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.

 

First Person Dies of Measles in U.S. Since 2003

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: Phage

Listen if it turns out anyone can just report a death to this database my argument is lost.......If only doctors can report deaths to this database my argument is sound.

I am trying to figure this out myself..........



Are you implying that as long as a doctor reports something it will be devoid of mistakes or willful falsehoods?

Keep in mind the majority of doctors say that vaccines are safe.

Seems to me if you are trying to figure things out that would be a good thing to contemplate as well.




posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: grimpachi

Do you even read what I post........That is why I said even "if" 20% end up being correct it is a big deal. Do doctors make mistakes.....YEP. Is that 20% a hard fact......NOPE.



Doctors are expected by management to push vaccinations.......This is a fact. I see huge conflict of interests with this entire industry including regulation.
edit on 5-7-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: SubTruth

That's not true. Canada was already one of the leading countries in Ebola research.


Canada had roughly 1,500 vials of vaccine made for clinical trials before the 2014 Ebola outbreak began in West Africa.


Clinical trials proposals were being written when the outbreak did. Any delay wasn't on the WHO part but Canada's because up until that point it was only tested on animals.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: SubTruth

That's not true. Canada was already one of the leading countries in Ebola research.


Canada had roughly 1,500 vials of vaccine made for clinical trials before the 2014 Ebola outbreak began in West Africa.


Clinical trials proposals were being written when the outbreak did. Any delay wasn't on the WHO part but Canada's because up until that point it was only tested on animals.





You actually proved my bigger point.......Why did they not use these right away in Africa.......



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SubTruth

The vaccine was the first of its kind. Prior to the outbreak, the testing of its efficacy was limited to only animals. There was absolutely no way to tell if the vaccine would have any effect whatsoever on a human population. No medicine, or vaccine, was ever released to the public without human trials. This was an unprecedented situation and the delay was because of caution, nothing more.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SubTruth




Do you even read what I post........That is why I said even "if" 20% end up being correct it is a big deal. Do doctors make mistakes.....YEP. Is that 20% a hard fact......NOPE.


Since you admit you are simply guessing then there isn't much else to say.




Doctors are expected by management to push vaccinations.......This is a fact. I see huge conflict of interests with this entire industry including regulation.


Actually that looks like another guess on your part, but if you want a real fact here is one. Doctors take Hippocratic oaths and will recommend things that are good for you such as vaccines and that would not be a conflict of interest.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: SubTruth

Props for taking on the gang in a clearly pro Vax thread. The agenda here is clear for anyone with eyes to see.

I don't argue the science with these people, because the Rockefeller based sciences have been skewed for a long time. As you have seen, anything that questions their agenda is baseless and unfounded. It's really an impressive racket that Rockefeller and his crony globalist created.

As long as I have the right not to vaccinate me and mine with tainted medicine, I could give 2 turds what names people call me.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: grimpachi




Doctors take Hippocratic oaths and will recommend things that are good for you such as vaccines and that would not be a conflict of interest.


Oxycontin is good for you?
methamphetamine based Ritalin is good for kids?

Watch a pharma commercial, doesn't even matter which drug it is and they spend more time telling you about the potential dangerous side effects than than the potential benefits.

Don't even get me started with the eugenics in America, forced sterilizations, infecting people with stds etc etc.

Hippocratic oath my ass!



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: SubTruth

Props for taking on the gang in a clearly pro Vax thread. The agenda here is clear for anyone with eyes to see.

I don't argue the science with these people, because the Rockefeller based sciences have been skewed for a long time. As you have seen, anything that questions their agenda is baseless and unfounded. It's really an impressive racket that Rockefeller and his crony globalist created.

As long as I have the right not to vaccinate me and mine with tainted medicine, I could give 2 turds what names people call me.


