In TTL, - pg. 287 - it is mentioned:
"The making of a contribution to an already existing form of art, science or the like, or the creation of something entirely new and hitherto unknown, be it in the arts, in science or in any other area requires the genius that only the Youngest or the Eldest possess."

How then should the new advances in the areas of cloning and mapping of the human genome be viewed?

Can they be seen as an avenue used by Father to correct the errors in our creation caused by Ardor and the Eldest who followed him through Ardor's attempt to use the powers of Darkness in our creation?

If so, and these new avenues do in fact show the potential to eliminate crippling hereditary diseases and the like, should not then the scientists and researchers in these fields be lauded by humankind as heroes - instead of being oft reviled as they have been in various news media and by some governments and so-called 'Special Interest Groups'?

If for example, the human genome project shows that a specific pattern within the human gene structure - if removed - would completely eliminate say an inherited disease like Huntington's - or if the body within which this gene is found be allowed to expire so as to eliminate this gene from our gene pool - should a human law be written to guarantee that the holder of the defective gene undergo the necessary operation or be 'neutered' so as to not be allowed to further infect the gene pool?

Should a person who knows that they have such a genetic defect - and once the knowledge is available to obviate such person from having offspring, still chooses to have offspring that is relatively guaranteed a miserable life - should a human law be written to compel them to not have children or should they be allowed to have children, let the child have a miserable and perhaps extremely painful life, and then let Father use that child's pitiful existence as a measure against attonement for errors in previous lives?

If society knowingly allows a child to be born to misery, even in anticipation that Father will use that misery to offset the child's previous errors - is that society benefitting Father in his work of Light for which he allowed one of the Youngest to bring this knowledge to the physical world - or giving in to Darkness and ignoring what He has given to perhaps obviate His need for intercession in this regard?

If a parent knowingly has offspring destined for such misery - should that (those) parent(s) be eliminated from society by perhaps incarceration and have any children born of their union removed from their care and given either the necessary 'repair' operation or neutering?

Which entity has the greatest responsibility in this regard - the parent, the community, the nation?

Can it be justified to allow an innocent to knowingly suffer pain without taking action and using Father's use of the Doctrine of Attonement to relinguish ourselves from responsibility?

If it is taken that the answers to the above show that genetic manipulation is a 'good' thing and the results chosen by society to protect the innocent are accepted, can the same acceptance be applied to those that use artificial means to have children when nature has decided they should not?

For example, if a childless couple uses drugs to cause pregnancy that results in several children being born to a family that has neither the intellect or monetary wherewithal to support even one child let alone 3 or 4 or more - again guaranteeing that the child(ren) will suffer through their life - should the same rules of incarcertion and/or neutering and removal of the child(ren) be applied.

If cloning of a human proves possible - is it possible then that creation will have a soul or will it be simply an animal/vegetable?

Would Father place a soul within such a cloned human?

Which of these two "contributions" can be seen as being of Light or Darkness or do both follow under the same mantle?

If that mantle is darkness - how can it be reconciled with the "genius" being from the Yongest as the Eldest (without any power save to help) are no longer born among us?

By Ulla S. Qvistgaard on Sunday, January 06, 2002 - 04:59 pm:

So many question, Colin! This is a very interesting discussion to open – I think we have all considered some of these questions during later years.
I will repeat your text in the following, adding my attempts at answers – hoping that someone will join in, to offer their own thoughts, to confirm, contradict, whatever…

In TTL, - pg. 287 - it is mentioned:
"The making of a contribution to an already existing form of art, science or the like, or the creation of something entirely new and hitherto unknown, be it in the arts, in science or in any other area requires the genius that only the Youngest or the Eldest possess."

How then should the new advances in the areas of cloning and mapping of the human genome be viewed?

IMO, these advances should be viewed as another step in the progress of the medical science. However, we see some disquieting attempts that have already resulted in strong protests. Cloning of human beings is considered unethical – and rightly so! While I do not think we can compare cloning of human embryos as a precise parallel to the Eldests’ unfortunate creation of the first human beings – it does indeed seem like tampering with things that do not belong to our area of competence.
Resume: the Eldest created beings that later appeared to possess an immortal astral body. These astral bodies continued to exist on the Earth plane, while the physical bodies were dissolved. The creatures of the Eldest did not possess will and thought – those elements that only God can give.
Only when some of the Eldest realized what they had done and asked God for help did our Father intervene and add the spirit to those poor ghosts.
Of course cloning can never be considered an attempt of “imitating God’s creation”, as some religious currents have it, e.g. Catholicism – but then they do not know that God actually did not create the human body.
The main problem is that the scientists choose to ignore the existence of the spirit. Those same scientists may indeed be of the Youngest (highly probable that many of them are) – but the usual old confusion in the ambient of religion has long since made them decide that “God and religion are for the priests to talk about” – and so they mostly prefer to declare themselves atheists. One example is the Italian Nobel Price winner Rita Levi Montalcini whom I have had the pleasure of meeting several years ago. She must indeed be one of the Youngest, with the discoveries she has made with a regard to brain research. But – Jewish of origin, she declares herself an atheist… No wonder, actually, considered the mess we witness in the various religions that all behave in contradiction to God’s laws.

Can they be seen as an avenue used by Father to correct the errors in our creation caused by Ardor and the Eldest who followed him through Ardor's attempt to use the powers of Darkness in our creation?

It might be that Father has instructed some of the Youngest to bring their knowledge about e.g. staminal cells to humankind. In fact, the staminal cells still resent in the umbelical cord immediately after a child is born, can be used to improve the existence of other human beings suffering from hereditary diseases, etc. Those hospitals that are equipped to utilize these staminal cells already do so, and I believe this procedure is spreading rapidly.
The unfortunate aftermath of the discovery of the healing characteristics of the staminal cells is that following the first encouraging results, some researchers considered creating human embryos in order to utilize their staminal cells. Thus the idea of creating embryos for “later use”, congealing these human beings to be.
I can hardly bear to think about how a spirit must feel who is destined for such a hybernated embryo. Is this spirit simply suspended in a sort of waiting room in the spheres, without knowing how long he/she is supposed to stay there? Or does God “deliver” the spirits concerned, when he can see that they will never be born? In this case, however, an intervention with his own natural laws would be required. Normally, when an embryo has become an embryo, it is already destined to become a child, though the spirit is connected to the foetus only 3-4 months later. This would allow ample respite for God to decide whether it is appropriate to allow the spirit who has chosen that specific body to actually “enter” it.

If so, and these new avenues do in fact show the potential to eliminate crippling hereditary diseases and the like, should not then the scientists and researchers in these fields be lauded by humankind as heroes - instead of being oft reviled as they have been in various news media and by some governments and so-called 'Special Interest Groups'?

