Complusory Vaccination

XelaChen

Member
And i stand by my statement, "Purpose of vaccination is not ONLY to protect your child, it is ALSO to protect children that are either too young to vaccinate or too sick to be vaccinated so they need children who comes into contact with them to be vaccinated so they won't catch the disease from them".
 

XelaChen

Member
I think the above statement is pretty common sense, don't really need black and white to prove it, it is perfectly logical.
 

XelaChen

Member
Your statement: "Single Measles Vaccine has less side-effect reported under the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in USA. Suspected MMR vaccine side-effect reported is about 100 times more than Single Measles Vaccine". >>> This statement is misleading by the way, Single Measles Vaccine is not widely use or available as compared to MMR vaccine and VAERS is a voluntarily reporting system, so it is not accurate and it is not compulsory to report. Simple mathematics, if 1000 kids get Single Measles Vaccine and 10 of them reported side-effects (1%) of child, and 10 million kids get MMR Vaccine and 1000 of them reported side-effects (0.01%) of the cases, although the absolute number of cases reported with side-effect of MMR vs Single Measles is 100 times more (10 vs 1000), but the percentage affected is much less 1% vs 0.01%, so MMR is in fact 100 times safer mathematically, so your 'expert' explanation is not correct as you only based on absolute numbers. And where is your black and white to 100% prove what you said was true? Who is the expert advising you? Or are you the self-proclaimed expert yourself? Can you prove to me the statements you made in this forum are all 100% true? Most of them are just your false personal opinions.
 

XelaChen

Member
Winston, quoting your statement: "Single Measles Vaccine is much safer than MMR Vaccine." >>> where is your proof? can you 100% prove to me it is safer as you claimed? Can you get black and white from any expert other than yourself to support your statement? If not then why should i believe you?
 

XelaChen

Member
And i just read one of your other statement which i find it not convincing posted in May, i find it not convincing. You claim that you personally know 2 kids who caught measles in Singapore despite MMR vaccination. Measles is not that common in Singapore, so therefore, there is only 3 explanations for your claim.

1) Being your friend is very extremely unlucky since you actually personally know 2 kids who got measles in Singapore which is so rare.
2) You are lying
3) You must have at least more than 100000 friends to have any realistic chance of possibly knowing 2 kids personally who got measles despite having vaccination. it is measles we are taking about, not common cold.
 
XelaChen, I appeal you to help all parents to find up from MOH that how many people get Measles each year and how many are already vaccinated with MMR or Measles vaccines and yet get measles for past 30 years. Please let us know once you got an answer from MOH. Thanks.
 

XelaChen

Member
Hi Winston, so now you are finally admitting that you don't have any concrete data in the past to support all your false suggestions? I thought all your suggestions made in the past were all based on concrete evidence... and yet now you are appealing to me to find out information from MOH.... what a joke.... so you are not the 'expert' that you claimed you were and which i thought you was. i was almost tricked by your suggestions.
 
Dear Parents/Guardians,

The best organisation to answer vaccine's queries is Ministry of Health, Singapore (MOH).

I need more parents/guardians to send questions. Call MOH hotline or send them feedback.
You can ask any questions which concern you.

For a start, you can consider asking the below questions.
1. Is vaccines 100% safe?
2. Is Vaccines 100% effective in protecting your children?
3. Can my child get the same virus or bacteria the vaccine supposed to protect my child?
4. Why is my child can get a particular virus/bacteria that have vaccine protected? This question is applicable to you if your child get the virus/bacteria within 5 years from vaccination date.
5. Can I claim compensation if my child has serious side-effect after vaccination?

I appeal to all concerned parents/ guardians to send MOH the above questions or any questions on vaccination.

We must let MOH knows that there are parents/guardians concerned on vaccination.

I have send many questions to MOH in the past few years.

Thanks.
 
Xelachen, the reason I ask you to send MOH the questions is to let you post the answers here for all parents to see.

If I post the answers, you may not convince and say I am lying. Right?

Thanks.
 

XelaChen

Member
If your information is credible, there is no reason why people won't believe you. But your own words and your suggestions contradict yourself and your unreasonable insistence on 100%. So far all your sources that you have posted, they are either dubious, or you are just re-quoting yourself from other threads. And some of the claims you made are just impossible to believe.
 

