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.

 

California Begins Injecting Children with Mercury...

page: 4
51
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: eyeinoz
Every flue shot has mercury in it.................


Only multidose vials of the sort that have thimerosal as a preservative.

Single dose vials never do, IIRC.




posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113

I went to all of my years of school with a bunch of kids who didn't get influenza vaccines. I got sick less than once a year. Considering influenza is only the culprit in about 10% of "flu-like illnesses", I'd say it's awfully ludicrous to be concerned about one's children being unvaccinated against what in most cases amounts to a bad case of the sniffles. Certainly, influenza isn't scary enough to willingly choose objecting Hg, is it?

I'd take a handful of PPM of Hg to immunize against Polio, but influenza, really? In the words of Al Borland, I don't think so, Tim.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I'm not particularly against vaccines, I'm just pro freedom.

I used to get flu shots, and I got the flu every time I did. So I stopped and haven't got the flu since. That's my choice and based on personal experience.

I would just hope the same people that tout the phrase 'My body, my choice' would afford me the same freedom when its my turn to make a choice about MY body. And my children are included in that choice until they reach the age of consent and move out of my guardianship.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: ~Lucidity

It sure seems like they are pushing it hard this year. My doctor went nuts when I told her I wasn't going to take the flu shot. I was actually surprised how insistent she was being about it because she is normally pretty laid back.


They get more money for it. When my wife was pregnant her doctor was crazy insistent for her to get a flu shot, then another, and another. We don't get shots and haven't since we were kids, and never get sick. Any doctor pushing a flu shot is a nutball. It's one thing to ask once or twice, it's a whole other thing to be forced into it or harassed about it.

Doctors will get paid vacations if they hit their prescription and vaccine quotas. Merck, among many others, go into my sister's practice every week pushing this or that. They're legal drug dealers, actually worse because the public doesn't question these companies practices and believes every study (usually by the same company) they release.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: ~Lucidity

It sure seems like they are pushing it hard this year. My doctor went nuts when I told her I wasn't going to take the flu shot. I was actually surprised how insistent she was being about it because she is normally pretty laid back.


That's the second thing that makes me balk at these shots.

The first is, they make me sick. As in, flu-level sick. The one time I got one, I was seriously sick, worse than regular fu. Never got another. Then, when the military was making the hubby get them, not only was he sick as a result, but I was as well, as bad as if I'd gotten the blasted shot myself. He finally got them waived, and guess what? Neither of us has had flu since. Not in years. That's enough reason right there for me.

The way they push them, when they seldom actually work, and when they do make people sick frequently (talked to a LOT of people that had similar experiences to ours), you have to wonder at the real goal. It isn't keeping people healthy, so what is it? What else is in those shots, I wonder? Could be anything.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Wow so basically we serfs do not know how to look after ourselves and need da guberment to look after us...... They have talking about bring mandatory shots to Aussieland as well.... If it happens I will be pulling my kids outa school and teaching them alternative solutions



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 04:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
Why is it so hard for anti-vaxxers to seek actual information? Why is it so hard to accept that you are being lied to, not by the people who make the vaccines, but by the people who profit off of ignorance like natural news?


I'm not anti-vaccination across the board. I believe it is beyond stupid to inject babies with vaccines as early as they do. I watched my first born struggle through this SNIP, didn't make the same mistake with my second.

That said, vaccines were a $25 BILLION dollar business in 2013.
www.vaccinenation.org...
The companies producing them posted profit margins of:
GlaxoSmithKline: $5.37 Billion
SanofiPasteur: $5.11 Billion
Pfizer: $3.97 Billion
Merck: $1.7 Billion (source: www.industryweek.com... )

I can't find a profit number for NaturalNews... but the website itself i estimated to be worth $823,073 on siteprice www.siteprice.org...
That's a lot of money, but the same site values ATS at around $450,000 and we all know of the financial struggles of just keeping ATS up and running. In other words, worth of a website doesn't mean the owners are raking in the big bucks.

I'm struggling to see how you see NaturalNews as a profit sink for ignorant people while not noticing the enormous elephant standing in the room with it's squadron of lobbyists buying laws and policies intended to mandate the usage of their laboratory made products.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Most sickening

And people go along like good little sheep



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 05:19 AM
link   
There is a choice move out of California. California sucks.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Of course it is! The digestive system can easily reject something harmful. Why do you think we don't take vaccines orrally? Tell a heroine addict that it's better absorbed by swallowing it instead of injecting. Tell that to steroid users as well.

LOL



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Just out of curiosity, does this dose of mercury pose any more danger than eating tuna once a week?


Few people feed tuna to children this young. They are forcing this shot on children under 3 y/o and it is dangerous enough that California is overriding their own safety protocols to push this shot on these kids.