They can probably be called heroes if they succeed in keeping in touch with their conscience and not experiment with embryos.

If for example, the human genome project shows that a specific pattern within the human gene structure - if removed - would completely eliminate say an inherited disease like Huntington's - or if the body within which this gene is found be allowed to expire so as to eliminate this gene from our gene pool - should a human law be written to guarantee that the holder of the defective gene undergo the necessary operation or be 'neutered' so as to not be allowed to further infect the gene pool?

Should a person who knows that they have such a genetic defect - and once the knowledge is available to obviate such person from having offspring, still chooses to have offspring that is relatively guaranteed a miserable life - should a human law be written to compel them to not have children or should they be allowed to have children, let the child have a miserable and perhaps extremely painful life, and then let Father use that child's pitiful existence as a measure against attonement for errors in previous lives?

IMO, a measure such as the “removal of defective genes by law” can be likened to Hitler’s attempts at “cleaning up” the German people by removing “defective individuals” such as Jews, gypsies, handicapped persons, etc.
A few years back there was much discussion in Scandinavia concerning a law that permitted the sterilization of certain categories of mentally suffering people. This measure had indeed been taken in the past in many cases, but now protests arose. Many handicapped persons felt it was their right to be able to have children, if they so wished.
While the desire to have children is a natural one, on the other hand it can be said that it is not ethically correct to give birth to a child that would be destined to be a victim of the same mental handicap and/or other hereditary disease. This child can with some right blame its parents for its difficult existence. I say “with some right”, because the spirit is always perfectly aware of the conditions of the family wherein it is born and understands why this family is as close as possible to the ideal “take-off strip” of its new incarnation.
Also, a person who knows that she cannot possibly care for her child personally, e.g. because of a physical handicap – would probably not be in agreement with her conscience should she insist on having a child anyway. Subsequently, she would also be obliged to ask society to make extraordinary measures so that her child can be properly taken care of, possibly in her presence.
Another question arises: are persons who suffer from heavy mental handicaps able to listen fully to the voice of their conscience so as to make the right choice? I think not, but I would like to hear other opinions. These persons should be treated with loving care and given the possibility of learning as much as they possibly can, so that their next incarnation will be much better. This is fortunately what is already happening in many institutions (in the civilized countries, I should add).

If society knowingly allows a child to be born to misery, even in anticipation that Father will use that misery to offset the child's previous errors - is that society benefitting Father in his work of Light for which he allowed one of the Youngest to bring this knowledge to the physical world - or giving in to Darkness and ignoring what He has given to perhaps obviate His need for intercession in this regard?

This is a difficult one, Colin… Still, we can find an answer in TTL. The Earth’s condition as a planet of the darkness is answer enough in itself, I think. God is helping us as much as he can, mainly through the work of the Youngest, to make life easier for us on this planet. As we know, he is also working to make us realize that we too should work very hard to eliminate all kinds of misery – be it disease, famine, poverty…
Can any society work any kind of coersion on its members? OK, society must work towards eliminating misery. But if measures are taken against its members’ free will, this society becomes a totalitarian society. Society should inform its members and help them orient themselves towards that which would be ethically correct – but it should not create laws that counteract personal free will.
Again, others may have different ideas on this topic.

If a parent knowingly has offspring destined for such misery - should that (those) parent(s) be eliminated from society by perhaps incarceration and have any children born of their union removed from their care and given either the necessary 'repair' operation or neutering?

This has mostly been answered in the above, I think. Incarceration would be but another “social judgement” and an attack on the “guilty” persons’ free will.

Which entity has the greatest responsibility in this regard - the parent, the community, the nation?

The parent, I dare say. Cf. also the Appendix of “Questions and Answers”, on birth control, etc.

Can it be justified to allow an innocent to knowingly suffer pain without taking action and using Father's use of the Doctrine of Attonement to relinguish ourselves from responsibility?

You mean, Father’s use of the laws of retribution and reincarnation? Not that it changes much: when we see an innocent individual suffering pain and/or injustice, we should never be passive and just let it happen, if we can possibly do anything about it. Be it collecting signatures for a petition or other non-violent means of protest.

If it is taken that the answers to the above show that genetic manipulation is a 'good' thing and the results chosen by society to protect the innocent are accepted, can the same acceptance be applied to those that use artificial means to have children when nature has decided they should not?

Hm. Again, it is a question to be answered by those who choose these methods. Personally, I would rather adopt a child already born to the world than I would make use of artificial means of conception. Actually, I would perceive my inability to have children as a strong hint in that direction. But again, it is a question of personal conscience and free will. It must be considered that many still know nothing about the existence of the human spirit – they believe that immortality can be obtained only through their offspring. Which must of course be “their own flesh and blood”. We should not judge people who make this choice for it is probably founded on ignorance of the spiritual facts.

For example, if a childless couple uses drugs to cause pregnancy that results in several children being born to a family that has neither the intellect or monetary wherewithal to support even one child let alone 3 or 4 or more - again guaranteeing that the child(ren) will suffer through their life - should the same rules of incarcertion and/or neutering and removal of the child(ren) be applied.

Definitely not. Here in Italy this has happened a few times during later years. There is the example of a couple with six children conceived artificially (six out of eight lived) – they had to ask people help them through campaigns of various kinds. They did receive a lot of help, hopefully they will not be forgotten as the children grow!

If cloning of a human proves possible - is it possible then that creation will have a soul or will it be simply an animal/vegetable?

Logically, this human body would provide a quite normal “dwelling place” for a spirit who wishes to reincarnate. I don’t see how it could become an animal or a vegetable. The body would probably have all the requisites for offering the individual concerned a – relavitely – normal life. If God will actually incarnate a human spirit in such a “photocopied” body, of course we cannot know – but I do not think Father will interfere with our doings of the darkness even in this case. Also see above.

Would Father place a soul within such a cloned human?

Of course he would. If such a human being should be born and grow up, he/she would also be valid proof that the human being is not just body and social/physical conditionings… For he/she would be the embodiment of a unique spirit as we all are – thus proving wrong those cynical scientists who believe the physical brain is all there is. In this way an idea of the Darkness would – once again – be utilized at the service of the Light. No two human spirits are alike. Thus, no two human individuals are alike. Therefore even cloned human beings would slowly but surely become different from each other, physically, simply because their spirits can never be alike. This would happen even if two, three or more identical human beings were placed in the same living conditions.

Which of these two "contributions" can be seen as being of Light or Darkness or do both follow under the same mantle?