XelaChen

Member
Anyway, just to enlighten you, a simple analogy, even common and useful drug like panadol is not 100% safe, out of a million, maybe 1 or 2 will die from panadol allergy, but does that mean we stop and ban panadol?... And vaccine is not 100% because viruses are always mutating and there are many different strains, for example, most young females nowadays will go for the HPV vaccination, Cervarix is the most common, there is many many strains of HPV, Cervarix only protects about HPV 16 & 18 if i am correct, but these 2 are the most common strains, if doesn't mean i 100% won't get HPV after the vaccination, but i will greatly reduce the chances of getting HPV infection.
 

XelaChen

Member
It just shows how poor medical knowledge that you have by insisting on asking lame questions like why Vaccine is not 100% effective.
 

XelaChen

Member
Dear parents and guardians, i just want to highlight the fact to everyone, that although the name "National Vaccine Information Centre" sounds very official, it is not related to any governmental organisation or any medical organisation, it is an independent and private organisation which just happens to have an 'official looking' name, in other words, any tom, dick and harry can be the ones running the centre, even anti-vaccination groups. This statement is published word by word on the National Vaccine Information Centre About Page: "The charitable non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) was founded in 1982 by parents............this charitable (501c3) organization is totally publicly supported by donations from citizens and foundations and does not receive corporate, federal or state funding."
 

XelaChen

Member
Therefore in conclusion, National Vaccine Information Center is a dubious source, it is a private organisation funded by citizens, they may have a hidden agenda, it could funded by anti-vaccination group, the information published one it is not sanctioned or approved by any government, once again, Winston is quoting from unreliable sources again.
 

XelaChen

Member
"Purpose of vaccination is not to protect your child, it is to protect children that are either too young to vaccinate or too sick to be vaccinated so they need children who comes into contact with them to be vaccinated so they won't catch the disease from them"

Are you 100% sure the statement above is correct? Please check with doctors and MOH. If they too say is correct, challenge them to write a "black and white" for your reference. And please tell me the doctor name and his/her clinic address whom say this is a 100% correct statement. Talking is easy....

Whether you believe vaccination is safe or not, you, as parents, shall decide.

We can debate up and down, there is no always an answer to it. Read and make decision yourself.
What Are the Advantages of Having Everyone Vaccinated?
Behind the push to vaccinate as many people as possible is a concept called herd immunity. If the vaccination rate within a community is very high, vaccinated people act as a barrier and reduce the risk of infection for people who cannot be immunized, like the very young or those with compromised immune systems.

Sources: Paul Fine, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; Clinical Infectious Diseases; Journal of Infectious Diseases; C.D.C.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/02/us/measles-facts.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
 

XelaChen

Member
And i stand by my statement, "Purpose of vaccination is not ONLY to protect your child, it is ALSO to protect children that are either too young to vaccinate or too sick to be vaccinated so they need children who comes into contact with them to be vaccinated so they won't catch the disease from them".
winstonloh: Go ahead and disprove me if you can, please quote a credible source. If not then stop giving parents false advice in this forum.
 

XelaChen

Member
Hi parents and guardians, this sentence is from the article: "To maintain herd immunity within a community over time, children need to be vaccinated at a high rate. The measles vaccine is ineffective in about 5 percent of people who have had only one dose, so two doses are recommended to ensure that nearly all children will get immunity before entering school."
 

XelaChen

Member
Dear Parents / Guardians, please take some time to read this true story reported by CNN, it shows the importance of vaccination to protect children who are too sick to vaccinate, this letter was composed by a parent whose child was too sick to be vaccinated (People like Gabriel, and there are hundreds of thousands of them, rely on people that are healthy to keep them safe. They rely on the healthy people of this world to keep making choices that will help keep them safe…...): http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1212925
 

ngunadi

New Member
The best response for the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) spread by winstonloh is this. We are not God but he is looking for 100% certainty, the irony.

If he does not want to get his kids vaccinated, it's his choice. But spreading foolishness is a different thing reality.

I'm glad there is someone stood up for his non-sense.

I’m an Anti-Braker
Guys, I wanted to let you know about a personal decision I recently made. I don’t really feel like discussing it, but I want to put my position out there. Please be respectful. This is a really long post, but please read the whole thing.

I’m taking the brakes off my car. This isn’t a rash decision, so please listen up.

A few weeks ago I saw a car accident - two people went through an intersection at the same time. Both slammed on their brakes at the same time and collided. Fortunately no one was seriously injured.

But then it occurred to me - if they had just gone through the intersection, they wouldn’t have collided. The brakes CAUSED the accident!

