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.


Canadian Medical Association: First They Came For The Smokers

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 10:20 AM
Well my kids are staying unvaccinated, they had some early ones and it was dangerous. I blame the first infant one on my youngest son's many physical problems, that started in infancy, and the doctor at the time, a good doctor, couldn't tell me if it was the vaccine, so that was it.

They can vaccinate themselves and their own families. Ever come near me and I'll ensure you guys don't have a pot left to pi$$ in, and will find the line of command and chew up it. I never follow bad orders. But do believe we have a huge responsibility to stand up and topple them.

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:24 AM
I've been away from the keyboard for a while, so I was surprised by the response to this thread. I guess I hit a nerve.

The story in the Post this morning really irritated me. It is a little bit like when the police department starts making statements about public policy or explains why decisions were made not to prosecute. I think we have elected officials and the Crown Attorney's office for most of those sorts of communications.

I probably come off as a sort of canary in the coal mine sometimes, but I think speaking out is a way for the public as well as officialdom to become aware of problems they might not have noticed, or might prefer that nobody noticed.

Fascism became popular in the early part of the 20th century, and it has endured. It's endurance is related, I think, to the public's tendency to hand responsibility to big government and corporations. These entities just keep taking more and more authority. I think it is a little out of hand at times.

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:39 PM

originally posted by: strongfp
Small pox, polio, various Hepatitis, etc.
I guess those are bad vaccines?

You're reading into my comment what you want to believe I'm saying--I used the specific examples for a reason, not to mention I specifically said, " our bodies natural immunities to things that are not disfiguring or highly life-threatening."

Please, if you're going to respond to me, do so in a way that actually addresses what I said and not what you want me to have said so that you have something about which you think you can argue. My point was that the vaccines to the diseases you mentioned--if there is a risk involved in the medication--outweighs the negatives of the disease, implying that people really should stop taking a hardcore stance one way or the other and actually get vaccinations based on statistical threat to themselves or their children instead of saying, "Well, the CDC says I should, so..."

But saying vaccinations are bad? Get real, it has saved arguably millions, and millions of lives.

I'm looking...and looking...and I don't see anywhere where I said that vaccinations are bad. I did say that the "immunity" that they provide is less efficient than natural immunities produced by the interaction of the immune system and the actual diseases in my examples, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're bad. Again, please see my plea above to not say I said things that I did not.

But, you are right, things like chicken pox, do not need to be vaccinated. But parents can easily just get a doctors note from their family doctor and say that their child does not need it.

Right--so you projected things into my statement that I did not say, and then you conclude your comment with what is essentially the point I was making.

What was the point of your response, other than to just start arguing for no reason?

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 07:41 PM
So all you folks who think that the Gov't is forcing children to be injected with poison masquerading as a vaccine, what is the Gov't's motive for such a vile act?

Really, I'm curious.

edit on 27-8-2015 by Starbuck799 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:25 PM
a reply to: Starbuck799

A quote from here regarding controversy on anthrax vaccines for the military years ago:

The vaccine is produced by only one manufacturer, BioPort Corp. of Lansing, Mich., and the technology is nearly 40 years old. Although the company is currently producing the vaccine, the Food and Drug Administration will not allow it to be shipped because of various deficiencies in quality control and manufacturing at the plant.

I don't have a link, but I recall hearing back then that the inspection was only done as a response to protests from military families.

I think the more money and influence these companies get, the less accountability they have. I don't think they're deliberately poisoning anybody, but I don't think it's of much concern to them as long as they make profits and keep expenses down. There are known complications with a number of vaccines and medications, but I don't think much effort is put into finding them. The companies will always put a positive spin on things. If the government that is supposed to be holding them accountable gets in their pocket, I fear what happens next. Have you heard of Enron? It may be the worst case, but how many good outcomes do you know of when corporations go to the government, and come back with special privileges?
edit on 27-8-2015 by VP740 because: To organize things into a clearer presentation.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in