SaggyBalls

Looks like this bill may be amended to keep it from bringing a truly awful reality about. Fantastic!

-A. Margaret Orlowski

Anybody care to share/discuss this topic? It's pretty heavy. It's sad that we have to watch our backs around our own Government - whether or not they would actually take full advantage of us through this bill, the potential is there. Read on!

There sure is a lot of information out there.

...as a doctor you would lose your right to practice medicine if you questioned today's standard over vaccination schedule. [color:orange]All the children learnin'' date=' from books that they were burnin[/color']' I have a couple of friends in my little hometown that are now pregnant. They're getting harassed to take the shots - called at home again and again. Now, as she told me - the health units suggests infants 3 months or younger to NOT get the shot...but this is good for an infant developing in the womb? or a 4 month old? Supposedly 1 in 1000 vaccinations result in severe reactions, and 1 in 10000 vaccinations result in extreme reactions...I don't know about any of you, but I sure asked myself '1 in 1000...how is that considered 'rare'?' Are these questions not equally as valid as questions about the circumstances of the vaccinations of the past that actually worked - and were tested to ensure quality control and efficacy (unlike today's 'emergency' vaccines)? Sure we don't have polio, leprosy, smallpox, rubella, measles etc, to deal with but the processes and motives involved in creating and manufacturing these vaccines is not at all the same. Since the interests involved have changed greatly, the questions that we should be asking should also include more 'why's. In the past 50 years big pharma and agribusiness have risen up to have far more pull in our world, as have insurance providers. White collar Farmers make food that make us sick, big pharma buy off their scientists to shape the reactions and processes of the field of medicine, and they all pressure our governments to react according to their best interests. If you think I'm talking about some crazy conspiracy, look into Bill C-6. http://nauresistance.org/2009/04/canada-stop-bill-c-6-now/comment-page-1/ http://www.billc6.com/www/stopc6/ The government doesn't need to pass this bill to keep Canadians safe. We also don't need vaccines to keep Canadians safe. Though some may benefit from taking them, it's all still technically a gamble. So - Why?

+1

Awesome.

(awesome)

poor Hux...his left-of-right blues being sung in a time where we need PROGRESSIVE platforms...

blessed be the sinners.

Though I would have one less arm had I kept in line with the approach of modern medicine, I would have had less care/monitoring when dealing with recurring acute lobar pneumonia (as an infant), and would have not come back from the dead (2 year old drowning victim) - the antibiotics that I stayed on while avoiding the doctor worked. Antibiotics and other medications work very differently from vaccines but FWIW that's not always the point to be made. My family taking its own advice/approach to first aid and general wellness has been far more beneficial than medical advice more times than not. As a best approach, doctors were more of a complimentary approach to health for us. Please note that I edited that earlier post and I clarify: I resent/have contempt for the APPROACH (or general lack thereof (standard path as compared to proactive targeted approach - much of the time) of modern medicine, not everything under the umbrella. My choice of words, tone, and honesty (in this and other threads I can only presume) has labelled me a wackjob, and ignorant (among other things I can only presume), while it is merely me pausing a moment, taking a step back, and trying to look at the overall situation to best benefit myself and people that I care about. There are many approaches to avoiding getting the flu, boosting one's immunity, and keeping healthy that don't involve poisoning one's self. Though vaccination is a standard practice it is the ONLY approach that our health care system is using to combat this outbreak so people believe that it is the only credible approach while that is far from the truth. I don't see how that's happening here. For the most part, both sides of the argument are based on perfectly 'good' science. It's the suggestion that people that recognize the dangers of vaccination and support health and wellness over reactionary medicine are nutbars and their position is worthless can only harm more people than help them in the long run. Funny how after Velvet commented that modern medicine, akin to religion, requires a leap of faith, my comment about said leap of faith being superstitious warranted a personal attack. I do find it reassuring when people chime in about the other things that are worth noting in the rest of my posts that people would prefer to overlook in their vain attempts to debate and be 'correct'. Thanks, folks. Nobody's discussing much when it's approached as an argument.

E5Fdgj-Sisg&feature=player_embedded#at=16

Flu vaccines don't work 100% of the time, PT. There's of course the chance that Evan may have not contracted influenza after getting vaccinated, but that goes both ways and it's arguably safer to say that he would have got sick anyway. When the core strategy is vaccination - 'fighting' the disease - and not ensuring that people are less unwell/healthier overall, then vaccinations in all likelihood won't matter in the end and we will be worse off in the long run for it. People die from the flu. This flu is hard on those with little exposure to influenza (kids especially) and that is sad. Is it sad enough to make particularly poor decisions? It seems so. Of course, me pointing out that these decisions are poor makes me ignorant. PT: You have your superstitious faith in modern medicine. I have my own personal experience to learn from when it comes to modern medicine and from that have very little faith in the approach of modern medicine. Where there is no incontrovertible proof that flu vaccines work besides cohort studies, I remain 'ignorant' for noting this? I am not being any more ignorant than people that blindly trust vaccines. - M. Adams

But when content providers just barely meet their requirements, viewership remains low which then impacts advertising revenues. Which leads to more cutting corners and getting to the point (where we are now) that they NEED the money and are pointing fingers at cable providers when they could have kept their revenues up had they not been so shortsighted about all of this.