So, I decided to do my own research and what I found was *staggering*: Hundreds of people every year are seriously injured by unnecessary braking. One time, I was driving in the snow and I just lightly tapped my brakes and it caused my car to COMPLETELY LOSE CONTROL. My brakes could have very easily gotten me killed. Even more astoundingly is how often brake pads will warp and distort rotors, causing bumpy rides and squeaky wheels.

And you know what? I also found that decades ago brakes weren’t even used! People would control their vehicle’s speed with downshifting and engine braking. Maybe it’s just coincidence, but back when engine braking was used there were almost no automotive fatalities. There were NEVER brake caused car accidents.

After doing some more digging, I found a nefarious plot - Mechanics: The very people who we trust to work on and care for our cars - get PAID to install and change brakes! You might THINK they care about our safety, or our cars - but they’re just in it for the $49.99 brake pad installations.

So I talked to my Mechanic about taking the brakes off my car and I was disgusted by how poorly he treated me. He accused me of being ignorant, when I was the one that looked up how much rotational torque brakes can put on your rotors. He didn’t even know how much torque a rotor can take before being warped!!! He said “rotors are designed to be compressed, that it isn’t actually a problem” just completely dismissing me.

Then he had the NERVE to say that my personal choice had consequences, that I would affect everyone around me. Well I’ve had it with him, I’m looking for a new mechanic. The problem is that so many mechanics are bought and paid by the automotive industry that ALL of them are insistent about my car having brakes. Most of them won’t even look at my car for other reasons, saying that a brakeless car could cause damage to their shop and other cars. What a bunch of bullshit, they just don’t like those who believe in alternative braking techniques.

Now of course big government is getting involved, saying that I *MUST* have brakes. That this isn’t just about me, and that I could hurt people. What happened to personal freedom? What happened to liberty?

So all I’m saying is, do your research. Don’t just listen to the NTSB and big automotive. I made a personal decision for my family, we just said no to brakes. We’ll be using natural remedies like Gravity, and putting our feet on the ground to stop. After all, if that was good enough for me when I was on my bike as a kid, it’s good enough for my children in my car.

Please keep the comments respectful!

Legal Disclaimer: I am not a mechanic and should not be considered a valid source of information for automotive inquiries.
 

NatalieLee

New Member
Dear Parents and anyone esle reading this read. After spending 30min reading all the entries, i can't resist the urge to register myself so that i can key in a reply even though I have been browsing this forum for years unregistered, I have come to a conclusion that winstonloh is just a big fat liar and spreading unnecessary fear and rumor. My sister is a doctor working in a government polyclinic, according to her, for the past 5 years in primary care practise, she has only seen 1 case of measles, definitely no known death due to vaccines and no developmental delay recorded due to vaccines. And just for your information, my sister sees about 70-80 patients on a typical work day, if you calculate that is more than 100000 patients over the past 5 years but only 1 case. Yet for a small fry like winstonloh which has previously admitted he is not from a medical background but yet who is behaving like an 'expert' in this forum. He claims to know 4 kids, 2 of them contracted measles, 1 of died from vaccination and 1 of them had developmental delay due to vaccination based on his 18 May 2014 post? This is utterly bullshit and I will be an idiot if i were to believe his nonsense and i hereby challenge winstonloh to provide me proof, 100% proof to support his claims!

Furthermore, winstonloh posted in 3 June 2011 that his kid is not even 1 year's at that time and yet he was giving 'personal advice' to parents who kids are much more older? where is your personal experience from winstonloh? from an imaginary child that you don't even have? or are you going to claims it is experiences whom your 'friends' told you about which in that case it shouldn't be your personal experience but there are merely hearsay from third parties? or are you just bullshitting your way throughout the years? you were just lucky no one was really challenging your nonsense and bullshit advices seriously unless xelachen came along. and after reading all your sources and xelachen sources and explanation, it seems very clear to me and anyone esle who is smarter than you (which is pretty much everyone esle) in this forum that xela is more knowledgeable than you and whose claims are much more convincing and believable which are supported by REAL evidence!

winstonloh: If you want to remain dumb and harm your child stupidly, go ahead but don't give other parents false advices and spread rumours that you created yourself without any proof. show me your 100% evidence.
 

RichardLin

New Member
Dear all,

I'm neither anti nor proponent for vaccination. I think as parents we need to keep ourselves well informed about medical knowledge pertaining to our child.

However, please note that Immunisations for Diphtheria and Measles are COMPULSORY by Law.

