It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

NLBS #35: The Anti-Vaccination Movement and the Measles Outbreak

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 07:41 AM

originally posted by: greydaze
I find it hilarious that the people who are "anti vac" posting here have gotten Vaccines..Yet in their paranoid delusional minds,it's a "conspiracy"..SMfH

What makes it hilarious and what is your point, exactly?

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 07:53 AM

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: kloejen
How does that work? How can a vaccinated kid get infected if he/she is vaccinated?

Because a small, but statistically significant number of people can still get measles, even if vaccinated.
You could get the measles, even if you’re vaccinated

Here’s the thing. The MMR vaccine is very effective, but it’s not 100 percent preventative. Some people who get the vaccine are still at risk of contracting the disease. Large numbers of vaccinated people act as a firewall that prevent the disease from spreading to those who are vulnerable. The vaccinated protect the unvaccinated. That’s known as “herd immunity.” But as more people opt not to get vaccinated, or not to get their children vaccinated, the virus has more portals to creep through, more people to infect. And those people sneeze and cough, releasing the virus into the air, and that fuels the spread of the disease.

And that is why everyone is so pissed about the anti-vaxxers.

As much as I don't trust anything being injected into my arm, I have to agree with SO here. Let me make it clear, I am only agreeing with the MMR vacs and Polio. I don't know enough about the other vaccinations and to be honest I don't really trust any others.

Some vaccinations (Especially MMR and Polio) are definitely needed for 'Herd immunity' as SO put it. But as Joe said in the video we need to be wary of Big Pharma and their hunger for profit. I think its important to note that there is an incredible amount of 'useless' vaccines on the market so to speak.

Do we really need them? Why are they so expensive?

Instead of attacking all vaccinations we need to look at which ones are ACTUALLY effective and which ones need to go. As it stands, it's all a bit up in the air and I can see where people on both sides of the argument are coming from.

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 08:17 AM
Nm, mixed things up.

edit on 31-1-2015 by SkippyBalls because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 08:17 AM
a reply to: Dark Ghost
Were you vaccinated as a child?..Hypothetical theory..Who's going die the quickest a colony,of the vaccinated,or the un vaccinated?

edit on 31-1-2015 by greydaze because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 08:21 AM
a reply to: greydaze

Why don't you just explain what your point was since it makes no sense at all.

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 08:23 AM
a reply to: SkippyBalls
What's your "point" kiddo?I made my point clear..
edit on 31-1-2015 by greydaze because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 08:29 AM

originally posted by: greydaze
I find it hilarious that the people who are "anti vac" posting here have gotten Vaccines..Yet in their paranoid delusional minds,it's a "conspiracy"..SMfH

Didn't you say this?

Two people have asked you to explain your point.

Why is it hilarious that people who received vaccinations are suspicious of the vaccination program?

You did not explain this.

edit on 31-1-2015 by SkippyBalls because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 08:40 AM
a reply to: SkippyBalls
And yet they didn't get the measles because..Duh they were vaccinated.

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 08:47 AM
a reply to: elementalgrove

Funny you should mention Bayer. According to new research the so called 1918 flu epidemic may have been caused by overuse of aspirin.

People were killed by common bacteria found in the upper respiratory tract, according to research uncovered by F. William Engdahl:

“The 20 to 40 million deaths worldwide from the great 1918 Influenza Pandemic were NOT due to ‘flu’ or a virus, but to pneumonia caused by massive bacterial infection.”

The NIAID press release did not, however, address what caused the bacterial infections, but research by Dr. Karen Starko does. She implicates aspirin, dovetailing with the NIAID research on pneumonia from massive bacterial infection, and goes further in also explaining the extreme rapidity of death:

“Mortality was driven by 2 overlapping clinical-pathologic syndromes: an early, severe acute respiratory distress (ARDS)-like condition, which was estimated to have caused 10%-15% of deaths (sequential autopsy series are lacking); and a subsequent, aggressive bacterial pneumonia “superinfection,” which was present in the majority of deaths.”

order family medicine herb seed pack In looking at reports of those who died, two distinct groups became readily apparent to Starko, based on a very distinctive time frame from health to death:

1. People who died of pneumonia from a bacteria infection became sick and things deteriorated at varying rates from there to death; and

2. People who died so astoundingly fast that those deaths became a classic part of the frightening legend of the 1918 “flu” – people perfectly well in the morning and dead within a matter of hours.