Again, this is a planet of the darkness. Even the Youngest, when born among us, are subject to this almost total earthly darkness and all its negative effects. The spirit is a being of the Light – who chooses to incarnate in a world of darkness in order to learn and evolve. There would probably be some spirits whom God would consider perfect subjects for such an incarnation. For example, the first genetic researchers who have “hatched” the idea of cloning… (Please consider this a bad joke… we truly cannot know who may be fit for this kind of incarnation, nor should we judge them or point our fingers at them).

If that mantle is darkness - how can it be reconciled with the "genius" being from the Yongest as the Eldest (without any power save to help) are no longer born among us?

As already mentioned, this is a world of darkness… even the Youngest can be tempted beyond what their conscience tells them, especially if fame and fortune await around the corner! The old Greek concept of hybris comes to mind… Isn’t this the same situation – albeit in a different ambient – of those Youngest who were church ministers in Denmark in the 1920es – those who chose their secure and comfortable lives instead of trusting their conscience and God’s wish? Those researchers who are of the Youngest are certainly called upon by their conscience and guiding spirit if not God himself to avoid human cloning – but will they heed the voice of God? It is all up to them; the rest of us are rather helpless in this sense, unless we make petitions and raise worldwide protests. It might be a nice argument that poverty and disease must be defeated before wasting resources on playing games of clonation etc. As indeed the absurdly expensive space projects and military defence mechanisms should be discouraged to allow for those resources to benefit humankind instead.

Much more can be said on this subject, I am sure. I have probably let out a lot of plausible answers, so please Everyone – consider this a beginning and let us know your own thoughts and ideas!

Love to all,
Ulla

By Mara Vazquez-Rest on Monday, January 07, 2002 - 04:58 pm:

Hello,
interesting stream of questions.
When reading this, several things come to mind. There have been many advances in medicine that are treated as good and necessary, but upon closer view are not that clearly defined good or bad. I did a lot of reading and researching when I was pregnant and was confronted with several options. There are now many tests that can tell you ( with some danger of spontaneous abortion) whether your child has a birth defect like mongoloid, spina bifida etc. If you take the test, there is no other action to do than to abort or not to abort. I choose not to do any testing knowing that abortion for any reason is wrong ( I was not so sure of this before reading TTL).
Some want to introduce a law that refuses children born handicapped the right to have health insurance etc. "because they could have been aborted". Now I see this clearly as belonging to darkness.
My child was born at home and has not had any kind of intervention. I did not know that some vaccines are made of aborted fetal tissue, so for now my child has not received any.
Even after reading hundreds of pages on vaccines I am still not entirely sure whether they are of darkness or the light. There are two completely opposing viewpoints. So far my conscience has told me to wait, but I am not fully clear on the matter.

For example, if a childless couple uses drugs to cause pregnancy that results in several children being born to a family that has neither the intellect or monetary wherewithal to support even one child let alone 3 or 4 or more - again guaranteeing that the child(ren) will suffer through their life - should the same rules of incarcertion and/or neutering and removal of the child(ren) be applied.

I don't think it is ever right to take a child away from a family because of the lack of means or intelligence. They should be counciled and possibly helped out as best as they can. It is not always a given that a child will suffer because of the lack of monetary support. Some that have been born into poverty, but a loving, supportive home, have grown up to be quite happy (Charly Chaplin for example).
I agree with all the points that Ulla makes to on this subject. Thank you Colin for starting an interesting and surely very timely discussion.
So much for now.
Love,
Mara

By Ulla S. Qvistgaard on Tuesday, January 08, 2002 - 12:45 pm:

Mara, you have brought other interesting topics to this discussion - I too have given much thought to the subject of vaccinations. I did not know that some vaccines are actually made from tissue of aborted fetuses???!!! This is horrifying.
To tell the truth, I have avoided to read too much on vaccines - basically vaccines are of the light though of course they become increasingly "darker", if researchers knowingly add substances to them that might be avoided with the knowledge they possess today.
I do not like the very aggressive anti-vaccination campaigns that some groups of people conduct here in Italy. After all, haven't those same vaccinations helped so many persons grow up without encountering dangerous diseases?
Of course more research should be done into vaccines so as to eliminate dangerous and/or useless substances such as e.g. mercury, but until when, what should we do?
Personally, I have chosen to have my children vaccinated - but only accepting those vaccinations that are obligatory under Italian law. Unless serious research has shown that without any doubt a vaccine is damaging to the child, I do not think it necessary to go against the laws of any country. Still, such damaging vaccines are indeed used in most countries... It is left to the citizens to protest so that these vaccines can be changed - but, on the other hand, when will that happen?
As usual, it remains a very personal question that we can answer only with our conscience.

As for the pregnancy tests that are aimed at determining defects in the foetus - I refused them just like you did, Mara. As indeed an abortion would have been against my conscience, I did not see the reason of taking the risk of a test that might even endanger the life of my child.
It is a very cynical law you mention, about children born handicapped having no right to health insurance... Let's hope it will never be adopted.
Yes, of course wealth is not all that matters. As you say, Mara, many children have grown up happily in "poor" families (but then again, what is poverty? Lack of money or lack of love?!) - and quite a few have grown up miserably in very wealthy families. So wealthy that the children were entrusted to nurses and nannies and were hardly ever touched by their parents. After that, years on end passed in boarding schools.
Lucky Charlie Chaplin - others have been much less fortunate!
Love to all,
Ulla

By Carsten Ploug Olsen on Wednesday, January 09, 2002 - 03:13 pm:

I would very much like to take part in this highly interesting discussion. My view on the matter of the human genome project is, that in a few years it will probably be able to offer people genetic tests, which may inform everyone of its genetic pool, and eventually its risks of transferring disease(s) to ones offspring.

I think, that such tests should be volunteer, and that everyone must decide for oneself how, eventually, to deal with the genetic information thus offered. I do very much agree with Ullas point regarding the respect for humans free will.

If we make this approach to the matter, the human genome project may proove very constructive, I think.

I have myself been forced to think very hard on the matter of having children or not(and who don´ t). As I in fact do have a serious mental disease, which might be inheritable (science says that it definately is), I have chosen to be sterialized of my own free will. There has been no presure of any kind from anyone in this direction, and if anyone had tried to force me to this decision, I would have felt very much violated. But as the decision was mine, and mine alone (in coorperation with my partner), I felt, that this was right.

Cloning. Uh. This is, speaking of the so-called therapeutic cloning, another highly advanced weapon in the on-going but hidden war, that has probably already taken more lives than every single war ever: The war on embryos or foetuses. I can hardly bear to think of this.