You don't argue the science because you don't argue the science, pure & simple.
Yours is an inherent belief evidenced by your statement "the Rockerfeller based sciences".
That just rubber-stamps your lack of understanding of science and how much you try to destabilise what it is by coercing it with a conspiracy.
In fact it's not even something as easy to fix as a lack of understanding, it's a complete refusal to acknowledge it.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?



You don't argue the science because you don't argue the science, pure & simple.


I don't argue the science because I know that's your honey trap. It's an appeal to authority that I don't subscribe to pure and simple.

Question, do you support forced vaccinations for every healthy man, woman and child?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaws1975

I don't argue the science because I know that's your honey trap.


That's a convenient excuse for not having to substantiate your claims.



It's an appeal to authority that I don't subscribe to pure and simple.


Citing scientific evidence to support a medical claim is NOT an appeal to authority fallacy:


It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.


yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

If you're going to try and play the fallacy game, at least understand what a fallacy actually is.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped



That's a convenient excuse for not having to substantiate your claims.


I don't have to substantiate anything, I still have the right to not vaccinate, so I don't.

I'll ask you the same question do you think there should be mandatory vaccinations on every healthy man, woman and child?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaws1975

I don't have to substantiate anything


Spoken like a true anti-vaxxer.


I'll ask you the same question do you think there should be mandatory vaccinations on every healthy man, woman and child?

Who cares? What does that even have to do with your ludicrous science denial?
edit on 6-7-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped



Who cares? What does that even have to do with your ludicrous science denial?


You chastised subtruth for like 3 pages for not answering you, now you do the same, pot meet kettle!



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a reply to: jaws1975

I couldn't give flying monkey about your "forced vaccination" strawman. I have not made any claims regarding the issue nor even brought it up into conversation so your "pot kettle" jibe is nonsense. By your own admission, you feel you don't need to substantiate your claims and will dismiss scientific evidence out hand so the idea of having an intelligent and reasoned conversation with you is so far-fetched as to make any further discussion with you utterly pointless.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

My sister was injured by vaccines 2 Times. When she got her first round, after 6 hours she stopped breathing for 6 minutes before they could resuscitate. The doctors denied any vaccine causation. Then later on she got her second round.... 6 hours later she stopped breathing again. She is brain damaged and unable to care for herself to this day, and they still denied any link. And yes, anecdote IS in fact scientific evidence. Its called case studies when used in research papers.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

You don't want to discuss anything but your phony science, anything that counters your phony science is dismissed out of hand. Sorry if I took you off script, you seem to be a one trick pony.

The CDC and big pharma is a mafia racket made in hell, big pharma recruits CDC insiders that play ball, and the CDC makes profits off of patents and big pharma sweetheart deals. Disgusting!

Pexx, sorry about your sister that is tragic. Don't expect much sympathy from the pro vaxxers, they will never take responsibility for what these vaccines can do.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Pardon?



You don't argue the science because you don't argue the science, pure & simple.


I don't argue the science because I know that's your honey trap. It's an appeal to authority that I don't subscribe to pure and simple.

Question, do you support forced vaccinations for every healthy man, woman and child?


If you don't argue the science then why argue about a subject solely based on science?

No, I don't support forced vaccination at all.
I support mandatory vaccinations though.
Although I would prefer if they didn't have to be mandatory but whilst some people cling to inane and unsubstantiated beliefs which reason will never conquer, they're unavoidable.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?




If you don't argue the science then why argue about a subject solely based on science?


It's solely based on phony science for you, for others like the above poster the proof is right in front of their face. Vaccines can and do injure people, hopefully people can see through the smokescreen of corrupted science. Peace out.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Pardon?




If you don't argue the science then why argue about a subject solely based on science?


It's solely based on phony science for you, for others like the above poster the proof is right in front of their face. Vaccines can and do injure people, hopefully people can see through the smokescreen of corrupted science. Peace out.


No-one has said that vaccines can't injure people.
I certainly haven't.
But they don't in anywhere near the number or severity as some people would lead others to believe.

And sorry, words in a post on a conspiracy forum isn't proof. Even in the loosest term.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join