Logic dictates...Common Sence on Vaccines!

Logic One. . .

LOGIC dictates that you research a subject before you comment on it.

LOGIC dictates that you do not base arguments on unfounded assumptions (such as the training, knowledge and intelligence of 22 year old public servants).

LOGIC dictates that you don't assume a claim is true when it is supporting one of the biggest and most powerful industries in the world.

LOGIC dictates that no matter how often a claim is repeated, it does not make it true, though as Hitler knew, if you repeat it often enough, the masses will believe it (and ardently so).

When you do some research and discover that vaccines contain some of the most poisonous compounds and elements known to man (and foreign organic material that is also toxic when injected into anything), i.e. formaldehyde, mercury and aluminium compounds, phenol (carbolic acid), borax (ant killer), methanol, dye, acetone (solvent, polish remover),disinfectant, glycerine, antifreeze, MSG and several other poisons, plus also toxic when injected, animal organ tissue and blood (e.g. monkey, cow, chicken, pig, sheep, dog, etc), contaminant animal viruses (e.g. SV40, which causes cancer in humans), aborted human foetus cells, large foreign proteins, mutated (more virulent) human viruses in high doses, bacterial endotoxins, antibiotics, bacteria, genetically modified yeast, latex, and animal, bacterial and viral DNA, which, when injected, can be incorporated into the recipient's DNA, then LOGIC dictates that you question whether violent poisons, which by definition are very harmful, are really going to be good for any living creature's immune system(?), let alone your tiny infant with its very immature immune and neurological systems.

LOGIC also dictates that man was not created with an immune system designed not to be able to work until the twentieth century when it only could do so by man's intervention (particularly when the intervention was to poison it!).

Some people will have enough LOGIC to stop there, but
if you want to go further (or have missed discovering the above) and delve into medical research, then
LOGIC dictates that you study the pro-vaccination articles properly and not rely on unsupported conclusions of authors paid by vaccine manufacturers.

LOGIC dictates that if a vaccine was introduced AFTER a decline in the disease, then it was not responsible for that decline.

LOGIC dictates that because outbreaks occur amongst fully vaccinated populations (often with those not vaccinated not even contracting the disease), vaccines are not protecting people against disease.

LOGIC dictates that if you have "no previous vaccination" as a
guideline in disease diagnosis, supported with teaching doctors that vaccinated people just don't get the disease, then you are likely to get low reported figures of disease cases in vaccinated people, no matter how ineffective, or rather counterproductive, vaccination actually is.

LOGIC dictates that since the documented effect of vaccines is to "SENSITISE" the immune system, and "sensitise" means "anaphylaxis", which is the opposite of "prophylaxis", which means prevention, then vaccines do the opposite of prevention.

LOGIC dictates that since sensitisation is such a big problem in
highly vaccinated populations (and the problem is confined to these,
by the way), asthma alone killing 800 people in this country every year, then without doing any more research, one would already be able to guess that vaccines are quite likely killing a large number of people.

LOGIC dictates that since only the vaccinated can get the new, more dangerous, atypical forms of diseases (e.g. atypical measles), then vaccination is not terribly protective!

LOGIC (and indeed medical policy) dictates that if you administer
any vaccine or other procedure to a healthy person and a serious
event immediately occurs, you have to consider that procedure as the cause of the event, particularly when it is biologically extremely plausible, based on the contents of what is administered (not to mention the invasive mechanism of injection, which, unlike normal skin grazes and cuts, bypasses important defence levels in the body).

LOGIC dictates that since doctors are refusing to report cases of
adverse events, then we cannot rely on government figures telling us how "rare" these events are supposed to be.

LOGIC dictates that if senior pharmaceutical executives themselves candidly tell us that "natural enthusiasm" in the marketing department causes the companies to exaggerate (i.e. lie) when informing (doctors and others) about threat and occurrence of diseases (BMJ Apr 13, 2002), then it is probably true.

LOGIC dictates that since whenever doctors go on strike the death rate drops, you can't really rely on anything they do or tell you about how to save lives!

Bronwyn Hancock

(Vaccination Information Service)

Source for the below info:
If the above web site doesn't work, enter "Vaccination Information Service" on the Google search engine: www.google.com

Vaccination Challenge

Here is a letter sent by Dr Viera Scheibner, Principle Research Scientist (Rtd) and now prominent public campaigner, to the Medical Observer, an Australian medical newspaper, on February 19th, 1999.
1999 Medical Observer Pty Ltd Level 2, 100 Bay Road, Waverton NSW 2060 19 February 1999 Dear Editor, SIMON CHAPMAN TO TAKE HIS OWN MEDICINE On February 19, 1999, the Medical Observer published an article by Simon Chapman, in which he issued a challenge to the anti-vaccination movement in Australia. My response to his provocative article is as follows: If vaccines are such a blessing I challenge Simon Chapman to appear on television and allow himself to be injected with all baby vaccines, adjusted to his body weight by a doctor of my choice and in my presence. The vaccines to be administered to Simon are as follows: DtaP: 3 doses within 4 months Hib (any conjugates): 3 doses within 4 months OPV or IPV: 3 doses within 4 months Hep B: 3 doses within 1 month of each other. The time of the first dose represents month 0. There isn't a better way to demonstrate to us that vaccines are safe and effective than by Simon taking his own medicine. After every lot of vaccines an independent medical doctor and myself would assess Simon's reactions and the general state of health. Long-term reactions will be followed up for 3 years. If you do not publish my letter and/or Simon does not agree to this easy and safe demonstration, then it will show us all that vaccinators are dishonest and are afraid of their own medicine. In other words: put up or shut up. I will publicise this proposition and your response on the Internet to ensure that my response to Simon's challenge is widely known.

Yours very sincerely,
Viera Scheibner PhD