A quick search by me under the Singapore Statutes Online via google show this:

Under the INFECTIOUS DISEASES ACT, section 46 read together with 51 & 65:

upload_2015-3-16_18-30-17.png

upload_2015-3-16_18-30-58.png

upload_2015-3-16_18-31-19.png


Unlike what winstonloh claimed, you can be prosecuted for not ensuring your child is vaccinated and/or ignoring any notice under section 46.

Providing misleading statement and incorrect information can lead to consequences. We should all post information that we have personally verified against legitimate sources not just based on hearsays and personal opinions especially when it concerns the Law.
 
Last edited:

betc

Active Member
He mentioned that children do not need to be vaccinated to enrol into primary school. Where's his proof?
 

apple79

Active Member
Betc, its true. I know someone whose kid enter without vaccination but in primary 1 the health authority will go round the primary school for health checks and kids who missed the mandatory jabs will receive the jabs then.
 
Winston, I'm in the same position as you - spending time and effort to spread the message of the dangers of vaccination, hoping to save the little ones of complete strangers. Don't get discouraged by the doubters. I spread the words especially to my friends (my family including extended are firm believers) so that I could sleep a little better at night knowing I had done my part whether they choose to follow or not. I applaud you for all your effort!

For the posters speaking for vaccines, I urge you to do true research. I am sure that you haven't done it because if you had done any serious research you will be strongly against vaccines. Read up on journals, scientific papers. Learn how to filter deceptive research papers (eg. Check whether the placebo that they use is inert). Hear from doctors from the other side of the fence. Don't merely quote "so and so CDC expert says so", "so and so official website says so". And remember to read research papers from the drug manufacturers with a pinch of salt. If you are convinced that the doctors are always right try doing some research into what they said before about smoking, DDT, thalidomide, Vioxx for instance to get a dose of reality.

Read up on these topics:
1. Disease incidence/mortality historical rate showing a steady reduction to near-zero with or without vaccines (pro-vaccine sources will show you graphs starting from 1950s but do get the ones starting from at least 1900s so that you could see through their attempt to misguide you. Also the pro-vaccine graphs will highlight that measles vaccination got licensed in 1964 but fail to mention that USA mass measles vaccination program started in 1967. You figure out yourself why). Tip: search "measles rate" in image.google.com and repeat for other so-called vaccine-preventable diseases. Same downward trend for non-vaccinable diseases such as Spanish Flu, Bubonic plague (black death). Surely improved sanitation, nutrition, clean water had helped.
2. The reclassification of "polio" after its vaccination policy started to mask the surge in polio that it caused and its lack of efficacy.
3. Neurotoxic effect of aluminum and mercury. (You are bound to read about breast milk having more aluminum but don't believe that crap. Breast milk is drunk not injected so your body will rid almost all of the aluminum in it through the kidneys.)
4. Check out how vaccines are mass-produced. Find out the percentage of vaccines that are not contaminated (tips: 0%, or "we can't be sure"). Find out what happens when a foreign protein is injected into the body (tips: autoimmuno disease, allergy). Find out what happens when some chemical is injected into the body (tips: pray that it's not harmful).
5. Google "vaccinated healthier". 99% of the articles will show "unvaccinated healthier" but don't give up! Continue to search until you find a single proof (Proof= research paper, statistics, survey; Not opinions) that the vaccinated is healthier. Warning: Do allocate a few weeks to do this activity and remember to set a cut-off date.
6. Actual 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference transcripts gotten via the freedom of information act, displaying the doctors/experts/regulators unethical effort to cover up vaccine damage. Total disregard to the population.
7. Doctor's Archie Kalokerinos book/testimony about vaccines killing up to 50% of australian aborigines and how he disdained the medical establishment's for their response.
8. CDC whistleblower William Thompson.
9. Google "doctors against vaccines". There are numerous. Such as ttp://www.vaccinetruth.org/doctors_against_vaccines.htm
10. Read 1300 comments from parents http://www.followingvaccinations.com/

There are so many more that I could have listed. But I'm busy and don't have much time to benefit complete strangers, unlike Winston.

I do not subscribe to the idea at all that only doctors can give vaccination advice. The fact is they only have a few days lesson on vaccinations (mainstream version) and you could be much more learned than them in a short time. I am perfectly capable of doing my own research, an engineer by profession, not stupid (have an IQ of 160), and 3 years of vaccination research behind me. I am 100% comfortable with my decision not to vaccinate and I seriously pity the children that did.
 