But cloning itself? Is it ok? Ulla has got a good point here: Why don´ t we offer much more attention and ressources on the improvement of the globe, why don´ t we abolish all weapons ("the lord gives and the lord takes..."), why don´ t we try to abolish poverty and diseases and polution thus trying to make this globe a place worth living in before sending more "innocent souls" into this world of darkness, why is it so important for everyone to have children (the idea of a mini-Carsten or a mini-X makes me sick!) as we have now hidden the scandalous number of 6 billion people on the globe etc etc. Human kind is spreading its wings everywhere, like a clumsy bird which cannot yet fly. I think that we need just a little sense of limitation. But then again: It is up to everyone to confer with ones conscience, and the free will should never be violated. However, many things in this imperfect world sometimes, when thinking of it, makes life a pest.

By Colin M. on Friday, January 11, 2002 - 05:23 am:

Hello All,
Excellent points to stimulate the thread.

If I may, a few comments taken from the Q&A Addendum:
first, page 110 (English version):
"...let it be clearly stated once and for all: God has neither part nor lot in the number of children that human beings bring into the world."

from page 111:
"Rather, limit the number of children - and enjoy a happier marriage."
This in response to the situations of parents having too many children and of Birth Control.

from page 113:
"...no one must take the life of another human being! This ancient commandment applies also to abortion, even though the foetus is no more than an incipient human being."

Of course no one should kill and abortion unless necessary to save the life of the mother must be viewed as 'murder' by us all. This is especially horrid as it is practised in the 'west' as dealing with the 'inconvenience' of an unplanned pregnancy. The latest figures I have seen published in various news media are that in America alone over 1 million abortions for 'convenience' are performed every year.

I do though have another extract that focused my thoughts on those knowing their children may suffer and even though the possibility existed to obviate that pain and suffering chose not to avail themselves of the 'solution' and it comes from the Speech of Christ in Doctrine of Atonement and the Shorter Road, page 24:
"Sought you their counsel when you sowed the seed for their bodies? Truly you did not." and also "Am I not the cause of this, for my child was given life through me? Had not my child been spared such grief and suffering, had I not suffered this child to see the light of day?"

Apologies if these seem to be taken out of context and no other inference is intended and neither is any sort of 'personal' attack.

These though I feel also speak toward 'free will' as it were, as should not the child's 'free will' be taken into account? Truly no parent 'asks' or 'seeks counsel' of their child before having children. And if one did, and the 'new' child was asked 'Wish you to be born into a life of poverty and squalor or into a life of pain and suffering that I could obviate for you by either fixing a genetic error or by not having a child?' -- what might the soul that is to be placed into that shell say?

These and other mentions in the Books regarding parents being held accountable for the misery their children are faced with should the parent ignore their child sparked my query seeking opinions.

Again, if only the Youngest have the 'genius' to bring such developments to the physical plane, does it help or hinder Father's plan to ignore what 'may be' an attempt to offset the failings of the body created by Ardor and his followers?

Which 'Free Will' in this regard must be considered as pre-eminent - the new 'child' or the 'parent(s)'?

As the light advances in respect to the 'intellectual' and 'spiritual', what then of advances in the 'physical'?

I only present these quandries within my own thoughts and weaknesses seeking the thoughts of others to help me clarify. Please do not take them as personal attacks and please do not attack me personally for asking these questions.

Love,
Colin

By Ulla S. Qvistgaard on Friday, January 11, 2002 - 12:22 pm:

Dear Colin,
The words you quote from the Speech of Christ in Doctrine of Atonement and the Shorter Road, page 24 are quite relevant. In fact, it also transpires that God would certainly not lack means for allowing human evolution to occur in an appropriate (and even better!) way, should everyone suddenly decide not to have children.
I once held the same view as you do: at 16-17 years of age I firmly decided not to have children in this "valley of tears". Things changed when I married - I found myself facing the question again, and it became a question of conscience whether I would "deny" my husband the children he so desired - or agree to have a child. As it is obvious, I yielded and I have not regretted this.
My life would have been much different without children, and I think I would not have been able to understand many things that I have instead been allowed to learn through my children. You see the world from a different point of view, when you are constantly faced with explaining everything to your small ones. They are a great responsibility, but they are also a gift.
We must choose freely how to use our lives - some choose to have children, some choose not to. And then there are still many countries where you are considered "strange" if you do not do all you can to absolutely have children - but this is a question of local culture and/or religion.

I still remember my disgust when I learned that the Catholic Church withdrew their yearly contribution to UNICEF (the "huge sum" of about $ 5,000, if I remember rightly) - on the grounds that UNICEF had started spending the money on anticonceptional means in some of the poorest African countries... This happened approx. in 1997. I shall omit commenting further on this choice of the Vatican. Fact is, they still encourage all and sundry to have children because it is "sinful" to use any secure means to avoid conception.

I still do not think society should interfere in any way with the citizens' wish to have children or not. Clear and precise information on risks connected with genetic diseases is a must, and already in school the children should be taught how to face their future choice of having children or not.
We still have a long way to go, I know.Colin - I hope you have not taken my mention of your "bared teeth" as a personal attack. I have the habit of speaking freely, also saying things that are only "impressions". We do perceive the "atmosphere" of a letter or a message posted anywhere on the web...

The rest I have to say is not concerned with cloning, so I will answer you in the other thread, Children and Toward the Light… see you there!

Love,
Ulla

By colcrys on Tuesday, January 29, 2002 - 01:39 pm:

Hello Mara, Hello Ulla,
Neither of you have had the time to visit for awhile but I wanted to comment on your mention of vaccinations if I may.

I offer for your consideration the following:

The late Robert Mendelsohn, MD, a pediatrician said this:
"There has never been a single vaccine in this country [the USA] that has ever been submitted to a controlled scientific study. They never took a group of 100 people who were candidates for a vaccine, gave 50 of them a vaccine and left the other 50 alone to measure the outcome. And since that hasn't been done, that means if you want to be kind, you will call vaccines an unproven remedy. If you want to be accurate, you'll call people who give vaccines 'quacks'."

Some immediately ask: Didn't vaccines get rid of disease?

No! According to A. Kalokerinos, MD: "Up to 90% of the total decline in the death rate of children between 1860-1965 - because of whooping cough, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and measles - occurred BEFORE the introduction of immunizations and antibiotics."

I also gleaned a few websites that you ladies may find interesting:

http://www.avn.org.au
http://www.909shot.com
http://www.vaccinationnews.com
http://www.whale.to/vaccines.html
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Ah! The wonder of the Internet. No matter how various governments groan about the access to information that was previously only in the hands of those that controlled the dissemination of information now being available to all, it has given us all the chance to seek - and find.

