an ebola reminder

[Dallane]

I'm just happy we got the skeletons under control.........for now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u_v9H24PfY

OH GOD THEY HAVE SUPER HEROS NOW

[Inotdead]

...

Well if I were to forget everything you said before, I'd answer, that you heavily misintepret the impact a vaccine is supposed to make. A single vaccine is by no means a panacea against all forms of sickness.
If you want an analogy, think about it this way: you have a human before you, who claims to have used a car without any safety measures his whole life long, and who have never got injured in a car accident.
Could this be true? Indeed, some people live their whole life long without getting in one, and the majority of those who do only ends up with a damaged car.
So does it mean that all safety measures, which a vaccine in effect is, are redundant if you can live healthy without them?
I think I can imagine an environment, where they are, but in the actual world you can't control when someone rams your car on fullspeed, or when there is a higher risk of getting vaccine-preventable sickness.


It's not about being perfectly healthy because of the vaccine, it's about reducing the risk.
I still don't understand, why is it so hard for you to spend a bit of time learning what a vaccine actually is.

[lachlaan]

But for now let's assume he is honest and speaking the truth. So therefore we cannot draw any conclusions that automatically it is good for everyone to not vaccinate. BUT the point was that we have a living proof of someone that has not vaccinated and he seems healthy and happy.

.................................

If here is a flaw?, please do point it out so i can address my lack of competence in logic? So can we now come on a common ground here that my first claim is not faulty?

Is it valid?

"Let's assume his claims are true, and assuming such, does it not naturally follow that his claims are true?"

That's some badass cyclical logic mate, that's where the flaw is. You can't draw a conclusion smack out of a hypothesis. At best you can say that should his claims be true, and I'm going to take you back to highschool logic lessons with this :

If not all unvaccinated humans are dying, infected, unwell = some unvaccinated humans aren't sick. Which does indeed denote "possibility", but you're not looking for posibility, you're looking for probability, and with a value attached to it at that. Because nobody argued that all unvaccinated people will die a horrible death, all anyone has argued is that vaccination improves your odds significantly. That's what the studies show, that's what people have experienced.

If his claims are false, you can then state pretty much nothing regarding vaccinates in themselves, as any sort of general statement, because you have no info pertaining to the vaccine's effectiveness or the person's vaccine history.

[Syndarn]

...

I am having a dilemma here, hard to answer, and more so because i have a hard time to try to explain to you why getting into a car accident is not really random. Because for me in my reality this is 100% fact and true. For you it is just lies in your ears. If i would attempt this i would have to talk of metaphysical or psychology stuff which i don't think you would want to hear or believe. Not sure if i can explain it any other way. Let's see now. Ill try to just sticking to the vaccines and psychology.

Let's first Define what a vaccine is: A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and keep a record of it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine

In addition these vaccines have substances that are evidently toxic to our bodies, what their exact function is in the vaccine and why they are needed i don't know. But my best guess would be giving shelf life for the vaccine and helping the micro organism stay in a desired state.

Now this is my own thoughts:
So we have a vaccine against a disease we cannot know for certain that we will ever get. And since it changes our immune system and is not exactly working with it to combat the disease in a natural way. So it's more like: "ok you have polio immunity now. But we have changed the rest of your immune system artificially to give you polio immunity, but we might have messed up your natural resistances in the process! So you will get the flu easier and other crap. But don't worry about polio. kk? it's covered."

Most of us are chronic warriors for worrying. Always expect the worst to happen, and prepare yourself. It's a bit like we are going out looking for trouble. "I have polio immunity, fak juu polio, come here if you dare! rekt!"
Also in this case psychologically or ethically i don't think it's a very good basis to go with "i don't trust my body to handle itself, so i will vaccinate" .. that's like saying i don't love or like or respect my own body. So the decision is made from a negative starting point.

