It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Are you a 'Bad Parent' if you don't vaccinate for this?

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I use this example to illustrate the disparity in outcry over one 'disease' and the next. I have changed the name of the disease to Generovirus, but the Source contains the real CDC data. Everything else is quoted verbatim.

This is a disease that is 100% preventable, but people refuse to 'vaccinate' themselves against it. Why is there no outcry? The prevalence of this disease is far greater in the US than measles, yet no outcry whatsoever. I just wonder why a parent is a horrible attempted murderer if they don't vaccinate one disease, but no concern for another. In fact parents will bring their small children around this disease with uncanny lack of concern.

here are the stats:




Because deaths are not captured completely by NEISS-AIP, patients who were dead on arrival or died in EDs were excluded.

In 1994, the most recent year for which published data are available, an estimated 4.7 million Generovirus cases occurred in the United States, and approximately 799,700 persons required medical care (1).

Of an estimated 333,700 patients treated for Generovirus in emergency departments (EDs) in 1994 (2), approximately 6,000 (1.8%) were hospitalized (3).

Generovirus rates were highest among children aged 5--9 years.
Approximately 154,625 (42.0%) Generovirus cases occurred among children aged 15 years, the difference between the rate for males (102.9) and females (88.0) was not statistically significant. The number of cases increased slightly during April--September, with a peak in July (11.1%).



CDC Source




posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Now that you have checked the source, why are we as a society so ready to jump on one bandwagon and not another? One is totally preventable, but parents everywhere continue to "endanger" their own children as well as others, but are not singled out.

This was meant as food for thought and not to be taken literally. I am genuinely curious about people's thought processes.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Halfswede

Because most people are factually uneducated about a topic, but have an ingrained need to feel like they're doing something, even if it's out of ignorance.

The only thing that makes a parent a bad parent when it comes to vaccinations is if they don't educate themselves on each and every one and, if skeptical of the need for the vaccine, properly research the numbers in regard to the symptoms of the illness.

Measles, for instance, is basically harmless, with a very low chance of developing a severe symptom. I haven't compared probabilities, but it seems like most people have a higher chance at developing a severe side-effect from some modern medicines than they do an illness like the measles.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I hear ya. Just to be clear, I was vaccinated and have no children. I am a stats guy by trade. My job is literally deep data analysis and lots of plot-making.

I just find it intriguing that people will let their children ride a quad at age 8 or 10 or even younger, and yet moan about some neighbor who isn't vaccinated.
The likelihood and consequences of the causes that people get most heated about are all over the statistical map with no rhyme no reason, yet they claim their stance is so "scientific". It is definitely a strange world out there.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
As per the norm, people don't want to do the research and seek out real data.
I've personally witnessed pro-vaccine parents assume all vaccines are safe because a doctor or someone from the government said so. I've also seen anti-vaccine parents assume all vaccines cause autism and ADHD because someone on a YouTube video said so.

We need real, scientific, double-blind, peer reviewed data, and we need to know who's funding it.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Halfswede

There is very little profit in preventing dog bites.
There is no fear-based call to action for the marketing department to exploit.

Where art thou profit machines?????

I'll tell you. Figuring out how to get that third measles shot mandated.

The OP is a good little piece of work. It's intriguing.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColeYounger

We need real, scientific, double-blind, peer reviewed data, and we need to know who's funding it.


This^^ if that is even possible

What a lot of people fail to think about is just how colossal the repercussions would be if they were to publicly acknowledge even the smallest causal relationship. Imagine the lawsuits/anger etc. Overnight, there would be a giant backlash with deep historical effects.

Not saying there is a causal relationship, but there is a huge, huge incentive to prevent disclosure of a possible one--even the tiniest. At the very least, I wouldn't blindly trust what is being sold.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColeYounger
As per the norm, people don't want to do the research and seek out real data.
I've personally witnessed pro-vaccine parents assume all vaccines are safe because a doctor or someone from the government said so. I've also seen anti-vaccine parents assume all vaccines cause autism and ADHD because someone on a YouTube video said so.

We need real, scientific, double-blind, peer reviewed data, and we need to know who's funding it.


You hit a critical point. People need accurate, unbiased information to weigh the risks and benefits of any medical procedure. Pharma is spending billions per year to prevent you from getting fair and unbiased information. They have 100% legal immunity thanks to buying enough politicians and the revolving door between the CDC and the vaccine industry.

For the time being, we still decide what medical treatments to get or not. That may change. The corrupt system isn't changing.



"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine." -Marcia Angell, MD ("Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption." NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
People need accurate, unbiased information to weigh the risks and benefits of any medical procedure. Pharma is spending billions per year to prevent you from getting fair and unbiased information. They have 100% legal immunity thanks to buying enough politicians and the revolving door between the CDC and the vaccine industry.