Love,
Colin

By Ulla S. Qvistgaard on Thursday, January 31, 2002 - 11:03 am:

Dear Colin,

Thank you for the links. Browsing through them, I felt an ever-increasing sensation of unrest – is it possible that practically no earthly government (that I know of) has decided to investigate further into this problem so as to be able to offer the citizens of their nation a valid alternative and/or the possibility of a choice? The politicians of all countries seem to be more interested in defending their own, temporary position, than to really do the job for which they have been elected. Nothing new in this, I know…

The economic interests of the major pharmaceutic companies are well-known; sometimes I have a feeling that they alone rule the world, deciding on the life or death of entire suffering populations. They could easily offer free help to the third world nations that are needful of almost everything – but it is so seldom we hear about this actually happening. And I do not think any help offered by these companies would be forwarded secretly.

Looking around these days, I mostly see just a huge, unmanageable mess. There is a peculiar inertness to it all – leading to a kind of expectation in the ether, as if someone had just whispered somewhere, “Well? And now? What’s gonna happen now?” The others have heard these whispered words, and they shift restlessly on their weary feet…

Love,
Ulla

By Colin M. on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 06:10 am:

Good Day Ladies,
I thought to first post this in the Children and TTL thread but it seems to fit better here.

Apologies for the length and to those without children it may not seem relevant to this Forum but to you ladies with children and the already discussed situation regarding vaccines it is important I feel. There is also another consideration in regards to a parents 'belief' as that seems to be the only ground available for a parent to refuse the pharmaceutical companies russian roulette (with apologies to all Russians for this very insulting common idiom) with the lives of our children - and it is in this aspect that there is a relation to our knowledge of the Truth as it can be used to 'decline' the threat of government sponsored use of children as experimental animals.

Ulla, here is a graphic example of the 'free will' of some obviating the 'free will' of children - and parents.

For those not interested in this threat to children perhaps scroll down to the next post.

Crib Death or Vaccine Death?

Medical historian, Harris Coulter, Ph.D., estimates that two-thirds of the 10,000 cases of crib death are vaccine related.

When Japan moved the vaccination age to 2 years old in 1975, crib death and infantile convulsions virtually disappeared. (Cherry, et al., Pediatrics Supplement, p. 973, 1988)

Studies show that children die at a rate eight times greater than normal within three days of getting a DPT shot. (JM Fine, LC Chen, "Confounding in studies of adverse reactions to vaccines", American Journal of Epidemiology, 136 (1992), pp. 121-35)

Alzheimer's and Flu Vaccinations
According the Hugh Fudenberg, M.D., the world's leading immunogeneticist, author of nearly 850 papers in peer-reviewed journals:

Individuals who have had 5 consecutive flu shots between 1970 and 1980 (years studied) have a 10-times higher chance of getting Alzheimer's disease than if they had 1, 2, or no shots.

When asked why, Dr. Fudenberg said it was due to the mercury and aluminum in every flu shot. The gradual mercury and aluminum buildup in the brain causes cognitive dysfunction.

John Hopkins Newsletter Nov. 1998 stated Alzheimer's incidence would quadruple in coming years. Could flu shots be one reason?

Informed Consent
Physicians often do not explain the risks involved in vaccination (and in fact are also not aware as this information is obfuscated by the companies making millions of the death of children - and these same companies are protected by various governments and allowed to hide this information from the public as well as pediatricians).

PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT (CANADA AND america) TO REFUSE VACCINATION FOR THEIR CHILDREN BASED ON PHILOSOPHICAL AND/OR RELIGIOUS VIEWS!

Most parents are not aware of the (america) National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
The latest figures released show that VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) has paid out more than $1.2 billion to parents of children damaged or killed by vaccines.

"Mercury is a POTENT NEUROTOXIN ... Infants and young children are also very vulnerable to the impacts of mercury because it can AFFECT THEIR DEVELOPING BRAINS." National Institutes of Health, April 26, 2001

Deadly Neurotoxin Mercury Is Still Found In Many Vaccines Including the Flu Vaccine.

Mercury Horse Drug Recalled By The FDA. The FDA Protects Horses from Mercury. Why Don't They Care About Children???

Mercury Poisoning
By the age of two, most countries children have received 237 micrograms of mercury through vaccines alone, which far exceeds the EPA "safe" levels of 0.1mcg/kg per day.

Four days in particular may be singled out as spectacularly toxic for infants:

Day of birth: Hepatitis B - 12 mcg mercury (30 times safe levels)
Four month: DTaP and Hib on same day - 50 mcg mercury (60 times safe level)
Six months: Hepatitis B, Polio - 62.5 mcg mercury (78 times safe level)
Fifteen months: another 50 mcg mercury (41 times saafe level)

"These figures are calculated for an infant's average weight in kilograms for each age. These one-day blasts of mercury are called 'bolus doses'. There has never been any research conducted on the toxicity of such doses." Dr. Stephanie Cave

5 Drug Makers Use Material with Possible Mad Cow Link.

7 vaccines (polio, hepatitis A, varicella, pertussis, diptheria, tetanus, and haemophilus influenzae b) have NOT been "evaluated or tested for their carcinogenic potential, mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility" or "reproductive capacity" according the vaccine manufacturers' own product inserts.

3 vaccines (varicella, hepatitis A, and rubella) were cultured in human diploid cells (eg. human embryonic lung cell cultures and human diploid cell cultures WI-38 and MRC-5). The Chickenpox vaccine contains "residual components of MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein."

6 vaccines (polio, hepatitis B, hepatitis A, pertussis, diptheria, and tetanus) contain formaldehyde - a highly noxious and carcinogenic preservative.

5 vaccines (hepatitis B, pertussis, diptheria, tetanus, and haemophilus influenzae b) contain thimerosal, a mercury derivative preservative BANNED by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in over-the-counter (OTC) drug preparations because of questions over safety. (Federal Register: April 22, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 77)][Page 19799-19802]

5 vaccines (hepatitis B, hepatitis A, pertussis, diptheria, and tetanus) contain aluminum as an adjuvant. Aluminum accumulates in brain, muscle and bone tissue and can be linked to causing fibrosarcomas (cancerous tumors) at the injection site.

5 vaccines (measles, mumps, polio, varicella, and diptheria) are developed from animal ingredients including cell cultures of chick embryos, monkey kidney cells, fetal bovine serum, and embryonic guinea pig cell cultures. There has been a moratorium in this country on animal organ transplants in humans because of concerns of people contracting latent animal viruses. Despite the history of unscreened animal viruses infecting humans from injectable products like vaccines [monkey cells and SV40 virus and bovine serum and "Mad Cow Disease" (bovine spongiform encephalopathy)], this practice continues with vaccines.