Now we have this person here that says he is not vaccinated, seems healthy and happy. And since he is not vaccinated he probably doesn't worry that much to catch a disease. He trusts his own body and loves himself more than the vaccinating person. It's all good right? .. You could argue that vaccinating yourself is self loving, but i disagree. Because if you want to change or help yourself then that indicates that there is something wrong with you, you are not good enough, so you want to change or hide from what you don't like. Basically i can't accept things the way they are, so i am permanently modifying myself.

So if you vaccinate and every other aspect of your life is 100% .. you can't feel 100% good about yourself. Because you had the negative belief that lead you to vaccinate in the first place. That negative belief doesn't go away until you process it. It's like a trauma. And once you vaccinated you can't exactly unvaccinate yourself.

So let's recap.
Vaccinated person: Strong against polio,but might have a higher chance to pick up other illnesses. (modified immune system) + Negative feeling.
Non vaccinated: Neutral against everything, non modified natural immune system. + positive feeling.

So the questions are?:
1. Can a person live a happy life when not at 100%? Answer: probably.
2. But does a person want to live a life when they don't feel 100% about themselves and they are not committed 100% to life, and know they made a decision about themselves from a negative basis. It's basically the same thing as that Emo kid.. who "overreacts" and does something stupid, just to feel better a little while until there's a new bug on the block, and then you need more poison. So a paniced solution out of fear to not get sick. Answer: Well i wouldn't like that very much. Id rather be 100% as long as i live.

So i think that there should be more practical studies made on people to find out if vaccinations really are worth it, when they are so against our nature to feel good about ourselves.
Like what i suggested here:

Do we have a practical study of lets say 5000 people that gets all vaccines they want vs 5000 people that don't get any vaccine at all, ever. They live their lives as usual to let's say from a infant to 40 or 50, and every time when they get sick they report what disease they have got and if they used any antibiotics/medicine. That is a study i would like to see. I understand that it is very hard to control all the factors, but i don't see a reason to do that. All people live different lives, eat, sleep, live and exercise differently.

all anyone has argued is that vaccination improves your odds significantly. That's what the studies show, that's what people have experienced.

But at what cost does it improve it?

[Mereni]

I'm going to ignore some of what you've said more recently because I think some very good counter arguments have been made by others and I second what they have said. But I will say something about this:

All in all these studies are following a pattern of Vaccine 1X against Disease 1X .. success rate %. But they don't take into account as far as i could tell by quickly looking at the abstracts that if you are more prone to get sick to the common flu, or develop allergies or something else. Every singly one of these studies seem to look down at a very narrow path and not take into account the broader picture. They might in the study itself, but don't say in the abstracts that if the person has got a vaccine prior for another disease.. what is the benefits or complications on combining these vaccines.

The studies I linked you to were no more than a quick search meant to prove only that studies are being done on vaccines all the time. It was a counter to your comment that the man in your video stated that such studies had never been done and you believed him. Only some Abstracts and occasionally a short summary of results were public in any of those studies so if you're not going to buy the articles, making any argument for or against their scientific accuracy is silly except to point out that publishing such articles in scientific journals or on sites like this requires peer review. Independent scientists in the same field must go over the articles and the evidence backing them up and acknowledge that they were done with attention to scientific method and that the conclusions drawn fit the data.

As for the studies not being broad enough, I found those with a quick search. There very well may be many many studies similar to that one testing whether or not MMR vaccines affect autism rates involving other vaccines or combinations of vaccines and general health.

Since I've read all your articles and watched all your videos, I hope you will read this article with an open mind:

http://www.rki.de/EN/Content/Prevention ... cationFile

It's a document based on studies done by various scientists and universities and government institutions in Germany, and written jointly by the Robert Koch-Institute and the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut. It provides answers to 20 questions commonly asked by those who are skeptical of vaccines and their effectiveness. You'll find a couple pages of references at the end backing up those answers as well.