Last edited:
XelaChen,

You do not get the knowledge of "herd immunity" via Wikipedia or from a so and so scientist (remember: talk is cheap, unless if he backs it up). You get it via diligent investigation into the topic by reading journals and papers. And if you do you'll see how wrong you are together with many of the mainstream pseudoscience "experts" out there.

First of all the herd immunity term was coined to depict protection to the herd by means of natural immunity. Natural immunity is acquired from exposure to wild chicken pox, measles, mumps virus and is lifelong so it makes sense - after many people have gotten it the overall population immunity rate is high. When you apply this concept to immunity given by vaccines (lets just assume for now that I do agree that vaccination gives immunity) then it's ridiculous. Vaccine-induced immunity wanes in a few short years or maybe a decade or two, and how many of the teenagers and adults that you know of get the MMRV/DTaP/Polio/BCG booster (did you get them to protect your loved ones?)? Given that the 0-20 years old only consists of 25% of the population I can tell you the very bad news (for you) that the huge majority of people in Singapore does not have immunity to the diseases that you fear so much! It's a wonder that we have not dropped dead like flies heh? Maybe good nutrition, sanitation did help.

Next, read up on Original Antigenic Sin. Basically vaccine researchers found that our body remembers forever the first mode of exposure to a virus so as to tune the defenses against it in the future. They found that Measles-vaccinated people (exposure through injection/blood) when exposed to wild measles virus (exposure through the mucous system) have higher severity and longer duration of the disease because the body was looking at the wrong place. What did the researchers do when they made this discovery that defeats the whole premise of vaccine-induced immunology? They ignore it of course for the sake of their career aka pockets.

Also read up the baboon pertussis study (google baboon pertussis). It shows that vaccination does not prevent baboons from being infected (they become silent carriers) and they can in turn infect other baboons. That's another nail into the vaccine-induced herd immunity coffin. Therefore I don't recommend that you get the booster shot because you will waste money, risk severe side effects/death, and in the end does not prevent you from spreading the disease to your loved ones - only because I care about you. If you are in bad terms with me I'll encourage you to take all the boosters including the annual flu shots, seriously.
 
Last edited:
Hi Anti-Braker ngunadi,

This is imaginary, but if someone finds that baby carseats do not work - they are overated, causes death during accidents, gives parents a false sense of security - and he provides a whole slew of evidence supporting his claim, should you negatively label him as an anti-childseater and dismiss him? Or should he be called a childseat-safety advocate, or pro-safe-childseater and taken seriously?
 
Last edited:

friends78

Well-Known Member
Derrick, your nickname cld be changed but your style of writing remains the same. We hear you. One has to respect each individual's choice and be socially responsible.
 
Hi friends78 could you please elaborate what "socially responsible" means in this context? In my perspective I am doing society a service by bringing awareness to this topic so I am socially responsible.

Also it is clear that the pro-vaccine safety advocates' choice is not respected based on the various false accusations against them (eg. harming other people's kids), and government rulings. For a start I would like to challenge the pro-vaxxers/vaccine-religionists to prove (again via papers/journals) that vaccines do prevent the spread of diseases (i.e. wild strain of the virus). I am not asking for a lot - just give me one single research paper for any vaccine backing your theory (I'm not choosy at all!). And before you can do so please refrain from accusing unvaccinated children for risking your child - like what this mother did (https://www.facebook.com/jennifer.hibbenwhite/posts/10155168515065632:0 - link shared by you)

On the contrary the body of studies is dominated by papers showing vaccines' IN-effectiveness. It takes a blind to not see that. Just google a bit and check whether I'm right. Again you should filter away websites, opinion pieces, comments that do not back their claims up with papers/journals.
 
Last edited:

friends78

Well-Known Member
To put it crudely, if the child (without vaccine) become affected with the disease which cld have been prevented by vaccine and infect another innocent child causing some serious implications or even death to the innocent child, can u live with peace? The action of your reluctance of getting your child vaccine causing the death of another child. This is social responsibility.
 
Like I had clearly stated in my previous post - Please refrain from accusing unvaccinated children for risking your child unless you can provide me ONE single research paper for any vaccine backing your theory. Your theory that vaccines do prevent the spread of diseases (i.e. wild strain of the virus).
 

friends78

Well-Known Member
To each on it's own. Just sharing my views as a mother not as a medically trained personnel. I'm doing it which I think it is right for them and to their classmates or other parents. I take charge of my own actions.
 
You are perfectly entitled to your own opinion that vaccination is good, and to take charge of your own actions. I have no issue with that.

