CDC Reveals Vaccine Horrors with graphic images, may be taken down soon...

[Shandi]

www.naturalnews.com/048691_vaccine_damaged_children_graphic_photos_medical_mutilation.html

These are really horrifying. I realize that many people may not trust www.Natural News, but may trust the CDC.

[DreadTori]

www.naturalnews.com/048691_vaccine_damaged_children_graphic_photos_medical_mutilation.html

These are really horrifying. I realize that many people may not trust www.Natural News, but may trust the CDC.

Everyone should see the movie "Bought" as soon as possible. It addresses the vaccine issue and lots more.
Thanks, Shandi, for posting this.

[Shandi]

When I checked out information on this movie on FB, I came across this post on Jeff Hays Films page:

by Toni Bark

It gives some "difficult truths" about The Vaccine Compensation Court.

For some reason I'm unable to paste the article, but I'll post it on my FB page under Sandra Murphey.

Everyone should see the movie "Bought" as soon as possible. It addresses the vaccine issue and lots more.
Thanks, Shandi, for posting this.

[podfish]

www.naturalnews.com/048691_vaccine_damaged_children_graphic_photos_medical_mutilation.html

These are really horrifying. I realize that many people may not trust www.Natural News, but may trust the CDC.

so let's escalate to dead babies here..
maybe packages of food should have photos of those undergoing allergic reaction to them? auto ads should have photos of car crash victims? little-league programs photos of kids with broken arms?

The reason I don't trust the NN site is exactly this. It's the same tactic used by anti-abortionists showing fetus photos, and anti-smoking campaigns showing rotted jaws. It's not an argument, it's an apocalyptic warning. Even for anti-tobacco campaigns, it's only meaningful in context. Is smoking worth the risk of ending up like those photos, no matter how rare that outcome is? probably not. Is riding in a car worth the risk of ending up crushed and mutilated? as a society, we kinda say, yeah, it is. Thus it is for vaccines. So to use the heavily-overused term, it's another straw-man argument. No one makes the argument that vaccines are harmless manna from heaven but catching the disease means imminent destruction. There's a low odds that a vaccine will hurt you, and a much higher chance that a disease will - even accounting for the severity of injuries. Photos don't make an argument - they are intended to overwhelm people's ability to make rational judgements about relative harm and imply that these outcomes are not only disastrous but likely.

We know enough about how humans make decisions and evaluations to push their buttons when we want to. That's how con men, charlatans and advertisers operate. When an institution stoops to that tactic, hell yes it's a sign you shouldn't trust them. It's an attempt to divert attention from a process that's unnatural to us as animals - from a rational evaluation of evidence in order to make a decision that mitigates a bad situation. It would be lovely if there were no diseases; then we wouldn't be in a choose-least-bad situation. Unfortunately the anti-vax stuff makes that end result less likely. See: smallpox (although yeah, I know there's deniers that smallpox vaccine had anything to do with that too...)

[Shandi]

"When an institution stoops to that tactic, hell yes it's a sign you shouldn't trust them."

Do you trust the CDC who revealed these images? Do you trust the World Health Organization to look out for your health? Do you trust Monsanto?

so let's escalate to dead babies here..
maybe packages of food should have photos of those undergoing allergic reaction to them? auto ads should have photos of car crash victims? little-league programs photos of kids with broken arms?...

If someone is trying to market a product or service, they wouldn't have warnings which would deter purchase. The exceptions to this are the small print on tobacco and liquor, but it doesn't seem to deter people. Pictures do speak louder than words. Pet food manufacturers wouldn't have pictures or any indication of dead and diseased dogs and cats and other unidentified diseased animal tissues, that are in most pet foods. Animals who have become sick and died from eating crap pet food has recently come to the surface because of people becoming informed about ingredients and how to read labels, then reporting.

I think that graphic images have a role in educating people. I would like to see more horrific images of the damage done by texting while driving. The words "Don't text and drive" lack punch. I hope that images are being shown in high school driving courses. Not only the images of the maimed and dead, but images of people in prison for their role, while texting and driving. No one thinks it will happen to them. Just as criminals think they won't get caught. As I said in another post "texting while driving is like carrying a loaded gun".

Being alive means taking risks. Being healthy means being informed about the risks. But many people blindly trust the "system". I only recently learned of the collusion between vets and the pet food manufacturers Hills and Royal Canin. Believe me, it was a "difficult truth" to swallow, but I'm glad I discovered it.