[lachlaan]

In addition these vaccines have substances that are evidently toxic to our bodies, what their exact function is in the vaccine and why they are needed i don't know. But my best guess would be giving shelf life for the vaccine and helping the micro organism stay in a desired state.

Which evidently toxic substances are you referring to? And how do you know they are evidently tocix, when you have no knowldge of what they are and what benefit they supposedly have, which might outweigh the presumed negative effects?

Now this is my own thoughts:
So we have a vaccine against a disease we cannot know for certain that we will ever get. And since it changes our immune system and is not exactly working with it to combat the disease in a natural way. So it's more like: "ok you have polio immunity now. But we have changed the rest of your immune system artificially to give you polio immunity, but we might have messed up your natural resistances in the process! So you will get the flu easier and other crap. But don't worry about polio. kk? it's covered."

Inducing your immune system to make the antibodies it would've naturally made against the disease had it contracted said disease sounds like a pretty natural way of stimulating the immune system against said disease, without exposing the body to the harmful symptoms that cause the actual health risks attached to each disease. You do understand that there are no micro-gnomes crafting antibodies inside us, vaccines don't inject nanobots into us, it's all quite natural in terms of immunity building. Consider it target practice with retarded instances of the disease/virus.

Meanwhile, your immune system isn't specifically damaged in its ability to improve its immunity to other diseases should it be exposed to it. Our body doesn't have limited silver, and can only afford to buy a polio vaccine while not affording flu antibodies.

As for one disease being rarer than others, the reason the worse diseases out there are rarer is BECAUSE of heavy vaccination done in the past. It's the reason kids don't get small pox at school, and the reason you can now joke about it not being likely to contract polio. Please keep in mind that even if a polio vaccine reduced your flu immunity, which I don't think it does, polio will ***** you up, while the flu is easily countered unless you already have health issues that conflict with the flu's symptoms.

Most of us are chronic warriors for worrying. Always expect the worst to happen, and prepare yourself. It's a bit like we are going out looking for trouble. "I have polio immunity, fak juu polio, come here if you dare! rekt!"
Also in this case psychologically or ethically i don't think it's a very good basis to go with "i don't trust my body to handle itself, so i will vaccinate" .. that's like saying i don't love or like or respect my own body. So the decision is made from a negative starting point.

If you trust your body so much in its ability to handle itself, I highly suggest you give it some challenges, go make tiny cuts all over your lips, as well as the lips of an ebola carrier and make out passionately. See if your body thanks you for respecting it as you're bleeding out of several orifices and coughing your heart out. Anecdotes aside, there is no extra dignity or pride to be had in the fact that you've allowed your body to play russian roulette with dangerous diseases. I'm not talking the flu here, even though that's also a good thing to prevent. But assuming you were to never make contact with any other human being that might have a weaker immune system than your own, allowing your body to fight off anything that might permanently damage you, like say, measles as an adult that hasn't contracted it prior and is not vaccinated, is simply retarded and self damaging. Your body has no feelings that will get hurt if you decide not to waste its resources for fighting off avoidable diseases, so that it may be preserved for a longer period of time during which you can hopefully better yourself and the world around you in ways different than spewing mystical mumbo jumbo that makes you feel better in your ignorant bliss, while not actually improving anything at all for the rest of the world.

The starting point from which I personally make such decisions is "my body deserves to not get hit with every disease I might contract, and people around me deserve to not be exposed by whatever contagious disease I might've foolishly contracted because I decided not to vaccinate".

Now we have this person here that says he is not vaccinated, seems healthy and happy. And since he is not vaccinated he probably doesn't worry that much to catch a disease. He trusts his own body and loves himself more than the vaccinating person. It's all good right? .. You could argue that vaccinating yourself is self loving, but i disagree. Because if you want to change or help yourself then that indicates that there is something wrong with you, you are not good enough, so you want to change or hide from what you don't like. Basically i can't accept things the way they are, so i am permanently modifying myself.

