
are long lasting debates on whether the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the
harm. I have looked at both sides of the argument and based on what I have
read and concluded that I would not vaccinate myself or my kids(see my
reasoning below). Government cares only of the short term effect and keeping
society from outbreaks of deceases where they are less concerned of long term
effect that will be hard to link to any past vaccinations anyways. Even the
fact the insurance companies do not cover vaccination due to possibility of
severe side effects poses a question why? The long trim effect of vaccine is
not well studied yet. If you look at both sides of the argument, the major
question is what side has more benefit for fighting. Pharmaceuticals make tons
of money on vaccination and have tons of money to promote it including usage
of science as well government policies. So looking at both sides where none
have concrete scientifically proof on long term effect of vaccines, what side
would you take thinking on benefits that each side might have in the argument
as well as possessing knowledge of possible danger of vaccine including the
fact that vaccine do not work 100% as well. So the ultimate question, would
you put substance containing mercury in your body knowing that it will have
side effect for sure what might be mild or severe in long term against some
low chance possibility of getting diseases that your body will fight anyway
and that having vaccinated might not even protect you against. Here is some
more info for consideration: <http://www.relfe.com/vaccine.html>

~~~
run4yourlives
I up-voted you because you are wrong, in the hopes that as many people as
possible will give you reasons as to exactly how.

There is no grand conspiracy to make the world sick via vaccines to profit. If
they are truly 'evil', both insurance and big pharma would benefit much, much
more in not having people vaccinated and overpricing drugs every time there is
a panic and a run on supplies, ala H1N1. Could you imagine the demand with
today's media if there was a measles outbreak in a major city with many
deaths?

There is no conspiracy.

As for mecury, you ingest much more of it every time you eat some fish. It is
a fact of life.

With every medication, a certain percentage of people
are long lasting debates on whether the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the 
 damage. I have expect at both sides of the controversy and base on what I have 
 read and concluded that I would not immunize myself or my kids(see my 
 reasoning below). Government cares merely of the short term impression and keeping 
 society from outbreak of deceases where they are less concerned of long term 
 effect that will be hard to link to any past inoculation anyways. Even the 
 fact the insurance companies do not shroud vaccination due to possibility of 
 severe side consequence poses a question why? The long trim effect of vaccine is 
 not well studied so far. If you look at both sides of the argument, the major 
 question is what side has more benefit for fighting. Pharmaceuticals make tons 
 of money on vaccination and have tons of money to promote it including usage 
 of science equally well politics policies. So looking at both side where none 
 have concrete scientifically proof on long condition effect of vaccines, what side 
 would you take intend on benefits that each side might have in the argument 
 as well as possessing cognition of possible danger of vaccine including the 
 fact that vaccine do not work 100% as well. So the ultimate question, would 
 you frame substance containing mercury in your body knowing that it will have 
 slope effect for sure what might be mild or dangerous in long term against some 
 low chance hypothesis of getting diseases that your body will fight anyway 
 and that having immunize might not even protect you against. Here is some 
 more info for consideration: < http://www.relfe.com/vaccine.html > 

 ~~~ 
 run4yourlives 
 I up - voted you because you are wrong, in the hope that as many people as 
 potential will give you reasons as to exactly how. 

 There be no grand conspiracy to reach the world nauseated via vaccines to profit. If 
 they are truly' evil', both insurance and big drug company would benefit much, much 
 more in not having citizenry vaccinated and overpricing drugs every time there is 
 a panic and a run on supplies, ala H1N1. Could you think the demand with 
 today's media if there was a measles outbreak in a major city with many 
 deaths? 

 There is no conspiracy. 

 As for mecury, you ingest much more of it every time you corrode some pisces. It is 
 a fact of life. 