In both groups, aspirin is now the likely causative agent.

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 08:51 AM
a reply to: greydaze

Then you should have said that the conspiracy angle you refered to is that the vaccines don't work at all.

You didn't explain how you know that the anti vax people in here got vaccinated themselves.

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 08:57 AM
a reply to: Rezlooper

Its easier to blame a few individuals than the Govt/big pharma enforced vaccination. These scientists still insist on using terms like "herd immunity" as can be seen by the post from the pro vaccine ATS.

The concept of “herd immunity” first materialized in the 1930s, when Johns Hopkins University’s Arthur Hedrich discovered that, after 55% of Baltimore’s population acquired measles (and thus immunity to measles), the rest of the population, or “herd,” became protected. This concept provides today’s rationale for insisting that everyone be vaccinated.

Measles outbreaks occur even when the vaccinated population exceeds 95%

“If you only risked your own health by not getting vaccinated, that would be your business,” mass vaccination advocates state. “But when your failure to get vaccinated endangers me or my child, that becomes my business.” It’s a powerful argument, except for one thing — herd immunity in vaccinated populations has been repeatedly disproven.

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 09:02 AM
a reply to: SkippyBalls

Dude I'm done with you.Tired the of apples,and oranges argu.ltr's..:]
edit on 31-1-2015 by greydaze because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 09:04 AM
a reply to: WeAre0ne

That is another reason for people to be anti-vaccine. There is a very real threat that the constant use of vaccines will cause viruses to "evolve" to much deadlier forms faster than normal. Then vaccines (and our immune systems) will be useless.

Its funny how Drs understand the mistakes they made in the 70s through the overuse of anti-biotics creating resistant strains rendering most anti-biotics useless. They cant seem to make the same leap in logic to apply it to vaccines. Or maybe the truth of Pharma being bailed out by the Govt allows a doctor a clear conscience when administering death.

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 09:06 AM
a reply to: Kusinjo

When you choose not to vaccinate your self or your children, you are putting others and their children at risk of deadly diseases that can be prevented. All in the name of protection of your rights over the rights of others. This subject is probably the only time I will side with "the man". I don't want my kids dying because someone was exercising their right to choose. People wanna kill their own babies via abortion, fine, I hate it, but fine. But don't play with the lives of my children because of your need to take a stand.

And I dont want my children exposed to unsafe vaccines carried around by your children.

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 09:24 AM
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Does it matter if only one child dies if that child happens to be your flesh and blood? I think it does. reply to: SlapMonkey

So we risk all these chemical cocktails and their proven side effects (for which the Govt bails them out) for that 1 child?
Is that the best you can do to that well reasoned post.

Not a far step away from sterilizing carriers of debilitating diseases. SAVE THE BABIES at all costs!

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 09:47 AM

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
I wish I could trust vaccinations and to some degree I do. What I do not trust is the entire western for-profit medical industry.

I feel exactly the same way...
This whole world is sick from the eternal pursue of profits and I don't know who to really trust anymore!

I had the 3 vaccines that compose MMR when I was just a baby but I didn't get them at the same time. I think I had 2 months in between if I remember well. Maybe 3 is just too much for some and more problems can occur than from one at a time?

Many sources out there claim that the MMR vaccine is a factor in autism, I mostly believe those claims even though I think GMO's, pesticides and insecticides are more to blame.

I hope we still have the possibility of getting each vaccines separately.

On a similar note...2 years ago, my gf got an update for tetanus which is normal. As she was getting the shot, the women there told her : "Oh and you just got the newest flu vaccine along!" She was pissed and rightfully so. She got sick 3 times in the next 6 months.

I think you're on to something here in regards to autism, which is a topic I feel likely dominates the anti-vax/pro choice population's thoughts. From the research I have done into the possible causes of autism, it seems as though it stems directly from the issue of the individual having the autism gene in their DNA. So we can then consider that DNA to be a loaded gun, so to speak.

So what pulls the trigger (causing autism) of that loaded gun? Well, from what I have read, anything from a cesarean section birth, MMR vaccine, cleaning solutions, and likely a multitude of other environmental factors like GMO foods which are inadvertantly introduced to the individuals with their autism gun locked and loaded. Then BANG...Jane or Johnny has autism.

