I see vaccines starting out as a good thing which has morphed into something not so good.
For example -- throughout history diphtheria and pertussis, a causative agent for whooping cough were both a leading cause of death, primarily among children. Two diseases that few parents have had to see their children suffer within the last 80 or more years.
Researchers find that on average a quarter of infants died before their first birthday and half of all children died before they reached puberty. That's 50% never reached puberty.
Today the global rate is 3% never reach puberty, and in western countries it is only 1% or lower.
Coincidences do not mean proof.
Smallpox was an obvious fraud.
But what do you think? Do coincidences of diseases decreasing before the vaccine was introduce give any evidence that maybe the vaccine did not play a part in decreasing the disease?
Along with polio, diptheria displays the same snake-oil marketing.
Does the journal of tropical pediatrics lie? Or the unicef evaluation publication 6?
http://whale.to/v/diptheria_h.htmlhttp://whale.to/vaccines/whooping.htmAnd in case someone objects to whale.to, why not do a search yourself for the titles?
How about from the senior advisor of the first nations centre of the national aboriginal health organization
"Figures one (1) through eleven (11) graphically illustrate that in North America, Europe, and the South Pacific , major declines in life-threatening infectious diseases occurred historically either without, or far in advance of public immunization efforts for specific diseases as listed. This provides irrefutable evidence that vaccines are not necessary for the effective elimination of a wide range of infectious diseases"
Tuberculosis, Canada Measles, Pertussis, Annual influenza (including coronatype viruses!), scurvy, diptheria were reducing before the vaccine was introduced. Why?
Again, no vaccines ever have prevented disease.
