on TOP Documentary? There is nothing in there that makes it TOP in my humble opinion. You also spread access to that disinformation by posting it, I am worried you might boost the google ranking for that video just by reposting it.

      A google search for The story of vaccination puts that result #1. It is BY NO MEAN a story of vaccination but the analysis of a pseudo-scientist. Someone with poor judgement might actually think it is true and reject vaccination. Also, what percentage of viewers will read the comments? I just think it's a bad idea to give it any additional publicity...

    3. You might also want to look at "Expelled," "The War on Health" and "Programming for Life," two more idiotic documentaries on TDF. While I see your point, it's worse to let these people drivel on with impunity.

    4. In that case help to educate by not simply saying its rubbish and throwing insults like most people on the internet. Pick out points and explain the truth as you understand it.