Not only is it maximum volume, but it's compressed...it's all loud, not just a peak - the quietest sounds are still loud. Wait, what? Look above to Jaimoe's comment about this 'golden age'...and I agree. When it's PSAs, canadianizing american/foreign ideas, and making lacklustre/crap under the guise of funding/budget then the issue is that a station is adhering to the guidelines rather than using them to move their station forward and in many cases (or so it seems) trying to only put the minimum effort into their programming. -Jaimoe Too bad for all of the people employed by those stations.

+1 all around.

I'm certainly not going to 'whatever source is available'. I haven't really touched on the conspiracy angles, nor have I sunken to the levels of other right wing quackery. Not a health professional, have been dealing with health concerns for quite some time, and am currently experiencing benefit from every alternative approach that I've been told holds no water by doctors and specialists. When I'd ask 'what about _________', been told to not pursue it. I finally got fed up and ignored their position and feel much less awful. My position is this: There is evidence that vaccinations have caused people more harm than good, while there is no evidence that not getting the flu shot has caused anyone harm, as many people that get the flu shot still contract influenza. Mass influenza is symptomatic of overall poor health. We stretch ourselves thin and take poorer care of ourselves than ever before, and think some miracle shot will stop it all. How many people really (i MEAN really) clean their house/apartment? One could suggest that the flu shot may help stave off infection, but since the chance to contract the virus remains and the Flu Vaccine contains neurotoxins and other poisons, I wonder why so many people think that logic demands that people side with the vaccination on this 'issue'. One would have a much better chance of dealing with this issue by ensuring themselves and their family/roommates are properly hydrated, fed, and stress-free than by taking a flu shot. If your immune defense is low enough to get H1N1 then you're going to get it one way or another.

That's exactly why it's only worth noting and not 'proof'.

Make it make sense... People that don't get vaccinated don't develop autism while a low percentage of people that get vaccinated develop autism. Since a large percentage of people let the government bully them into vaccinating their children, a large percentage of the population submit their children to the opportunity to develop this and many other toxicity-related neurological disorders. What's worse...polio or autism? (polio can be treated and overcome, can autism?)

Because health officials align themselves with reactionary medicines instead of a strong dose of prevention, and since the only real breakthroughs in this field have been in alternative/complimentary medicine (and are mostly less breakthrough than blast-from-the-past/effective) it's their only approach. There are of course all the 'population control', 'profit-based', and 'mind-control' reasons but if you want to get into that there are plenty of other web resources for that.

The vast majority of all of those professionals believe in vaccines without real proof of them actually working. The vaccine was approved because it has not been proven to kill or guarantee serious harm. There is absolutely no proof it will work and most definitely no proof that there will be very minimal complications. I don't specifically have so much 'mistrust' as I have a severe lack of trust in those particular professionals. Do I have a distrust for the few people that are in the position to do the right thing and set plan in motion to support wellness rather than laxly try to subdue illness? INTENSELY. Unfortunately, it will require a complete overhaul of the system to satisfy our real needs and halt the perverted and maligned approach to 'health' that the system would have us believe it suggests.

Are you sure you didn't mean to put that in purple?

I have one. I shaved off the beard and the next day (or so) you started the thread. The news says guys with moustaches make on average 8% more than their clean shaven counterparts... ...next step: get a $1M salaried job, have 80K a year to rage a real choice vacation. With a huge 'stache.

My apologies, Jaimoe, (and everyone else that works in Television) if I came off as resentful or spiteful of the industry, as (of course) ratings sustain or maim Broadcasters. I really do hope that content providers and viewers can be on the same page in regards to improving the quality of the content that is provided. Sure people think they 'like' shows like Entertainment Tonight and TMZ, Survivor, big brother etc etc...and think that the News they're watching is 'great'...but we have a long way to go before any of that actually IS. I can't really assert that it's ALL crap but until MOST of it ISN'T, please don't take my comments personally, as you make a living bending to the ratings driven by viewers that opt to watch that crap instead of demanding better programming - vocally and in letter writing campaigns. Lately I've been most impressed with the CBC properties (Docs, Bold, and CBC News and CBC), SCN, and TVO - but from time to time the other networks do have some shows that keep me around for a half or full hour - Mostly cable stations, but from time to time it's a 'network'. I really hope that TV in general fixes the problem of there being no industry standard for audio volume output. Commercials are intensely loud and many channels have widely varied volume levels. Definitely more annoying than lackluster content...one more great reason to read books.