So if you vaccinate and every other aspect of your life is 100% .. you can't feel 100% good about yourself. Because you had the negative belief that lead you to vaccinate in the first place. That negative belief doesn't go away until you process it. It's like a trauma. And once you vaccinated you can't exactly unvaccinate yourself.

I have yet to spend a single second worrying about my vaccines after having had them. Why don't you ask all the kids with polio that weren't vaccinated and ended up severly physically impaired if they love themselves more for having made that choice? Actually this is one passage where all I can say is "I don't even.". If that's your point of view about your body then I suggest you yourself seek a psychologist because believe it or not our bodies are not perfect, and you are a perfect example of how our minds are nowhere near perfect, and accepting that is pretty liberating. Instead denying it and then making bad decisions like refusing vaccines in the case of overestimating your body's capabilities, and choosing to embrace ignorance in the case of overestimating your mind, will lead to risk of damaging both your body and mind in the long run. Basically playing russian roulette with yourself for the sake of maintaining a false healthy ego, with a nice side of illusions of .. what .. being wolverine?

So let's recap.
Vaccinated person: Strong against polio,but might have a higher chance to pick up other illnesses.
(modified immune system) + Negative feeling.
Non vaccinated: Neutral against everything, non modified natural immune system. + positive feeling.

I still have no idea where you got the idea that a polio vaccine makes you vulnerable against other illnesses, I'd like a link to that, which I promise not to read as I am thoroughly done with your ignorance, but just sayin', inform yourself and show that you've previously informed yourself when presenting your point.

I've already explained how vaccines don't modify your immune system, but just provide it target practice so that it can apply its natural antibody production mechanism onto the retarded specimens of the target disease.

You seem to be assuming that people have negative feelings about their bodies post-immunization. In fact I am personally quite happy that in my work in construction I can get a scratch and get my hands dirty and not have to worry about a lovely, and pleasant tetanos shot in the tummy-tum-tumm. In fact I'm quite happy with myself as a whole human being, body and mind, for both being immune to a few nasties out there and at the same time for having been smart enough to not turn down immunization out of some weird self esteem issue.

You say neutral like it's a good thing, or like it doesn't just mean you're that one ******* in every zombie movie that gets infected and then just hides it and smears the infection onto everyone else because YOLO. You are allowing yourself to be a carrier in the future eventuality that you contract a disease. You are exposing your own body and immune system to more of a beating than it needs to take simply out of ignorance. The positive feeling you describe is deduced out of some silly promotional video you just linked, and perhaps your own positive feelings which I personally posit are caused by ignorance, not some form of superior insight in the matter.

So the questions are?:
1. Can a person live a happy life when not at 100%? Answer: probably.
2. But does a person want to live a life when they don't feel 100% about themselves and they are not committed 100% to life, and know they made a decision about themselves from a negative basis. It's basically the same thing as that Emo kid.. who "overreacts" and does something stupid, just to feel better a little while until there's a new bug on the block, and then you need more poison. So a paniced solution out of fear to get sick. Answer: Well i wouldn't like that very much. Id rather be 100% as long as i live.

"as long as I live" doesn't sound like it'll be a long time if you maintain this line of reasoning.

You keep calling it poison, but it's the same poison you advocate you should allow your body to fight off on its own, except in a non-weakened state. You keep saying that letting your body fend off everything life throws at it is some sort of happiness inducing drug, well to that I say, the next time someone points a gun at you, let your body fend off the bullet rather than using your mind to avoid unnecessary harm. In fact, let your body fend off every single danger out there, as making a choice to avoid any danger is an insult to your body, and clearly indicates you hate your body and instincts and are allowing your conscious mind to undermine your body and subconscious mind's ability to fend for itself.