That said, I don't think we should stop vaccines. That is just plain stupid. Perhaps safer vaccines should be developed. Maybe we should be doing in vitro DNA testing for autism, allowing people to make better decisions.

What's worse, 50% of children having autism by 2020 or a resurgence of diseases like measles?

I say both are terrible, so clearly more needs to be done on both ends of the spectrum. One side is no more right than the other. People need to come together and stop drawing lines in the sand by claiming individual rights trumps public safety and vice versa. They both go hand in hand.

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 09:57 AM
a reply to: Grimpachi

If it was my child that suffered due to someone else I probably would take those responsible to court

So you would do this even knowing that vaccinations actually give the same symptoms as the disease they're trying to protect against. I guess you will find plenty of lawyers and judges on your side in corporate fascist USA

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 10:02 AM
a reply to: Pardon?

Given that the chance of severe adverse reaction to the vaccine is >1 in 1,000,000 and that even a non-severe measles is extremely unpleasant you owe it to your kids to get them vaccinated

So is it >100,000?

Glad you like to throw dice with your childrens health when the side effects are widely publicized

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 10:12 AM
a reply to: Pardon?

On the myth of Herd Immunity

One quickly concludes that if the vaccines are as effective as being touted by the public-health officials, then why should one fear the unvaccinated? Obviously the vaccinated would have at least 95% protection. This question puts them in a very difficult position. Their usual response is that a “small” percentage of the vaccinated will not have sufficient protection and would still be at risk. Now, if they admit what the literature shows, that vaccine failure rates are much higher than the 5% they claim, they must face the next obvious question – then why should anyone take the vaccine if there is a significant chance it will not protect?

When pressed further, they then resort to their favorite justification, the Holy Grail of the vaccine proponents – herd immunity. This concept is based upon the idea that 95% (and some now say 100%) of the population must be vaccinated to prevent an epidemic. The percentages needing vaccination grows progressively. I pondered this question for some time before the answer hit me. Herd immunity is mostly a myth and applies only to natural immunity – that is, contracting the infection itself.

Is Herd Immunity Real?

In the original description of herd immunity, the protection to the population at large occurred only if people contracted the infections naturally. The reason for this is that naturally-acquired immunity lasts for a lifetime. The vaccine proponents quickly latched onto this concept and applied it to vaccine-induced immunity. But, there was one major problem – vaccine-induced immunity lasted for only a relatively short period, from 2 to 10 years at most, and then this applies only to humoral immunity. This is why they began, silently, to suggest boosters for most vaccines, even the common childhood infections such as chickenpox, measles, mumps, and rubella.

Then they discovered an even greater problem, the boosters were lasting for only 2 years or less. This is why we are now seeing mandates that youth entering colleges have multiple vaccines, even those which they insisted gave lifelong immunity, such as the MMR. The same is being suggested for full-grown adults. Ironically, no one in the media or medical field is asking what is going on. They just accept that it must be done.

That vaccine-induced herd immunity is mostly myth can be proven quite simply. When I was in medical school, we were taught that all of the childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime. This thinking existed for over 70 years. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated very early in life. In essence, at least 50% or more of the population was unprotected for decades.

If we listen to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95%. Yet, we have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50% or less of the population having vaccine protection. That is, herd immunity has not existed in this country for many decades and no resurgent epidemics have occurred. Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to frighten doctors, public-health officials, other medical personnel, and the public into accepting vaccinations.

When we examine the scientific literature, we find that for many of the vaccines protective immunity was 30 to 40%, meaning that 70% to 60% of the public has been without vaccine protection. Again, this would mean that with a 30% to 40% vaccine-effectiveness rate combined with the fact that most people lost their immune protection within 2 to 10 year of being vaccinated, most of us were without the magical 95% number needed for herd immunity. This is why vaccine defenders insist the vaccines have 95% effectiveness rates.

Without the mantra of herd immunity, these public-health officials would not be able to justify forced mass vaccinations.
- See more at: f

edit on 31-1-2015 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: quote

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 10:14 AM
a reply to: Pardon?

Tell you what, get a tattoo on your forehead stating that in an emergency, no-one is allowed to perform any medical procedure on you whatsoever

It be better if you get a tatt on your head so we can avoid your compromised immune system

new topics

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in