However you are NOT entitled to accuse the unvaccinated children (eg. MY children) of risking other children UNLESS you can provide good proof of what you are saying is true. It is wrong no matter how I see it because you are intruding, slandering, for no good reasons. It's as simple as that.

In contrast I am entitled to accuse newly vaccinated children of spreading diseases therefore risking my children and other human beings for that matter. The proofs are too numerous to quote. You just need to google "vaccination shed virus", and read the reference papers in the links. I challenge you to do the same exercise to substantiate your claims - it should be extremely simple since it's mainstream and every "legit" experts in the world are with you.
 
Last edited:
My observation is that the vast majority of the people in the world are unable to think for themselves and treat whatever the mainstream science say as fact. In this posting I will write about a few examples of how mainstream science had been proven wrong. And following tradition the people who eventually proved it wrong were initially chastised, called 'quacks', conspiracy theorists, shamed, never taken seriously no matter how much proof they had to substantiate their claims - they just couldn't get the majority to listen!

I am not infering that vaccination will be proven to be useless/unsafe eventually. I am just advocating that people should take dissenting views seriously, understand them, only then you could decide to dismiss or accept them. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, not?

Read up on these:
1. Treatment of scurvy. During the age of sails sailors perished by the thousands because of scurvy caused by lack of Vitamin C. In 1617 doctor John Woodall advocated supplying sailors with lemons, limes, tamarines, oranges because it will help to prevent scurvy. He was never taken seriously. It was only another 155 years later in 1972 that doctor James Lind managed to recommend the same thing and got accepted by mainstream science. In that 155 years lapse thousands upon thousands of lives were needlessly lost, it must have really sucked to be one of them. To get a feeling of the magnitude of the problem, quoting wikipedia "In 1740 the catastrophic result of Anson's circumnavigation attracted much attention in Europe; out of 1900 men, 1400 had died, most of them allegedly from having contracted scurvy. According to Lind, scurvy caused more deaths in the British fleets than French and Spanish arms.[5]"

2. Puerperal fever. In year 1847 Doctor Ignaz Semmelweis advocated that doctors should wash their hands before they deliver babies. He proved in his ward that he could reduce the mother's death rate from 10%-35% down to 1% by simply placing a procedure to wash hands. Was he given a nobel prize for his discovery (which is now common sense)? Hell no, his peers were hugely offended, never bothered to research it, called him a quack, 18 years later tricked him into an psychiatric asylum and he was beaten to death days later. He was after all insane for asking doctors to wash their hands, so serves him right! It was only at around 1870 that it was accepted by the medical community that they need to wash their hands. Gods knows how many children lost their mothers, husbands lost their wives in the 23 years' lapse. It must have really sucked to be one of them.

3. Alarm bells for smoking causing lung cancer was sounded in 1950, but until 1997 that health authorities still sided with tobacco companies that the adverse health effects were previously unknown or lacked substantial credibility. Meanwhile plenty of doctors were making a killing endorsing cigarrettes: https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=doctor+smoking&biw=1138&bih=529&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ZsA_VdDXEdOhugSBtICYBg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ

4. Your ethical pharmaceutical company invented Thalidomide, your respectable health authority approved it, and your friendly neighbourhood doctor prescribed it for your morning sickness. That was back in 1957. And it was withdrawn 4 years later. 2,000 children died and 10,000 had severe birth deformities. It must have really sucked to be one of them, see how they look like here: https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=thalidomide&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=JMo_VYKsKpSauQST3YD4DA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ

5. DDT was extensively used in the USA from 1940 until it was banned in 1971 for being toxic to human beings and the environment. During that period it was perfectly fine to wash your body with that pesticide to rid it of bugs. View the hilarious images here: https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=thalidomide&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=JMo_VYKsKpSauQST3YD4DA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ#tbm=isch&q=ddt

6. X-ray was used for routine prenatal checking (just like ultrasound nowadays) since it invention circa 1900s. Around 1955 doctor Alice Stewart showed that it is a cause of childhood cancer but her research was regarded as unsound, and it was only widely accepted 25 years later. We will never know how many children got cancer during that period but it must have really sucked to be one of them.

7. Again your ethical pharmaceutical company (this time Merck) invented Vioxx, your respectable health authority approved it, and your friendly neighbourhood doctor prescribed it to cure your arthritis and pain. That was in 1999. By the time it was withdrawn 5 years later there were 80 million people worldwide taking it. It caused serious heart attack to up to 140,000 of them. It must have really sucked to be one of them. (But it didn't suck for Merck as it still earned a few billion dollars even after paying for settlement).