So i think that there should be more practical studies made on people to find out if vaccinations really are worth it, when they are so against our nature to feel good about ourselves.
Like what i suggested here:

Do we have a practical study of lets say 5000 people that gets all vaccines they want vs 5000 people that don't get any vaccine at all, ever. They live their lives as usual to let's say from a infant to 40 or 50, and every time when they get sick they report what disease they have got and if they used any antibiotics/medicine. That is a study i would like to see. I understand that it is very hard to control all the factors, but i don't see a reason to do that. All people live different lives, eat, sleep, live and exercise differently.

When you have read all existing studies and have then logically and rationally concluded they are ****, then please suggest more studies. In the meanwhile you have no reason to ask for more studies if you'll just ignore those as well.

all anyone has argued is that vaccination improves your odds significantly. That's what the studies show, that's what people have experienced.

But at what cost does it improve it?

It improves at very little to no cost at all. The fact of the matter is that even if there were a cost, a negative side effect, and of course some vaccines have some negative side effects, the positive effects gained from vaccinating are far greater. You get less spreading of the disease to people with weaker immune system, you get to be a protector, you get to save lives! You get to be madagascar and immunize the **** out of that plague! You get to have won an intellectual victory over ignorance, a biological victory over a bug that would've otherwise used the human species to mindlessly try to survive at the expense of human lives and standard of living. You get to have won at slowly crafting a world where if the human body encounters a disease it can't naturally fend off, scientists will find a way to help us fend it off.

Tl;Dr Why the ***** did I even write that much when I know it'll either bounce right off him, or that he's just a massive troll that totally won at getting to me.

All I can say is that it hurts to know people like you are out there, and it hurts even more that you can put together half a sentence and still reach these sort of conclusions. I mean I understand the undereducated illiterate hick that couldn't even spell vaccine if you asked him. I don't expect that sort of people to suddenly get enlightened on any sort of topic. But I would expect someone like you to not be this blatantly ignorant, and it really is something scary to think about. The next time you decide to claeyt your way through a post and ignore anything refuting your claims and just cling to your ignorant posts, think about the fact that I genuinely am more afraid of people believing the sort of stuff you're talking about than I am afraid of ebola. THINK ABOUT IT

[Syndarn]

Well that is a long answer. Thanks for that. I don't have time right now to answer back on everything, ill i guess ill edit this post later.
But in here might be some quick answers for you.
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2009/06/20/dont-vaccinate-before-you-educate/ .. At least on the toxic substances part.
this guy wrote a couple of books too here the newest i think http://www.shopnps.com/Dont-vaccinate-Before-You-Educate-Revised/productinfo/BVIII/

All in all there is a lot of debate on if vaccines risks outweigh the gains right now. it's not just me trying to preach here like a lunatic, to be honest it's quite exhausting.

Here is some more http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2014/06/24/measles-and-measles-vaccines-fourteen-things-to-consider-by-roman-bystrianyk-co-author-dissolving-illusions-disease-vaccines-and-the-forgotten-history/
and this http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2014/10/09/crucifying-the-vaccine-heretics-by-roman-bystrianyk-co-author-dissolving-illusions-disease-vaccines-and-the-forgotten-history/
There is a lot more on that page. Look at the recent posts box on the right side, mid page for more.

I haven't read all of it, but i am gonna do it tomorrow.

[lachlaan]

I'm quite done with you to be honest. I strongly suggest you play devil's advocate and for the sake of fun and checking the other side of the coin, try to prove all on your own why that site you keep linking to is wrong, or right if that's the conclusion you'll reach. But seriously try to debunk each point they make for at least 15 minutes online and see how the other side sees things. To start, you could make an educated guess about the legitimacy and accuracy of their claims based on how many references they link to. Any college student will tell you that in order for the claims you make in an essay to be considered anywhere near valid you have to reference the bejeezus out of it, point at any loose claim you've made that has its actual proof contained elsewhere. You can't just throw around statements and not reference where it's actually been explained in more depth. Meanwhile you did reference your claims, but it's an article that doesn't really reference its claims, so it doesn't really count. It all still sums up to "because I said so". So please do play devil's advocate for pro-vaccine people , dedicate a day to re-educating yourself, or otherwise arming yourself with better knowledge to educate others about your point of view.