Recently I had to take my cat to the vet for ear problems. She had a severe reaction to the prescribed drops. I took her back in, and she was sedated with a drug I found out had been recalled a year ago. Animal guardians are reluctant to believe that their vet may be unaware or consciously choose to deny the realities linked with pet food and drug reactions, because of the "bottom line". $$$$$$

Everyone should have access to information that may save their life or the life of their pet. So, I choose to share information that I believe people may not know about. Another example is "De-clawing" of cats. This is a highly profitable surgery that leaves most cats with serious and painful results, which creates behavior problems and lands them in shelters. If people knew the truth, instead of thinking it's just like clipping nails, more people might give it serious consideration. Graphic images are much more powerful than words. People who stand to profit will never discourage purchase of their product or service.

[podfish]

"When an institution stoops to that tactic, hell yes it's a sign you shouldn't trust them."

Do you trust the CDC who revealed these images? Do you trust the World Health Organization to look out for your health? Do you trust Monsanto?....

If someone is trying to market a product or service, they wouldn't have warnings which would deter purchase.
....

I think that graphic images have a role in educating people. I would like to see more horrific images of the damage done by texting while driving.

one of the few times I'll team with Ronnie.. "trust but verify".
No, I don't "trust" any of them in the sense that I accept what they say uncritically. I take statements from each of those with varying levels of skepticism - but always with some.

and you spotted the difference exactly. If you're marketing, if you're doing advocacy, then absolutely it's appropriate to use emotionally-laden imagery. If you're doing education, you also don't want to hide reality, but you try to show it in a context that makes it informational rather than emotional. If CDC pulls the images, it's because someone else destroyed that context.

That's my issue with Natural News - it's not news. It's advocacy. They advocate for some things that make sense to me, and others that don't. They have a strong editorial bias. Again, that's fine - but it lowers their credibility vs. an organization like CDC. Some may prefer them, with their biases being so open, to the CDC whose own institutional biases are harder to determine. I don't, though...

[Scott McKeown]

www.naturalnews.com/048691_vaccine_damaged_children_graphic_photos_medical_mutilation.html

These are really horrifying. I realize that many people may not trust www.Natural News, but may trust the CDC.

https://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/

I went to the "Natural News" site through the link given above and then clicked on the link given in the article and it took me to an images page which is a sub-page of the smallpox vaccine section of the CDC website where they are (very responsibly) addressing some of the adverse reactions that happened. The ludicrous contention by "Natural News" is that now since "Natural News" has "exposed" this page on the CDC website it will probably be taken down to be hidden from the public, for some apparent reason.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5204a1.htm

Somehow this is all supposed to prove the point being made by "Natural News" which is that smallpox vaccination has been a really terrible thing for humanity.

If anyone doesn't already know the horrific history of smallpox and what it did, at times killing hundreds of millions of people around the world a year and well into the 20th Century, virtually wiping out entire cultures, with 80% of children dying who got infected, and how it was finally eradicated, here is one place to start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox

If one wants to look at horrific photos of disease-devastated children and people, just look at some of the photos of what smallpox does to people. But now, thanks to vaccination, we say that's what smallpox did to people (past tense).

For "Natural News" to try to hide behind science (unsuccessfully) and claim that vaccination against smallpox has been a bad thing, is simply mind-boggling and completely disconnected from reality.

Scott

[podfish]

I went to the "Natural News" site through the link given above and then clicked on the link given in the article and it took me to an images page which is a sub-page of the smallpox vaccine section of the CDC website where they are (very responsibly) addressing some of the adverse reactions that happened.

wow. I missed that part - the smallpox connection.

So they're trying to conflate reaction to the smallpox vaccine with possible reactions to MMR et al. Nice. I repeat my observation about their integrity as a source of information.

[Ronaldo]

Hear, Hear! Well put. Thanks.

so let's escalate to dead babies here..
maybe packages of food should have photos of those undergoing allergic reaction to them? auto ads should have photos of car crash victims? little-league programs photos of kids with broken arms?

The reason I don't trust the NN site is exactly this. It's the same tactic used by anti-abortionists showing fetus photos, and anti-smoking campaigns showing rotted jaws. It's not an argument, it's an apocalyptic warning. Even for anti-tobacco campaigns, it's only meaningful in context. Is smoking worth the risk of ending up like those photos, no matter how rare that outcome is? probably not. Is riding in a car worth the risk of ending up crushed and mutilated? as a society, we kinda say, yeah, it is. Thus it is for vaccines. So to use the heavily-overused term, it's another straw-man argument. No one makes the argument that vaccines are harmless manna from heaven but catching the disease means imminent destruction. There's a low odds that a vaccine will hurt you, and a much higher chance that a disease will - even accounting for the severity of injuries. Photos don't make an argument - they are intended to overwhelm people's ability to make rational judgements about relative harm and imply that these outcomes are not only disastrous but likely.