5 vaccines (measles, mumps, rubella, polio, and varicella) are LIVE virus vaccines. Live virus vaccines can sometimes infect the recipient and can even sometimes infect those in close contact with the recipient. These vaccines are given to young children, and vaccine immunity sometimes wears off for adults. This can put a pregnant mother or immunocompromised adult at risk by being around a recently vaccinated child with live virus vaccines.

For ALL 11 vaccines there have been NO long term studies on the cumulative effect on the child's developing immune system of combining all these vaccines together.

For ALL 11 vaccines the biological mechanism for why some children react to a vaccine is not understood.

For ALL 11 vaccines there are no genetic or other lab screening tests available to determine which children will react to a vaccine.

In america, "The Model States Emergency Health Powers Act" can force you to be vaccinated for smallpox even if it might result in your death.
The power to arrest, quarantine, and forcibly vaccinate is being given to non-medical authorities.
Homes can be confiscated without compensation if labeled infectious by state authorities.
==================================================

SIDS - Death Through Vaccines
A Mother's Bitter Tears For Her Baby Daughter
SIDS - Sudden Infant Death Syndrome! The following narrative brings home the untold human suffering of vaccinating infants in the name of prevention.

Why do parents allow their respective governments to play Russian Roulette with their children's lives through vaccination? Is it out of fear, lack of information, or an oviusly misplaced trust in authority? Whatever the reason, babies continue to suffer and die. Parents continue to mourn, and the vaccination con game rolls on.

The following article was received recently by email and is forwarded along for the notice of all parents and people concerned with the welfare of babies and small children.
--------------------------------------------------

Subject: The parental terror of VACCINE "murders"
Subject: SIDS

Today is my daughter's sweet 16th birthday but we will not be celebrating. Instead I will light a candle and when I blow it out I will make a wish in my daughter's memory. My wish is for all mother's worldwide, that you will educate yourselves and that you make informed choices so that you may prevent unnecessary tragedy and be spared from my pain.

Laura's Story

After 41 weeks of pregnancy, on July 27th, 1986, a perfect and healthy little baby, Laura Marie, made her entrance into the world. We were welcomed home by family and friends anxiously waiting to meet the new family member. They showered her with so many beautiful, little tiny, pink dresses, we joked that she would never be able to wear them all in one lifetime.

Our lives changed completely and now revolved around stroller walks in the park, visiting friends, changing diapers, night feedings and shopping for more little pink dresses. We were parents now, we had a family and life was absolutely perfect.

I took Laura for several baby check-ups at the pediatrician. She was a kind and gentle older woman. At 3 months old, the pediatrician was very pleased with Laura's development and weight gain and vaccinated her with DPT OPV. I didn't even question her, I knew that all my friend's babies had this same vaccine and "all good mothers" vaccinated their children to protect them. I left the pediatrician's office and walked home.

Laura was very fussy, which was unusual. She was crying loudly all the way home in the stroller. When we got home, I realized she had urinated so heavily she wet everything in the stroller. Then her cry turned into screaming and she developed a fever, her leg was very swollen and red, and felt hot. I called the pediatrician who told me this was "normal" and to give her Tempra. I gave her baby Tempra and I felt better, the pediatrician had assured me this was normal.

Laura continued to scream and I could no longer console her. My every instinct told me this was not normal but I was young with my first child and trusted the doctor. I could not hold Laura in my arms because she screamed louder as any movement of her leg seemed to cause her terrible pain. I put her in the swing and she cried herself to sleep. I was so relieved, the Tempra was working and the doctor must have been right. I began to feel silly for all my worrying. A short time later, Laura woke up screaming and spent the evening screaming and sleeping on and off.

She had no appetite and nothing made her stop crying. Finally it was bedtime and she cried in her crib, until she fell asleep. She had never cried herself to sleep before and I felt very bad for letting her but if I held her, she screamed louder. My husband came home from work and I told him about everything that had happened that day. Laura was sleeping soundly in her crib and we were both relieved that she seemed to be feeling better and decided not to worry... I should have worried.

In the morning I awoke and was startled to realize my husband had slept in for work. I immediately knew something was wrong and the worry from the previous night came rushing back to me. I quickly ran to her crib, with a feeling of dread. She did not look right. I closed my eyes tight and opened them again, and considered the possibility that this was a dream, but when I opened my eyes she looked dead.

I went into shock and after that, much of this day remains a blur. I touched her and she was very warm. I screamed for my husband to call 911.

I watched as he performed CPR, my body was frozen and I couldn't move. He tried to revive our child to no avail. He was shouting for me to open the door for the paramedics, I was temporarily jolted back to reality and I went and opened the door. I could now move but couldn't speak. I just stood there numbly shaking my head, feeling completely helpless as dozens of paramedics, police and firemen rushed past me into our home.

I didn't cry, and I wanted to scream at them to leave her alone but I couldn't speak. She was on the floor and they were shocking her tiny body, in the little bedroom with the yellow painted walls and clown wallpaper. I stood there praying in my head that they would just leave her alone, that they would get out of her bedroom and that I would wake up from this horrible dream.

Then I heard someone saying there was a faint pulse and I suddenly felt hopeful. She was rushed from the house in an ambulance. It was then that the homicide detectives led us into another room and the interrogation began.

They decided that my husband and I needed to be questioned in separate rooms. I immediately realized they suspected that we had done this to our child. We all know that perfect children do not suddenly die for no reason. I was silent, I had already decided in my own mind that this was somehow all my fault and although I wasn't quite sure what I had done to kill her, I was convinced that I had somehow caused this to happen. Perhaps, I was being punished by god for a sin or perhaps it happened because I had let her cry herself to sleep that night. The fact remained that my child was dead and "good mothers" do not have dead children.

My husband began to protest loudly about the line of questioning and he demanded we be taken immediately to the hospital, to see our child. The detectives finally took us to the hospital and put us in the "bad news room." The doctor came and insisted we sit down before he spoke to us. He began telling us that they had tried this and that and then finally he said the words that would echo in my ears for a lifetime: "She is dead."

The pediatrician whom I so respected and adored broke down and cried when I gave her the news on the phone. She went back and forth defending the vaccine that she was told was safe, and blaming it for killing my child and those who told her it was safe.

She then told me that she also had another patient, an infant boy, die after this same vaccination.

Then the detectives took us home for more questions, often repeating the same questions several times until they grew tired of asking them. The questions constantly centered around our involvement, then they searched the house and checked for signs of forced entry. My husband repeatedly told them that he thought the vaccine had killed our child and told them over and over about her unusual behavior since she was vaccinated.

Everyone we knew arrived at our house. I made coffee and tidied the house, like it was any other day and we were having "guests". Shock is a strange and wonderful thing and of course you don't know you are in it.