My daughter eats Tuna, she's 2. In fact both my daughter and my niece (2 also) were eating Tuna sandwiches the other day. They are both healthy wee lassies.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Just out of curiosity, does this dose of mercury pose any more danger than eating tuna once a week?


Just out of curiosity, does injecting something directly into your bloodstream and cells pose any more danger than eating something ??



No vaccines are injected into the bloodstream?



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
California is the land of measles, remember?

They are not pushing flu vaccines where I'm at any more than normal, so if they are doing it in California, I'm betting the measles outbreak is a factor.


The big factor is that Big Pharma was able to grease a few pockets in California..er, I mean lobby the politicians to mandate this BS!



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: ringdingdong
a reply to: projectvxn

Of course it is! The digestive system can easily reject something harmful.
LOL


PO cyanide. Case closed.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Reopened on grounds of poor reasoning. Snipping my quote out of context and providing an extreme example might be viewed as clever to some, but is in poor taste and choosing to miss the point.

The point is about differences in rate of absorption of toxic chemicals via different pathways of exposure. How much less cyanide is needed to be lethal if inhaled? That would be mildly relevant.


edit on 1-12-2015 by ringdingdong because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: Gothmog

do you think the medical industry should be making less money? im sure that's good for any nation, right? a weak health care system.

why dont you whine about the fat cats on wall street and leave the doctors alone, after all, who else will cure the sick?

WELL DOCTORS ARE POISONING US

prove it


I think I just did. Do you know of any other product you ingest that the FDA would allow an additive under strict regulation ? I dont.


Additives? I can't speak for that, but, check out what the MAC (Maximum Acceptable Concentration) for your water in your area. That in itself should be enough to cause more fear...then think about the water you drank before water treatment got to the stage it is at! lol



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: ringdingdong




Of course it is! The digestive system can easily reject something harmful.


Yes it can.




Why do you think we don't take vaccines orrally?


Some vaccines are taken orally. They are formulated a little differently in order to survive the destructive power of the stomach.

Currently the best way to administer a vaccine is through injection. Either subcutaneous injection, or muscular injection.




Tell a heroine addict that it's better absorbed by swallowing it instead of injecting. Tell that to steroid users as well.


Heroine is typically used intravenously. It causes vein impaction when used often(i.e track marks). Anabolic steroids typically are not injected into the blood stream, but directly into the muscle.

That said, neither of these drugs are formulated the same as a typical vaccine, also different chemistry entirely.

I think you missed the point of my reply entirely.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6
That's only 2 - 3% of the worldwide pharmaceutical industry.
Vaccines aren't as profitable as the anti-vax pages would have you believe.


Link



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn
I don't know about the states, but in Canada you can get a nasal spray instead of the flu jab. Way better for kids than making them get a needle.



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




'm not anti-vaccination across the board. I believe it is beyond stupid to inject babies with vaccines as early as they do. I watched my first born struggle through this SNIP, didn't make the same mistake with my second.


Both my 2 month old son and 2.5 year old daughter have their regularly scheduled vaccines. They will continue to do so because I don't want my kids to wind up with diseases we thought we wiped out.




That said, vaccines were a $25 BILLION dollar business in 2013.
www.vaccinenation.org...
The companies producing them posted profit margins of:
GlaxoSmithKline: $5.37 Billion
SanofiPasteur: $5.11 Billion
Pfizer: $3.97 Billion
Merck: $1.7 Billion (source: www.industryweek.com... )


So what?




I can't find a profit number for NaturalNews... but the website itself i estimated to be worth $823,073 on siteprice www.siteprice.org...
That's a lot of money, but the same site values ATS at around $450,000 and we all know of the financial struggles of just keeping ATS up and running. In other words, worth of a website doesn't mean the owners are raking in the big bucks.


No it doesn't. But Natural News advertises for "businesses" owned by the sites owner. By the way, Mike Adams is the guy who wrote the tripe being peddle on this site today:

Mike Adams


On August 11, 2014, Natural News published a blog post promoting a homeopathic treatment for Ebola, which was met with harsh criticism from several commentators, and was taken down later that day.[44] In a statement on the article, NaturalNews said that the blogger who posted the article, Ken Oftedal, was "under review" and that they did not condone anyone interacting with Ebola.[45] However, as of August 20, 2014, the site was still featuring an article written by Adams promoting the use of herbal medicines to treat Ebola.[46] In an article about "fake Ebola cures", Adams was criticized for arguing that herbs could prove effective as an Ebola treatment.[47]


Let's also keep in mind, among other things, this guy is an AIDS denialist. He was featured by Dr. Oz on FNC as some kind of an expert.

This guy is a hodgepodge of health conspiracy theories that have been largely debunked by the health care community at large.



Does this crap sound scientific to you? It's not Natural news that's profiting man. It's Mike Adams who is profiting from the ignorance of millions who subscribe to this garbage while creating a REAL health risk.







 
51
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join