[Syndarn]

http://www.rki.de/EN/Content/Prevention/Vaccination/Vaccination_download.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

It's a document based on studies done by various scientists and universities and government institutions in Germany, and written jointly by the Robert Koch-Institute and the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut. It provides answers to 20 questions commonly asked by those who are skeptical of vaccines and their effectiveness. You'll find a couple pages of references at the end backing up those answers as well.

Well, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut is linked to WHO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ehrlich_Institute
Well i don't know if it is the same family, but http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Family_Foundations these guys are billionaires.

Since i don't really trust WHO or the Koch's in that matter because they spread a lot of money around. Who knows what their motives are. But i either way i find it very hard to accept your link as Unbiased honest answers.

Lachlaan, i suggest you look at Mereni's link and read part 14. Then compare it to my article about toxins. It's interesting how they say it's just "minute" concentrations. There are no numbers backing that up. Just pretty calming words.

[Mereni]

So we have a vaccine against a disease we cannot know for certain that we will ever get. And since it changes our immune system and is not exactly working with it to combat the disease in a natural way. So it's more like: "ok you have polio immunity now. But we have changed the rest of your immune system artificially to give you polio immunity, but we might have messed up your natural resistances in the process! So you will get the flu easier and other crap. But don't worry about polio. kk? it's covered."

Most of us are chronic warriors for worrying. Always expect the worst to happen, and prepare yourself. It's a bit like we are going out looking for trouble. "I have polio immunity, fak juu polio, come here if you dare! rekt!"
Also in this case psychologically or ethically i don't think it's a very good basis to go with "i don't trust my body to handle itself, so i will vaccinate" .. that's like saying i don't love or like or respect my own body. So the decision is made from a negative starting point.

Now we have this person here that says he is not vaccinated, seems healthy and happy. And since he is not vaccinated he probably doesn't worry that much to catch a disease. He trusts his own body and loves himself more than the vaccinating person. It's all good right? .. You could argue that vaccinating yourself is self loving, but i disagree. Because if you want to change or help yourself then that indicates that there is something wrong with you, you are not good enough, so you want to change or hide from what you don't like. Basically i can't accept things the way they are, so i am permanently modifying myself.

So if you vaccinate and every other aspect of your life is 100% .. you can't feel 100% good about yourself. Because you had the negative belief that lead you to vaccinate in the first place. That negative belief doesn't go away until you process it. It's like a trauma. And once you vaccinated you can't exactly unvaccinate yourself.

Most of this makes no sense to me, but okay. So, you seem to be of the opinion that vaccines are bad mainly because you think you are hurting yourself by not making your body deal with anything it gets hit with. This is a mental outlook for you then, and any scientific proof that vaccines are not going to hurt you doesn't matter. Okay, this makes sense. But you should consider a few things.

First, you quoted a quick definition of vaccines so you have read the truth, but it didn't sink in. Vaccines ARE natural, and they DO work WITH your immune system. It's exactly like having a tutor. You know how to read, you can teach yourself something like playing the guitar by yourself and maybe get good at it, but you'll learn much more quickly and have fewer setbacks if you hire someone who knows how to play to teach you. In the same way, your immune system can learn how to fight a particular disease on it's own, or it can receive a vaccine. It learns to fight the disease in the exact same way it would have learned alone, but with fewer drawbacks.

Second, there is absolutely no reason to believe that vaccinating against one disease will weaken you against another. There is no proof of that anywhere and I'd like to know where you got that idea. In fact, your body has to protect you against the invasion of literally millions of potentially harmful pathogens every day and one disease more or less won't have any effect on that, it's just that vaccines allow us to avoid the worse effects of the worst diseases. Take a stab at reading this book excerpt: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26846/ It's a short summary of the awesomeness that is the human immune system and the arms race that is disease. It's actually kinda scary, read with caution.