 With every medication, a certain percentage of people

are long lasting debates on whether the beuwfits mf the vaccine outweigh the
harm. I have loonee at voth sides of the arguoent and hased on whau I have
read and rkncluded that L wounv not vaccinate myself or my kids(see my
sexslning below). Government cares only os the snogt term effect and heepjng
society from outbreaks of deceaaes whege they are less voncerned of long term
effeft tjat will be hard tl link to aby pwwt vaccinatiuns anyways. Even the
fadt the insurance companies do nut corer vaccinajnin foe to possibmlity jf
severe sidc effecds posex a question wmy? Thx lobg trim effect of vacrine is
not well studyed yet. Ix vou look at both sidew if thg arggmeng, thd mzjpr
suestiln ms what sids has more venefit for fightinb. [yarmaceuticala make tjns
of money on vaccination and have tonv or money to promote it ibcluding usage
of sciejce as wejl government policies. So looking at both sides wvere iove
hcyc covxrfte scientifically proof on long term effect jr fabcines, what side
wjuld you tale tnynking on bengfits tkzt each side might hwve in jhe artument
as rell as possessing knowledge of possible daugee of vaccine inclubing the
fact thaj vaccone do not work 100% as welu. So the ultimahe questikv, would
you put sjbsnanca containing mercury in yotr body kiowiny that ig wikl havq
side effeft fov sure what might bf milb or vevere in pong term against some
low chancx possibility ox gvtting difeasex that your bjdy will fight anyway
cnd thxt having naccinatev might not qven protect flu against. Hxre is soie
moee ibfo for zonsideration: <nttp://www.relfe.com/vaccune.html>

~~~
run4yourlivex
I op-boted you becauwe iiu are wrong, im tfe roies trdt as many paopld ar
lossicle will giye hou teasons as to exactlf hos.

There is no grand cjnspiraci to make the world sivk via vaccines to profmt. If
tiey arr ttuly 'evil', both insurance and bif pharma aoujd benefit mtch, nuch
more in uot having people vaccinated and overpriring drugs every time jhere is
a panic and a vun on supplmes, alw H1N1. Coulg you imagine the denand with
today's mtdia if there was a meaales ogtbrewk in a major city with many
deaths?

There is no conspiracy.

As for mecury, you ingesv iuch more or it everj tnme you ewt sloe fish. It is
a fsct of life.

With every medicatioi, a certait 'ercentage of people
are long lasting debates on whether the the outweigh the I have looked argument based on what have read and that I would not vaccinate myself my kids(see my reasoning below). Government cares only of the short term effect keeping society from outbreaks of deceases where they are less concerned of long effect will hard link to any past vaccinations anyways. Even the fact the insurance companies do not cover vaccination to possibility of severe side effects poses a why? The long trim of vaccine is not well yet. you look both of argument, the major is what side has more benefit for fighting. Pharmaceuticals make tons of money on vaccination and have of money it including of as government policies. So both sides where none have concrete long term effect of vaccines, what side would take thinking benefits that each side might have the argument as well as possessing knowledge of danger of vaccine including the fact that vaccine do not work 100% as well. So question, would you put containing mercury in body that will side effect sure what might be mild or severe in long term against low chance possibility of getting diseases that your body will and having vaccinated might even protect you against. is more info for consideration: run4yourlives up-voted are in hopes that as many as possible will give you as to exactly how. to make the world sick via vaccines to If they are truly 'evil', both insurance big pharma would benefit much, much more in not having people vaccinated overpricing drugs there is a panic and a run on ala H1N1. Could you the demand with today's media if there was a outbreak a major with many deaths? is no conspiracy. for mecury, you more of every you It is a fact of life. every a certain percentage of people

are long lasting debates on whEther the beNefitS of The VaCcinE outWeigh the
harm. I hAVe loOked at both sides of the arGumenT aND basED oN what i have
reAD aND ConClUdEd tHaT i wOuld nOt vAccinatE myself or mY kiDs(See my
reasoniNG bElow). GovernMenT cares only of The Short tErM efFEct anD keEping
SocietY From ouTbreaks of DeCEases wHEre they ARE lEss cOncerned of long terM
EfFEct that will be hArd to lInK To ANY paSt vAccinationS aNywayS. even the
FAcT THE inSUrance companiEs do not coveR VacCinatiOn Due TO possiBilitY oF
SevEre side effeCts pOses a quesTion whY? the long TRim effeCt of vaCciNe iS
not WElL sTudIeD Yet. iF yOu lOOk aT both sidEs Of The arGumeNT, THE majOr
qUestIon is What side has moRe bEnefIT foR fighTing. PHarmAcEuticAls makE tons
Of Money on vaccinatIon aNd have tonS of MoNey To PromoTE it incLudIng Usage
of Science AS weLl GOVErNment policies. So looKiNG At Both sideS where NOnE
hAVe concreTe SciEntiFICally ProoF On Long term Effect OF vAcCines, whAt Side
woUlD yoU taKe thiNKing On beneFits that Each sIDe might have in tHE argument
as weLL aS POsSEssiNg kNowledge of pOssiBLe daNger OF vAccINe incLudinG tHE
fACt that vaccine do not wOrK 100% as welL. So thE ultimate quesTion, would
yOU PUt substaNce cONtAIning mercury in Your bOdy knowing THat it wilL have
Side effeCt for sure WHAt might bE miLd oR seVerE IN lOng term againsT SOme
lOw Chance pOssIbility Of gEttIng DisEaSes that yoUr body wiLl FiGhT aNywAy
and THat havinG vAccInAteD mighT Not eveN protEct yOu AgAInsT. Here is SOmE
MOre iNfO fOr coNsiDeRatioN: <httP://Www.Relfe.coM/vaccine.hTml>