We know enough about how humans make decisions and evaluations to push their buttons when we want to. That's how con men, charlatans and advertisers operate. When an institution stoops to that tactic, hell yes it's a sign you shouldn't trust them. It's an attempt to divert attention from a process that's unnatural to us as animals - from a rational evaluation of evidence in order to make a decision that mitigates a bad situation. It would be lovely if there were no diseases; then we wouldn't be in a choose-least-bad situation. Unfortunately the anti-vax stuff makes that end result less likely. See: smallpox (although yeah, I know there's deniers that smallpox vaccine had anything to do with that too...)

[arthunter]

This is a good article about the subject ...

https://www.globalresearch.ca/are-vaccines-safe/15669

[Shandi]

Thank you for posting this. I didn't read the entire article, but enough to compliment other vaccine information I've seen.

Whenever I see the signs "Get Flu Shot today" at CVS, Walgreens,etc. somehow I don't believe that this is because these stores and the vaccine manufacturers really care about my health.

I know that the smallpox/polio vaccines helped wipe out horrible diseases, but I also wonder if since then, other factors have influenced our vaccine culture, like lack of need for stringent control studies, higher profitability, mass fear, etc.

In those days, we were much more likely to look to doctors as "gods". Since then, more has come to light which has revealed that "profit" rules in the medical profession, the veterinary profession, the food industry, and just about everywhere we look.

It's always easier in the short term to allow others to make decisions for us, but we, not them, have to live with the consequences.

This is a good article about the subject ...

https://www.globalresearch.ca/are-vaccines-safe/15669

[Valley Oak]

[podfish]

vaccines have the same problem as airplanes do. We all know that people are afraid of flying, not the drive to the airport, although the risks are higher on the drive. Yawn....

I bet the anti-vax crowd feels the same way on this. How many do you think will give up their dishwashers??

MONDAY, Feb. 23, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- Hand washing dishes instead of using a machine to wash dishes may reduce children's risk of developing allergic conditions, such as asthma or eczema, according to a new study.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Asthma/50141

and it has this in common too:

However, he noted that due to the study's design, they could not definitively show a cause-and-effect relationship between hand-washing dishes and the development of fewer allergic diseases.

[Shandi]

Life is full of risks that we take on a daily basis. I realized at one point, that each time I choose to leave my house, whether on foot or in a vehicle, my risk of harm to myself and others increases from unknown factors. As we learn more about risks from everyday activities, we may make different choices.

Who would have realized how dangerous texting while driving would be? Seems like common sense that anything that takes your eyes off the road creates more risk. Texting requires longer visual concentration than pushing a button on the dash. We're all at risk from texting drivers.

What we put into our bodies seem to have a higher risk potential than other things. I guess that's why so many people fight fluoride, GMOs, beverages in plastic containers, etc.

Our best choices would seem to come from doing some research, along with personal experience, and our own intuition. Choices are like opinions; we all have them, and sometimes think that by sharing them we're helping others. We all know that statistics and facts can be skewed to create a desired outcome, and can be seen from opposite sides like the two sides of a coin.

vaccines have the same problem as airplanes do. We all know that people are afraid of flying, not the drive to the airport, although the risks are higher on the drive. Yawn....

[podfish]

... Who would have realized how dangerous texting while driving would be?... Texting requires longer visual concentration than pushing a button on the dash....

What we put into our bodies seem to have a higher risk potential than other things. I guess that's why so many people fight flouride, GMOs, beverages in plastic containers, etc.

yeah, I guess I'm not as impressed by the dangers of things that go into my body compared to external things. Seems like it's got the taint of "cooties" - things just seem to be more of a violation to you if they touch you, much less go inside. But topologically you're a donut; your inside isn't all that much more inside than your outside, and in lots of ways you have pretty good defenses associated with the hole in the donut. People just have a visceral (pun intended) reaction to threats to their precious bodily interior, so their emotional defenses go way up compared to other threats.

and the texting-driving thing shows how misleading our perceptions of our own vulnerabilities are. When car radios came out, there was an analogous fear - listening to the radio would create havoc by distracting drivers. Sure, people crash when they're messing with the dials, but now just listening isn't considered a threat. Similarly, we think we can have light conversations with passengers without increasing our risk much - and that's true. But when you extend that to say that hands-off, voice-only communication over a speakerphone must have a similar level of risk, you're way off. That's counter-intuitive for most people. Which is my point. Your instincts aren't reliable as to facts. You pick your fears like you pick your other attitudes; with only a minimal level of rationality behind them.