This list is not exhaustive. Time and again we see mainstream science being proven wrong, and it takes a long time to do it because the dissenters just couldn't get their message across. Few people care to listen instead they find the easy way out by following what the authorities say. At least for the examples above they suffered for it. I bet that at the same time there had been a group of people (yes, those anti-xray, anti-smoking, anti-thalidomide, anti-DDT, anti-VIOXX quacks out there) who cared to study the issue, decided for themselves, and some of them and family members benefited from it. If you are the type of person who couldn't be bothered and have full trust in the doctors/authorities, then you could only pray that they (the doctors/authorities) are correct 100% of the time (I wouldn't dare to bet $20 on it, but plenty of people bet their lives. Go figure)
 
Last edited:
Oh I forgot about Lobotomy, the medical procedure to severe (i.e. cut off) the entire frontal lobe of your brain so as to cure schizophrenia and behavior problems. Common sense tells you that cutting away a part of your brain (especially the advanced thinking frontal lobe part) will make you a retard but not surprisingly it was mainstream science back then 70 years ago. To give you a perspective doctors back then worshipped it just as how they worship vaccination now, and similarly critics of lobotomy were labeled anti-lobotomy quacks.

Quoting wikipedia: "The procedure, controversial from its inception, was a mainstream procedure for more than two decades (prescribed for psychiatric and occasionally other conditions) despite general recognition of frequent and serious side effects. While some patients experienced symptomatic improvement with the operation, this was achieved at the cost of creating other impairments, and this balance between benefits and risks contributed to the controversial nature of the procedure. The originator of the procedure, the Portuguese neurologist António Egas Moniz, shared theNobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine of 1949 for the "discovery of the therapeutic value of leucotomy in certain psychoses",[n 1]

The sister of US president J.F.Kennedy was prescribed that procedure for having frequent mood swings and ended up a retard. But I guess that's OK - after all the doctors had already claimed that the procedure was not 100% safe and that the benefits outweighed the risks. So no complaints accepted, next one please!

It's a dangerous world out there. Read up to reduce your chance of hitting crap. I view the majority of doctors out there as mindless zombies following a master because he trained them and they depend on him for permits, licenses, certificates, and insurance policies (If the zombies misbehave they lose their license and that's the end of their careers). If the master is correct then joy to the world. If the master is wrong you wait long long for the zombies to change matters. Personal interests is also in play - I estimate that 95% of PDs will close shop if all families are like mine who never send the kids in for vaccination, fever, colds, flu and general checkup.

That's my brutal impression of doctors and I don't sugarcoat it. I invite any doctors who disagree that they are mindless zombies (i.e. Mindless zombies = follow SOPs, standard treatments, reject alternative views without researching in depth themselves, don't dare to challenge authorities even when in doubt) to write in to have a little conversation with me. I would like you to be my family doctor.

I also have alternative views on cancer treatment, childbirth, fever/flu/colds treatments, life-threatening infections (meningitis, pneumonia, tuberculosis), water fluoridation to name a few.
 
Last edited:
I am in a mood today so I decided to make a step-by-step guide to kickstart your vaccine-safety research journey. Treat it as a Vaccine-Research-For-Dummies volume 1. Hopefully you gain from it. Today's guide is regarding the Measles incidence/mortality rate.

Pre-requisites:
- A little analytical skills and a small dose of common sense.
- Erase all preconceptions regarding the harm/benefit of vaccines and start with a blank slate.

Background knowledge:
- USA mass measles vaccination program started in 1966/1967.
- UK mass measles vaccination program started in 1968/1969.

Step 1:
Go to this link: https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=635&q=measles+rate&oq=measles+rate&gs_l=img.3..0l2j0i8i30l2j0i24l6.1303.2832.0.3032.12.9.0.3.3.0.85.355.9.9.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.64.img..0.12.375.zfs6CRrt_Q0
It is merely a search of "measles rate" in image.google.com. You will see many charts and they could be incidence rate or death rate from different countries.

Step 2:
Notice that there are two types of charts. The types ones starting from 1900s (even way back to 1830). And the ones starting from 1950s/1960s. Click to view them as you see fit.

Based on what I see I make two statements, if you don't agree with me let me know:
- The charts starting from 1950s/1960s are always from pro-vaccine and government/FDA/WHO/CDC websites.
- The charts starting from 1900s are always from anti-vaccine and non-governmental websites.