My parents finally insisted on taking me to their house for a few days, while my husband and his friends had the horrendous task of packing up the nursery because I couldn't stand to look at it any longer. The room I had so lovingly made was now empty and a source of great pain.

Several days later, after the funeral and the tiny white coffin that was so small my husband carried it alone, I finally came out of shock and allowed myself to cry a river. I cried for all the things I would never do with my daughter. All the ballet classes I would never take her to, the wedding I would never attend, the grandchildren I would never know and all the dreams I would never realize with her. I cried for all that was and all that would never be. There was an emptiness inside of me that threatened to swallow me up whole, as I fell into the depths of grief during the darkest days of my life.

The detectives eventually became satisfied that we had not harmed our daughter in any way and the investigation into her death ended. We were then left without answers.

The doctors did not want to talk about her death being related in any way to the vaccine and, one after the other, refused to answer our many questions. I was repeatedly told that vaccines were for "the greater good." I was even told that loss of life through immunization was "expected" in the war against disease but these losses were considered to be at "acceptable" levels. However, this did not feel very acceptable or good to me as a mother with empty arms that ached for my child. The coroner finally told us months later that the cause of death was determined to be "SIDS" (sudden infant death syndrome), meaning "no known cause," and refused to release a copy of the autopsy report to us.

It took almost a year for us to obtain this report and to our great horror, we realized that the autopsy summary was copied directly from the vaccine product monograph under the heading "Contraindications" as follows:

"Sudden infant death syndrome has been reported following administration of vaccines containing Diphtheria, tetanus toxoids, and pertussis vaccine. However, the significance of these reports is not clear. One common factor is the age where primary immunization was done between the age of 2 to 6 months, a period where most sudden infant death syndromes are found to occur with a peak incidence being at 2 to 4 months."

There was no toxicology testing performed and the pediatrician never filed an adverse vaccine reaction report with health authorities. I later learned that most vaccine-induced deaths in this country are listed as SIDS and SIDS statistics are NOT included in vaccine adverse reaction data, even if a child dies only a few hours after receiving inoculation. This data is presented to physicians and the public to reassure them that vaccines are safe.

The government's own literature advises that there has been little or no testing in the area of vaccine safety or efficacy. Essentially, our children are the test. According to their literature, immunization is "the most cost effective" way to prevent disease. Nowhere in their literature does it claim to be the safest. We are trading our children's lives to save the government money. We are told that the benefits outweigh the risks but many of the diseases that we vaccinate for are not even life threatening; however, the vaccine itself has the potential to kill.

Vaccines kill at a much higher rate than we are led to believe. We play vaccine roulette with our children's lives and we never know which child will fall victim next.

If the odds are 1 in 500 thousand for death, 1 in 100 thousand for permanent brain injury, 1 in 1700 for seizures and convulsions or one in 100 for adverse reaction, are you willing to take that chance? Are any odds acceptable enough to convince you to gamble with your child's life?

I can assure you that death from vaccination is neither quick nor painless. I helplessly watched my daughter suffer an excruciatingly slow death as she screamed and arched her back in pain, while the vaccine did as it was intended to do and assaulted her immature immune system. The poisons used as preservatives seeped through her tiny body, overwhelming her vital organs one by one until they collapsed. It is an image that will haunt me forever and I hope no other parent ever has to witness it.

A death sentence considered too inhumane for this county's most violent criminals was handed down to my beautiful, innocent, infant daughter, death by lethal injection.

Today, on my daughter's birthday, I will grieve not only for the loss of my own child but for all the innocent children for which the benefits of vaccines do not outweigh the risks and are unnecessarily sentenced to death by lethal injection, under the guise of "the greater good." The true war is not against disease; we have somehow become our own worst enemy by putting our faith in science instead of nature. Today, I call on all mothers across the world to join me in putting an end to this senseless slaughter of our most precious resource, our children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response from Dawn Richardson, President
http://www.vaccineinfo.net

I am forwarding this as a tribute to baby Laura and all the other children who have been injured or killed by a vaccine so that parents can learn another side to the vaccine story.

When I was almost 8 months pregnant with one of my daughters, I had volunteered to go to the Travis County Morgue with Karin Schumacher who, for years before she went to Law School, ran the NVIC news-list. Karin asked me to help her go through autopsy reports of infants listed as SIDS deaths and look at vaccination information. I will never forget the experience. We sat there in this basement buried in infant autopsy reports as my own baby kicked and turned inside of me. Here were two of our observations:

1. A highly disproportionate amount of SIDS deaths clustered at 2, 4, and 6 months -- which are the very times infants are vaccinated. If vaccines had nothing to do with these, the numbers should have been randomly spread throughout the first 6 months of life. Not so. I challenge the naysayers to go to any morgue in the country and to be honest and see what I'm talking about.

2. It was shocking at how rare it was for the vaccine information to be recorded and how little investigating into the cause of death of these babies was actually done. It floored me that the when the vaccine information was even mentioned, it was often so incomplete. Medical examiners routinely missed asking for this indispensable information and failed to note the correlation of the date when the child died to even raise the question.

One of the things that struck me when reading Christine's story is that here we are 16 years later and so many doctors are still downplaying and denying the risks of vaccines and healthy babies are still dying after being vaccinated. A currently under study in america is a vaccine bill which shields the drug companies from all liability when a vaccine injures or kills someone is that he is proposing that the federal government increase the amount of money that a parent receives from the government compensation program when their child is killed by a vaccine. Parents are not willing to be bought off with this blood money.

Several elected officials (america) want to eliminate the financial responsibility of the drug companies all together and throw the bone to parents that the government will pay them more if the government mandated vaccine kills their child need to be voted out of Congress! If drug companies have ZERO threat of liability, the one thing we can be certain of is that stories like [Laura's] will become far more common. The key to change is education. Fortunately, the Internet allows parents to educate parents. Please stop for a quiet moment after reading the note and say a prayer for all the babies whose lives were ended before they even got a chance to really start and then take the time to forward this on to other parents.

Ladies (and gentlemen if reading as this is relavant to fathers as well as mothers) - take care. Should you feel that this relates only to those living in N. america please consider that no matter where you live the products used are made by essentially the same companies regardless of your geopgraphical location. I work in the pharma industry but although our firm is considered to be the largest in our area - I am proud(?) to say that we have rejected all attempts by the international purveyors of such poisons to avail themselves of our firm to dispense death to children and we will continue to do so.

Love,
Colin

By Yvonne Johansson on Tuesday, September 03, 2002 - 04:06 pm:

Hello Colin,

I believe the "vaccine-problem" is highly relevant here in Sweden too, even though I feel that there is no real discussion about this right now.
When my children were in the age to get those vaccinations it was great discussions about vaccines, which at that time had serious side effects, among other things paralysis.
But now it's more quiet.
Swedish television had a program about this in early spring this year, but they could not "prove" that the vaccinations harmed the children.

