Subject: Vaccinations

From: B R
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 18:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
To: scu23@btinternet.com

Just read your article about the Spanish Flu being caused by vaccinations. What vaccinations? There weren't any around during World War I. This was an especially virulent strain of the flu (other strains are mild). It killed 20-40 million, many more than the Bubonic Plague. Do you insist that that, too, was caused by vaccinations?

True, people died in a matter of hours, but that only underlines the virulence of this strain of flu. Many then contracted pneumonia as a result of their weakened immune system and lungs. They died of suffocation.  Doctors didn't kill them. They treated them with herbal/natural remedies--that's all they could do.

If this article is indicative of the rest of your site, then you are a good instance of the dictum: "Much more misinformation can be found on the internet than quality information."

B R

Reply:

>Just read your article about the Spanish Flu being caused by vaccinations.
>What vaccinations? There weren't any around during World War I.

Actually there were 17 or so http://www.whale.to/v/spanish_flu.html
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/butler19.html

Soldiers were court martialled for refusing them, at least one got 15 years.
Now they can force them on you in the USA, and about 15 again which is the
cause of Gulf War syndrome.

So history repeating itself,

If you just take two vaccines--typhoid & smallpox.

"The number of men admitted to sick report during 1917 for typhoid
vaccination was 10,549, or a rate of 15.54 for each one thousand men.
"For smallpox vaccination the number admitted was 9,059, or a rate of 13.35
for each one thousand men.

>This was an especially virulent strain of the flu (other strains are mild).
>It killed
>20-40 million, many more than the Bubonic Plague. Do you insist that that,
>too, was caused by vaccinations?

That is the given story but no one ever mentions vaccines, which is
suspicious in itself.  And no, I don't say Bubonic plague was caused by
vaccines, there weren't any then.

and given the lies we hear every day now, I'd like a confirmation of the 20
million statistic.

>True, people died in a matter of hours, but that only underlines the
>virulence of this strain of flu. Many then contracted pneumonia as a result
>of their weakened immune system and lungs. They died of suffocation.
>Doctors didn't kill them. They treated them with herbal/natural
>remedies--that's all they could do.

Doctors would have mostly been allopaths and they don't use herbs or natural
remedies, if they had then more would have been saved.

"Dean W.A. Pearson of Philadelphia (Hahnemann College) collected 26,795
cases of  (1918) influenza treated by homeopathic physicians with a
mortality rate of 1.05 percent while the average old school (traditional
medicine/drugs) mortality was 30 percent."

Which just points out it was deadly due to the poor medication, similar to
smallpox. 18% mortality under Allopathy, 1-2% under naturopathy or
homeopathy.

So with no vaccines and proper treatment we would never have heard of it
IMO.

and strange we haven't had another one in the last 90 years or so.

I do know that it is used to sell vaccine now.

>If this article is indicative of the rest of your site, then you are a good
>instance of the dictum: "Much more misinformation can be found on the
>internet than quality information."
>Bruce Robbins

That dictum can work either way depending on what you currently believe.  I
think we know what you believe.  I don't know what you read but you could
read my page on spanish flu.

john