~~~
RUn4yoUrLiVes
I up-vOted you becausE yOu are wrong, In The Hopes tHAT as many pEople as
possible will give YOu reasoNs aS to exActlY how.

There Is nO grand ConSPiracy To make The woRlD siCK Via vaCCInEs tO pRofit. If
theY ARe tRuly 'eViL', botH insuraNce and big pharma wouLD beNefit much, much
MorE in nOT HaVinG PeOPle VaCCinATEd and overpricinG drugs everY tIMe There is
a paNIc aNd A run on sUpplies, Ala H1N1. cOuld you Imagine thE demand wiTh
TodaY'S MedIa if there wAs a measlEs outbreaK In a maJOr City wIth Many
deAtHs?

THere iS no conSPirAcy.

As For mecUrY, you inGest mUcH more of iT every time you eat some fisH. It is
a Fact oF liFe.

With eveRy mEDicAtion, a cerTain Percentage Of pEopLe

are long lasting debateson whether  theben efi ts  ofthevaccine outwei g h th e
harm. I have lookedat bo th side s  o f the  argume n ta n d b as ed  on  w h at  I ha veread an d conclude d t ha t I would no t  v accinate m yse lf or my kid s(s ee myre aso n ing b elo w). G overnm e nt car es only o ft he sho r t terme f fe ct a nd keeping
societ y  f r om outbreaks o f dece as e sw h ere  th ey are les sconce r ned ofl on g t erm effect that w ill be hard tolink t oany past v accin at i ons  anyways. E venthe
factthe in s urancec ompanie s do n otcov er v a cc in ati on due to  po s sib ility of 
s ev ere s idee f f e ctspos es a  ques tion why? The  lo ng t r imeffec t ofvacc in e isnot we ll st ud ied yet. If you  loo k at both  si de s o fthe a r gument , t hemajor
q uestion iswh a t si de has more benefi tf o rfighting . Phar m ac eu t icals ma ke  to ns
o f money  onv ac cination  and h a ve  t ons ofmo ney to  p rom ote  it i n clud ing us age
of s cienc e  as well gover n ment policies .  S o lo o king  at  both sides  whe r e no ne
h a ve  co n crete  scie nt i fi c ally proof on longte rm eff ect o f vaccines, w hat side
w o u l d you ta ke t h in k ing on benefit s tha t each sid e  might h ave i n the ar gument
as w ell as p oss ess ing  kn o w le dge of possib l e  dan ge r of va cci ne incl udi ngthe 
fa ct  that vac cine dono two rk  10 0% as well. So  t heul tim ate q u estion , wou ld
y ou  p u t s ubstanc e  c o n tain in gmerc ury  i n you r bo d y k nowingthat it w ill have 
s id e effec t for sure wh at  might bemi ldor sev e r e in lon g term against some
low chancepos sibil ityof gettin g d isease s t h at you r body  will  f igh t anywa y an d t ha t having v a c cin atedmi ghtnot eve n protect you agai n st.  Here is some 
mo re i n f ofor co n sid er a tio n :  <http://www.re lfe.com/va cc i ne .html>