Third, how is change such a bad thing? Setting aside the fact that the exact change you seem so afraid of is going to happen in your body if you get sick as will happen if you get the vaccine, why should you consider your body changing to be a traumatic and bad thing? Your body is constantly and permanently altering itself in various ways to cope with your environment or because you are aging: Puberty, menopause, cessation of growth around the 18th year or so, various brain structures naturally grow or shrink based on age, Memory B cells created and maintained for every disease you fight off. And temporary changes too: Bodily changes to adapt to your climate, growth or absorption of muscle tissue based on activity, daily/monthly/yearly hormone cycles causing myriad changes, and so many other things. You seem to have no idea how your body is changing every single minute of every single day, there is absolutely no reason to feel bad about helping some of those changes along.

Fourth, related to the third point, I find it downright frightening that you think vaccination is a 'negative belief' and that it will traumatize you. That's like saying that wearing socks and shoes is a negative belief because you should believe in your body's ability to stave off frostbite in the coldest of temperatures, never mind that we got our start in the tropics. It's like saying that maintaining good nutrition year round is a negative belief because you should rely on your body's ability to limp along on vitamin deficits and self cannibalism during the scarce winter months, never mind that starvation killed many of our ancestors and many people who are not our ancestors due to their dying before they could reproduce.

http://www.rki.de/EN/Content/Prevention/Vaccination/Vaccination_download.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

It's a document based on studies done by various scientists and universities and government institutions in Germany, and written jointly by the Robert Koch-Institute and the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut. It provides answers to 20 questions commonly asked by those who are skeptical of vaccines and their effectiveness. You'll find a couple pages of references at the end backing up those answers as well.

Well, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut is linked to WHO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ehrlich_Institute
Well i don't know if it is the same family, but http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Family_Foundations these guys are billionaires.

Since i don't really trust WHO or the Koch's in that matter because they spread a lot of money around. Who knows what their motives are. But i either way i find it very hard to accept your link as Unbiased honest answers.

Lachlaan, i suggest you look at Mereni's link and read part 14. Then compare it to my article about toxins. It's interesting how they say it's just "minute" concentrations. There are no numbers backing that up. Just pretty calming words.

I'm not sure why you don't trust WHO, but just because the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut is in a program which allows WHO to look at and verify their research doesn't mean that the institute or its research is invalid. Also, if you read the article you linked about Koch Family, you'll see they have nothing to do with Robert Koch-Institut, it's just a coincidence of surnames. Also, this paper is merely a summary of studies done by many other people, not all of them related to these two institutions, so I find your cavalier dismissal of everything in them, (except that one little bit from question 14 that you felt supported your worldview so you threw it in lachlaan's face) to be insulting in the extreme. Especially considering how you've swallowed whole many much less reputable articles just because you like what they have to say.

The summary I posted doesn't mention exact amounts of toxins in question 14, but it is a summary. Your little article where you point to toxic substances in point 6 also doesn't mention amounts. Did you know that Thimerosol is no longer an ingredient in vaccines just because of people like you being so concerned about it despite numerous studies showing that it is harmless? Did you know that Phenol is also a food additive? That Ethylene Glycol is actually not present in vaccines but many toxic-vaccine websites claim it is? That Formaldehyde is indeed present in vaccines in trace amounts, but that auto exhaust, the paint and wood in your walls, fingernail polish and many other things emit FAR more of it into your environment on a daily basis? That the evidence of Aluminum's association with cancer or Alzheimer's is actually not proven at all and probably doesn't exist? That the antibiotics present in vaccines are only in trace amounts and the adverse reactions cited here are from full dosages of the medicines?

You like blogs and things a lot. Here's a nice little easy read blog discussing the supposed toxins in vaccines: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tox ... -vaccines/

It has the added bonus of linking many of it's claims to other sources.