the amish dont get autism: VACCINES

[Monica]

Yes Monica, they question it... Now I appreciate that we should question everything. But after we've questioned it we should look for a real answer.

When I questioned it I only had to reach out to pubmed to dig up article upon article proving that it works.

That is precisely my point. You 'only' looked at pubmed?

Respectfully, looking at multiple articles all from the same source is sort of like listening to a political debate and 'only' listening to multiple comments by one of the candidates, while muting out the other candidate. How can you have any conclusions if you are hearing 'only' 1/2 of the info? How can you make an unbiased assessment if you are viewing 'only' one side of the debate?

Perhaps you consider pubmed to be unbiased? Again, respectfully, I challenge that veiwpoint. The medical database is managed by the very people who stand to gain from the sale of their drugs - Big Pharma.

I would be interested in hearing your opinions after you've viewed the videos I posted...if you are interested in considering points of view other than that offered by the medical establishment. Or, to be more accurate: points of view offered by various people, including the actual witnesses (the parents of affected children) as well as those who were once part of the medical establishment and are now whistleblowers!

You don't actually need science to show it works: Measles practically vanishing from the united states is a pretty clear example. Polio and smallpox not actually being present in the west while still ravaging certain parts of the third world is also a clear example.... I'd certainly like to hear any alternative explanations you might have. I can find none.

Actually, it's not clear at all. The videos and articles I posted address these points.

...in this particular case I cannot convince myself that vaccines do not work. The evidence to the contrary is too overwhelming to suggest "they" are making it seem this way. I don't believe they have the power to influence the research of every scholar without me knowing about it. I'm trained as a scholar and I see their influence and I know how that world works having been a part of it and still checking up on them regularly.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. If you are interested in considering other points of view, then may I suggest setting all presuppositions aside just long enough to view the alternate sources of data. This is what I did, and I was stunned at what I found!

Again, if you are satisfied with your choice, I respect that. I offer alternative views for your consideration, should you choose to do so. I am suggesting to you that, without considering the other viewpoints, any conclusion is based on biases and presuppositions. Sometimes it's difficult to conceive of a cherished presupposition being challenged.

1. Vaccines work in the case of life threatening illnesses.. The history, prevalence and response to vaccines of polio and smallpox are clear evidence of this.

This presupposes that the history, prevalence and response to vaccines were all accurately recorded and the data accurately interpreted. It is this very premise that the videos and articles I posted challenge...and quite effectively, imho.

2. In some cases there is no preventive modality. The alternative method of prevention for small pox is exposure to cow pox. Which is essentially the same or even more dangerous than vaccination. (Being a live virus) The prevention for polio has no alternatives as far as I understand.

Again I respectfully disagree. There are many natural alternatives to virtually every disease. Homeopathic remedies in particular have been used with great success. There is clinical data on this from European hospitals.

If we would stop vaccinating, then small pox and polio would ravage the west and take thousands of casualties each year.

Are you sure about that? Why aren't Black Plague and Bubonic Plague still ravaging the world?

Those who are too poor to vaccinate see the disease on a regular basis.

That is presupposing the vaccine is the only variable in the equation. However, there are other variables, such as diet, lifestyle, and hygiene.

I understand why you would doubt the claims of the likes of WHO and the CDC... They clearly are lying to us. And not just in this vaccine business. I could give you more. High blood pressure and diabetes are also abused on a daily basis. And on the psychology front depression and ADHD are popular money cows.

I'm glad we agree on that! Why, then, would I want to trust the WHO/CDC when they are in bed with the drug companies?

But even if you doubt the CDC and WHO, why would you doubt the research that was done 200 years ago long before these groups actually came into existence?

200 years ago, vaccine research was in its infancy. I'm not sure they even had vaccines back then, and if they did, they were undoubtedly crude. So I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to here. What I do know is that, at that time, most MDs were homeopaths. The basic premise of eliciting an immune response with a minute substance is a sound idea. In fact, the very concept is based on homeopathic principles!!

My point is that the concept can be executed in a harmless way using homeopathic medicines instead of toxic drugs. We needn't choose between ravaging plagues and long-term, debilitating side effects from those drugs. We can exercise the power of our free will and refuse to settle for either of those scenarios. We do indeed live in a holographic UniVerse. Personally, I find the idea of settling for injecting poison into the body temple to avoid being invaded by 2D critters to be very primitive and barbaric. There are alternatives! Alternatives that promote life instead of death.

Is the general population ready for these alternatives? Unfortunately, due largely to the mentality of the masses which is being mirrored by the drug companies giving them what they want (ie. handing over their responsibility to the medical 'authorities' and demanding a quick fix instead of making lifestyle changes), the answer to that is no for the most part. But, that is changing. More and more people are questioning what they've been fed regarding their health. Witness the huge alternative health industry! More and more people are willing to pay out of pocket to get alternative health care. The time is ripe to start making this info available for those who might choose it.

Discernment is required, but this does not just take the form of skepticism towards the powers that be. Sometimes we need to be skeptical of the conspiracy theorists. Right now they're getting a lot of attention, justly so, but we should not believe their every claim. My default position is to believe a scientist unless a good body of evidence is provided.

I agree that discernment is required and both sides should be questioned. There is truth to be found, as well as false assumptions to be found, on both sides of the debate.

I prefer to have a default position of being neutral. I don't consider a scientist's position any more valid than that of a mother whose 2 children were both developing normally, talking, etc. and then suddenly developed symptoms of autism within hours of getting vaccinated. (I actually met a young mother who had TWO autistic children!) Scientists are great at quantifying data. But their assessment can be only as good as the data they have available. There is reason to believe that the data is far from accurate. In addition, that data represents real people. These real people are often considered insignificant in favor of numbers in a computer. The scientist and the mother are both part of the equation. I would not prefer one as a default over the other.