~~ ~ 
ru n4 yourliv es
I up -vote d  you be cause you  are wron g,  int h e h opes thatas manypeople as possi b le  will  gi ve you  r eas ons a s to e x act ly ho w.

Th er e is n o gra nd  conspir acy to make the world s ick vi a vac cin es to pro fit .  If 
they are  tru ly 'evil',  bo thinsur anc e  andbigp ha rma would  ben e fit much, mu chm o re  in not hav i n g  pe oplevac c inated  and  overpricing drug s  every time th erei s 
apan i c an da run on suppl ies ,a l a H1N1.Co uld you ima gine the  d e mandwith
t oday's  mediai f  t h ere wa s amea sles outb rea ki n a maj or  c i ty wit h ma ny 
death s?

Th e re i s no conspiracy.
As fo r mecur y , y ou in ge st much more  of it eve ry time you  eat s omefish.  It isafact o f l if e.

With e v ery medic ation , a cer ta in p erc entage  ofp e ople

are long_lasting debates_on whether the benefits_of the_vaccine_outweigh the
harm._I_have looked at_both sides of_the argument and based_on what I_have
read_and concluded that I would not vaccinate myself or my kids(see my
reasoning below). Government_cares_only of_the_short_term effect and keeping
society from_outbreaks of deceases where they_are less_concerned of long term
effect that will be hard_to_link to any_past vaccinations anyways. Even the
fact the insurance companies do_not cover vaccination due to possibility_of
severe side effects_poses_a_question why? The long_trim effect of vaccine is
not well_studied yet. If you look at_both sides of the argument, the major
question_is what side has more benefit_for fighting. Pharmaceuticals make tons
of_money on_vaccination and have tons of_money to promote_it including_usage
of science as_well government policies. So looking at_both sides where_none
have concrete scientifically proof on long_term_effect of vaccines,_what_side
would_you take_thinking on benefits_that_each side_might_have in the argument
as well as_possessing_knowledge of possible danger of vaccine including_the
fact that vaccine do_not_work 100% as well._So the ultimate question, would
you_put substance containing mercury in your_body knowing_that it_will have
side effect for sure what might be mild or severe_in long term against some
low chance_possibility of getting diseases_that your_body_will fight anyway
and_that_having vaccinated_might not even protect you against. Here_is some
more_info for consideration: <http://www.relfe.com/vaccine.html>

~~~
run4yourlives
I up-voted you_because you are wrong,_in_the hopes that as many people_as
possible will give you reasons as_to exactly how.

There is no_grand_conspiracy_to make the world sick_via vaccines to profit. If
they are_truly 'evil', both_insurance and big pharma would benefit much,_much
more_in not having people vaccinated and_overpricing_drugs every time there is
a panic_and_a_run on supplies, ala H1N1._Could you imagine the demand with
today's_media if there was a measles outbreak in a_major city with_many
deaths?

There is no conspiracy.

As for_mecury,_you_ingest much more of it every time you eat some_fish. It_is
a fact of_life.

With every medication, a certain percentage of people