I don't think the swedish authorities can force a parent to vaccinate a child against the parents will.
So it would seem that if we know about our free will it would be easy to say no to this.
But, when you start to question the good of vaccinations the nurses and doctors will tell you that by vaccinations you can eradicate all these diseases and they make you feel real disloyal to other people and their children if you refuse.
Therefore I believe information is the key.
You need good arguments!
But as you pointed out it's difficult to get it.
(Easier now that we got Internet)

I certainly will be more observant on this when my grandchildren arrives (no sign of them yet though), and discuss this with my children.
I think we in Sweden are used to trust our authorities, but we need to think and decide for ourselves.

Love Yvonne

By Ulla S. Qvistgaard on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 10:44 am:

Dear Colin,

A true horror story, the one you have delivered. I would that it were possible to decline vaccinations on philosophical/religious grounds in Italy as well as in Canada and USA (Health Powers Act apart!). Perhaps it is possible in some European countries by now, I would not know.

I am a little confused, though - do vaccines based on eggs also contain mercury or formaldehyde?

Anyway, as I have had a rather unfortunate experience myself during the summer, I will go on to tell you about it...

My son was supposed to have his second anti-diphteria/tetanus shot in June. Italian public schools do not accept children who have not completed the obligatory vaccination programme, so I went, though somewhat unwillingly. I told myself, this will be the last compulsory vaccination, anyway...

However, my husband and other members of the family were pressing hard that the child should also be vaccinated against measles, as a heavy epidemy had been ravaging all Naples during the spring and was still abroad. Some 30,000 children had become infected and 3 children had actually died from the disease (one infant and two teenagers), so most pediatricians advised that all children under 12 be vaccinated.
I wanted to ask for advice also at the public health offices, in spite of having talked the problem over with a pediatrician already some two weeks earlier.
However, when I arrived at the office and asked my questions, they never gave me the opportunity to think twice: "No, madam, the measles vaccination is now OBLIGATORY. Please sign here to certify that the child is not allergic to eggs." I mildly protested - I had not heard of any measures of this kind; as far as I knew, the vaccination was still only recommended? No, you're wrong, I was told. And I had no other choice than to let Simone be vaccinated - so the poor child got two shots that morning. A truly uncomfortable situation - if I had refused, they would have been in their right to denounce me under public law... on the other hand, if they were telling me a lie??? But why would health official tell lies??? So, in my heavy doubt, I let the matters rest at that.
My husband (and his family) were quite content, this was surely the only right thing to do, but I was not convinced about the allegedly new law about the vaccination. Hm.

Two weeks later my son reacted violently to the vaccination - his symptoms were so evident and pronounced that it seemed that he had caught the actual disease. The doctor we called in said that one child in ten would react to the vaccination in this way, but wow, what a strong reaction! This pediatrician also held the opinion that the vaccination should become obligatory, but he informed us that no, it had not yet become so (unfortunately, he added).

Simone recovered without further complications. But then, two weeks later, his 14-year-old sister got the measles.

So, I concluded, Simone had really been infected with the actual disease - it had not been just a "reaction" to the vaccination. My daughter needed antibiotics because of complications, and calling in yet another doctor I discussed the vaccination/obligation problem with him. For the first time I talked to a medical doctor who was actually against vaccinations! He simply did not trust the live, so-called "weakened" vaccines. But he was no pediatrician; it seems that those who care for the Neapolitan children all support the use of vaccines.

So I reckon that we can safely appear under one of the points you state: "5 vaccines (measles, mumps, rubella, polio, and varicella) are LIVE virus vaccines. Live virus vaccines can sometimes infect the recipient and can even sometimes infect those in close contact with the recipient. These vaccines are given to young children, and vaccine immunity sometimes wears off for adults. This can put a pregnant mother or immunocompromised adult at risk by being around a recently vaccinated child with live virus vaccines."

As regards the hepatitis B vaccination, it became obligatory only some 10 years ago here in Italy. Everyone then strongly suspected that the reason for this new law was interesting economical deals between Italian state officials/medical doctors in important positions and the pharmaceutical firm(s) that produce the vaccine. I have found nothing whatsoever to disprove these rumours.

What to say, Colin? As you see, my children too are victims of this terrible mess; I can only hope they will not have any other bad encounters with vaccines. Still, we have been far more fortunate than others, as your above message suggests.

Thank you again - and please continue your job of rejecting poison!
Love,
Ulla

By Colin M. on Saturday, September 14, 2002 - 05:29 am:

Hello Ulla,
Your present situation and the terrible treatment of your child by officials, in which - I can assure you - you are unfortuntaely accurate in your assumption of 'collusion' between various arms of your local government and the companies manufacturing the product, is saddening.

It is in such situations when I absolutely detest being accurate. Would that I could be proven wrong in the extreme.

May I suggest a method used by some I know that perhaps the doctor you met that was against vaccines may be willing to join you in? Should you again be pressed to support the use of public funds to use experimental treatment on our children, ask the doctor you mentioned for a signed document stating he has already vaccinated your children and the presentation of such document may be sufficient for the robotic public servants I am certain you have to deal with to accept.

If it helps to ease your mind somewhat, the 'live' virus vaccines such as measels do not contain mercury or formaldehyde (at least as far as I know) as the formaldehyde is used to 'kill' some of the virii before they are mixed with the 'living'.

They use egg embryos to 'grow' the virus so that is why they need to know if your child is allergic to eggs - as they want to inject your child with chicken DNA.

So calm yourself in this respect. To counter part of the toxins in your child, may I suggest a carbon supplement which will leech the toxins from the system and flush them out? As I know that the 'natural' market in Italy is still in it's nascent stage as it is begin attacked constantly by the pharmaceutical industry in Italy, perhaps a short trip to Switzerland to purchase a supplement is feasible for you.

Try to not worry your heart too much now that it appears as you mention that the worst is over. This is one of those situations where the free will of some 'beats' the free will of others and as those in power revel in their self-aggrandizement there is nothing that can be done.

I hope your children are alright now and to ensure they do not do anything to aggravate the situation, may I also suggest that you monitor at least for the next few months the amount of certain products so as to not add to the level of toxins? These would include a 'family' ban on all processed products that themselves have high levels of toxins and may cause a reaction and especially on 'dairy' products as the hormones and antibiotics used on cows are always present in milk and are even more dangerous than the lactose which an estimated 70% of the world's population is allergic to.

My deepest apologies for 'scaring' you.

Love,
Colin