[rossmen]

this is actually an interesting study done by real scientists and has nothing to do with vaccines. the hygiene hypothesis has lots of strong proof and would be a part of standard western medical recommendations if corporations could figure out how to make money with it. instead it is stuck in a perpetual cutting edge realm of alternative medicine and underfunded academic research.

vaccines have the same problem as airplanes do. We all know that people are afraid of flying, not the drive to the airport, although the risks are higher on the drive. Yawn....

I bet the anti-vax crowd feels the same way on this. How many do you think will give up their dishwashers??



https://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Asthma/50141

and it has this in common too:

[Jude Iam]

• ADD

• The Politics Of Measles, Vaccination, And Informed Consent,
• The Top 6 Reasons Why Parents Are Choosing Not To Vaccinate Their Kids
• The Forgotten History of Vaccinations You Need to Be Aware Of
• The Brilliance of Dr. Suzanne Humphries on The Dangers of Vaccines
• Breaking—CDC Vaccine Whistleblower Given Immunity to Testify CDC lies
• Measles Outbreaks Confirmed Among Children Already Vaccinated
• Prohibit Any Laws Mandating The Force And Requirement Of VACCINATIONS OF ANY KIND Petition

American Medical Association Opposes Mandatory Vaccines Medical Ethics Statement

this is actually an interesting study done by real scientists and has nothing to do with vaccines. the hygiene hypothesis has lots of strong proof and would be a part of standard western medical recommendations if corporations could figure out how to make money with it. instead it is stuck in a perpetual cutting edge realm of alternative medicine and underfunded academic research.

[podfish]

this is actually an interesting study done by real scientists and has nothing to do with vaccines. the hygiene hypothesis has lots of strong proof and would be a part of standard western medical recommendations if corporations could figure out how to make money with it. instead it is stuck in a perpetual cutting edge realm of alternative medicine and underfunded academic research.

you're perfectly illustrating the problem we all have when discussing issues like this - you do realize this is a perfect mirror image of the anti-vax posts, excepting the lack of supporting links??

It's easy to like a study that's supporting things you already believe - especially when you think you already have a ton of supportive other evidence. You're ignoring the fact that the study as reported explicitly says it doesn't support any such conclusion. And your political views about the role of institutions in society is inseparable from the issue. I don't think we can avoid bringing these filters to the table, but it's pretty funny how easy it is to slip into that pattern.

[Shandi]

Signed and shared. Thank you!

• Prohibit Any Laws Mandating The Force And Requirement Of VACCINATIONS OF ANY KIND Petition

[rossmen]

i don't have any problem discussing medical research. the study did demonstrate correlation, not causation, exactly what it was designed to do. the study was an effort to apply hygiene theory to modern living, yeayeh! making fun of it to bash vaccine careful people is a problem because it adds nothing to the conversation but snark and confusion. the role of institutions and their politics is a necessary ingredient to understanding public health policy. you are smart enough to know this. look at the change in recommendations coming down about infants and food allergies. now the advice of the late 90's is a big mistake. such a sea change in pediatric advice so quickly is probably only possible cause little money is involved. and the hygiene hypothesis is not acknowledged by the scientists involved (even though the new indisputable research fits exactly into this understanding of human health), probably because to do so would threaten their further research funding.

you're perfectly illustrating the problem we all have when discussing issues like this - you do realize this is a perfect mirror image of the anti-vax posts, excepting the lack of supporting links??

It's easy to like a study that's supporting things you already believe - especially when you think you already have a ton of supportive other evidence. You're ignoring the fact that the study as reported explicitly says it doesn't support any such conclusion. And your political views about the role of institutions in society is inseparable from the issue. I don't think we can avoid bringing these filters to the table, but it's pretty funny how easy it is to slip into that pattern.

[podfish]

... making fun of it to bash vaccine careful people is a problem because it adds nothing to the conversation but snark and confusion.

if you go way back to the initial post, you may see that I'm using this study to highlight the way that people's overinflated fear of the unusual has colored this issue.

No-one's afraid of the dishwasher, so even though more children are sickened because of introduction of the dishwasher than are sickened by being vaccinated, it's not going to result in a crusade. I pointed out that the parents are being selectively fearful, and none are likely to respond to this study the way they respond to those that reinforce their fears about vaccines.

I will admit that pointing out that the admitted inconclusiveness of this study matches the (ignored) inconclusiveness of most anti-vax studies counts as a touch of snark...

[rossmen]

lots of people are skeptical of western medicine because of bad experiences. its not fear of the unusual. medical self education is very important in navigating the choices available. as a parent the responsibility is even greater. the only crusade is to take away our choice. dishwashers don't sicken people, lifestyle choices do.

[Valley Oak]