Step 3:
We focus on the 1900s charts. Based on what I see I make two statements, if you don't agree with me let me know:
- Measles rate has dropped by at least 98-99% before the introduction of the measles vaccine.
- I predict that based on the trajectory the rate will drop to near-zero eventually even if there is no intervention (eg. vaccine).

Step 4:
We focus on the 1950s/1960s charts. Based on what I see I make three statements, if you don't agree with me let me know:
- All of them marked the year the vaccine was licensed, which was 3-4 years before the mass vaccination program started.
- None of them indicated that the mass vaccination program start date was actually 1966/1967. If they had moved the arrow to 1966/1967 then the arrow will be on the slope or at the bottom of it.
- If the mass vaccination program start date was 1966/1967, it is common sense that the effect could only be seen at least a few years later not instantaneously.

Step 5:
Considering all that we have gathered so far, I will make the four following accusations which I think are objective and reasonable, if you don't agree with me let me know:
- Pro-vaccine/government/FDA/WHO/CDC sources are trying to fool me because they exclusively use 1950s/1960s charts although they have data back to at least 1830.
- Pro-vaccine/government/FDA/WHO/CDC sources are trying to fool me because when they use 1950s/1960s charts they fail to inform in a sidenote that the measles rate has dropped by 98-99% since 1900 even before the measles vaccine was introduced.
- Pro-vaccine/government/FDA/WHO/CDC sources are trying to fool me because they used the vaccine licensure year instead of the mass vaccination program year so as to look legitimate on the 1950s/1960s charts.
- The following statements in the pro-vaccine/government/FDA/WHO/CDC sources that accompanied those charts some written by doctors and scientists, are misleading bullshit:
  • Prior to the development of the measles vaccine, 5.7 million people died each year from measles. When the measles vaccine came on the market in 1963, measles began a steady decline worldwide. By 1995, measles deaths had fallen 95 percent worldwide and 99 percent in Latin America.
  • Prior to introduction of the measles vaccine in 1963, there were approximately 500,000 cases of measles reported annually in the United States, though it is estimated that the true annual incidence was more like 3-4 million. The disease reared its head in 2-3 year cycles, infecting nearly everyone at some point during childhood. Shortly after the vaccine was introduced, the incidence of measles plummeted by more than 98%, and the epidemic cycles ceased.
  • Now look at the graph for measles. Once again, the story is similar. There is not nearly as much of a rise in the measles rate in the early years (1944-1958), but the disease rate follows the typical shaky pattern of epidemic cycles that is often seen in infectious disease rates. However, once again, there is slight decrease in the disease rate just prior to the licensing of the vaccine (during the testing phase), and then a dramatic decrease in the disease rate after the licensing of the vaccine.

And I have one important question:
- The information that we have just gathered is not top secret, widely circulated in anti-vaccine websites, and took only 10 minutes to find out. Did my friendly neightbourhood PDs know about it, ever cared to find out, and had ever told patients about it? After all they are highly paid and should have the professionalism to understand their trade especially if it involves a life, I suppose. To any PDs reading this, now that you know of the 1900s charts, would you be ethical enough to print one out to show to every parents coming to get the MMR shot, simply so that they could see the big picture and make a more informed decision? If your answer is "YES" please message me so that I can make you my PD. If your answer is "NO" then I'll thrash you into the zombie bin and recommend you a refresher course on the Hippocratic Oath.
 
Last edited:

XelaChen

Member
I wonder what are your qualifications DerrickLee to be giving people false advice? Did i say my sources are from wikipedia? Look at the threads, winstonloh is the one quoting all his so-called knowledge from dubious sources. And who knows, you could be winstonloh in disguise. I see yours is a new account. Anyway, just want to share with everyone, thanks to vaccination, Rubella has been eradicated from the Americas. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32523300
 

XelaChen

Member
Australian parents will lose thousands of dollars of childcare and welfare benefits if they refuse to vaccinate their kids.

The “no jab, no pay” plan, announced by the federal government today, has bipartisan support.
 

XelaChen

Member
Anyway DerrickLee, your style of writing is so similar to winstonloh... it makes me wonder if you both are the same person... or maybe twins? Hahaha...
 

XelaChen

Member
By the way DerrickLee, the websites you have posted are all from dubious sources, non-accredited... any tom, dick and harry can create websites nowadays to post false information.... your sources are even worse than wikipedia at least there is some references on wikipedia where you can verify the information. Go look at the sources that i posted previously... they are all from credible sources, i don't even use wikipedia which can sometimes be edited by anti-vaxxx idiots who is trying to spread rumours.
 

Top