And the funny thing is, even the stats that the CDC--obviously in bed with Big Pharma--posts on their websites, if people would just take some time to do simple math, they'd figure out the extremely low percentages of people who die from or develop severe symptoms from many of these illnesses that have vaccines associated with them. Assuming that the numbers are skewed in favor of making it as dangerous-looking a disease that they can in order to promote vaccines, it's still astronomically low as to the death rates and whatnot of things like Measles and Pertussis.

If only people would do the research for themselves...



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Halfswede

Because most people are factually uneducated about a topic, but have an ingrained need to feel like they're doing something, even if it's out of ignorance.

The only thing that makes a parent a bad parent when it comes to vaccinations is if they don't educate themselves on each and every one and, if skeptical of the need for the vaccine, properly research the numbers in regard to the symptoms of the illness.

Measles, for instance, is basically harmless, with a very low chance of developing a severe symptom. I haven't compared probabilities, but it seems like most people have a higher chance at developing a severe side-effect from some modern medicines than they do an illness like the measles.


you are the one that is not informed....in other words, your statement..."measles, for instance, is basically harmless, with a very low chance of developing a severe symptom"...is a lie.........please educate yourself before making such a rash statement
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
That's e problem with research. You look for the facts but when they don't come out the way you want then they must be " in bed with big Pharma". Just vaccinate your kids, you have a responsibility to do that.
edit on Fri February 6th, 2015 by damwel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
you are the one that is not informed....in other words, your statement..."measles, for instance, is basically harmless, with a very low chance of developing a severe symptom"...is a lie.........please educate yourself before making such a rash statement
en.wikipedia.org...


Look at the percentage of those infected with measles and compare to the death rate.

I'm not making a "rash" statement (hopefully that pun was intended), as I've done a TON of research into the statistics of measles. I prefer you to do the same, apply some critical thinking and basic mathematical skils, and figure it out for yourself. Also, do some research into the difference between a naturally created immunization derived from contracting the basically harmless disease (measles) and the one received through vaccination. The efficacy and lengths of potency don't even compare--natural immunity, by far, wins out.

***SPOILER ALERT***

The percentage of Americans in modern-day America, with our access to good sanitation, health care, and nealry immediate information as to areas where infections are occurring, has a less than 0.00% death rate compared to measles infections.


(and that's all per the CDC numbers...seriously, look it up and do the math)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: damwel
That's e problem with research. You look for the facts but when they don't come out the way you want then they must be " in bed with big Pharma". Just vaccinate your kids, you have a responsibility to do that.


Don't purposefully be asinine--it's my responsibility to make an informed decision for my children. I vaccinate them for some things, not for others. And that's okay. Your precious little life isn't in danger from that decision.

And if you really don't think that the "Big Pharma" lobbyists pay to help "guide" what the CDC does and doesn't approve or consider safe, you're as blind as a naked mole rat.

But, you're entitled to your opinion, as incorrect as your assumptions and opinions about me may be.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: damwel
That's e problem with research. You look for the facts but when they don't come out the way you want then they must be " in bed with big Pharma". Just vaccinate your kids, you have a responsibility to do that.


Just keep your kids away from dogs at all times...far more dangerous. You have a responsibility to do that. Statistically speaking, you must agree as you can't be willy-nilly unscientific in these kind of decisions.
edit on 6-2-2015 by Halfswede because: added the willy nilly line



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Halfswede

Any parent that Vaccinates their children with modern day US made vaccines

Is putting their child's life in jeopardy. Making the chances 1 in 80 to get Autism Spectrum Disorder and be finished for life



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede
Not saying there is a causal relationship, but there is a huge, huge incentive to prevent disclosure of a possible one--even the tiniest. At the very least, I wouldn't blindly trust what is being sold.

There is an even huger incentive to disclose major adverse events caused by vaccines--especially for corporations that produce (or hope to produce) competing products. Producers don't have to worry about their own vaccine being withdrawn from the market, because vaccines have small margins, and they're shielded from lawsuits. Claims go to the VICP court, and damages are paid from the excise tax they have already paid. But if they can find a problem with somebody else's vaccine, that doesn't exist in their own, they have a humongous incentive to surface it and acquire a monopoly over that particular immunization. Such a course of action would also be greatly beneficial to their stock, which directly benefits things like C-suite bonuses.

Note that when I say "competing product," I don't necessarily mean a competing vaccine. There are many products that would see an increase in demand if a vaccine were withdrawn from a market (e.g. antivirals, teeny tiny baby coffins, etc.). But in the only case I am aware of, Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent attempt to link MMR and autism, the goal was to sell a competing vaccine.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join