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.

 

Vaccinations Cause Autism.

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: NixieJean

I spaced out my sons vaccinations. I seriously didn't even mean to,it was money issues and being able to take him to the doctor on "time" for the right vaccines. I waited for the MMR vaccine till he was 5. I feel that vaccines should be spaced out and not given all at once,especially in the younger babies(IMO). We don't get the flu vaccine either because each time we did in last we ended up with the flu. So no thanks.

I'm glad you shared your experience. Much peace to you.

I don't think people should be forced to vaccinate their kids. I live in a state that in order to go to school my son has to be up to date on all vaccines. Which he is, but I still feel that it's a parents choice. We live in a society of conformity. Some go along with the masses and don't question authority.. But I think that's not right. I question 'authority' and research and don't just nod in agreement.




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: Pardon?

You are correct, there are studies which show that vaccines or their adjuvants THEMSELVES and DIRECTLY do not cause autism. There are also studies which show that immune inflammatory responses can cause neurological problems. There is also known science that adjuvants do precipitate increased immune responses (which is the entire reason they are included in vaccines) and can, in some but not all cases cause an overreaction of the immune system. One doesn't need to put much effort into seeing the POTENTIAL connection, though one does need to have a complete and total lack of logical and scientific reason to assume there is no chance of a connection in certain circumstances.

Also, there are VERY few deaths directly attributed to influenza every year in the USA. There are a lot of deaths attributable to "Flu-Like Illness", which is the category tracked. "Flu-Like Illness" is essentially any undefined, unconfirmed respiratory or digestive illness. The vast majority of the time, it isn't influenza. THIS is a fact, while ignoring possibilities because of a lack of understanding of semantics, does NOT constitute FACT. More like confirmation bias.

ETA: Oh yeah, there IS natural immunity to influenza, as there is to most viruses and bacteria. If there wasn't, we would all need to live our lives as the "Bubble Boy" - I wasn't going to address that point, because I don't think people should dismiss everything you have to say out of hand based on your blatantly obvious lack of understanding of the human immune system, but was concerned there might be people who believed you, if they hadn't ever learned about the immune system themselves.


A "potential connection" is always that unless it's proven.
Rarely does science set out to disprove something, rather it relies on running with an hypothesis and seeing if it works or fails.
In the case of vaccines, irrespective of what they contain (adjuvants, preservatives...water) there isn't even a correlative association between them and autism.
It doesn't matter how you want to break it down and how minute you want to go the end result has been the same time and time again.
Vaccines do not cause and are not associated with autism.

Flu-deaths are notifiable events which are lab-confirmed and serotyped to confirm the flu virus responsible.
Just in children there were 96 confirmed deaths from influenza in 2014 alone.
Is that acceptable to you?

Nowhere in the stats does it mention a "flu-like illness" so the confirmation bias isn't mine is it?
www.cdc.gov...

As for natural immunity to flu, that's ridiculous.
It's like saying you have natural immunity to the common cold.
You don't and won't.
People can show different symptoms but that doesn't mean that you're immune to it.

So rather than get irate about my alleged lack of knowledge if I were you I'd utilise that energy to learn more about what you don't know as there's a lot of work for you ahead.

edit on 24/2/16 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: IvyNeptune
As far as my opinion goes..
I think that if we live in a country where vaccinations are available, and there is no evidence that they cause autism, then my children will be having them.

Im curious as to what your opinions are on vaccinations.

Personally...

1. I believe that vaccinations could be made both safe and effective.

2. I do not trust our government one whittle twat, because 'it' has been proven to be a liar about so many, often extremely serious things, and been caught doing all kinds of nasty things, so many times that it boggles the mind, proving they don't care two twattle-whits about you or me.

3. Since #2 above applies equally to every pharmaceutical company I've ever heard of,

4. I don't trust what are being pushed as vaccinations contain what is claimed, or are safe and/or effective.

Anyone who blindly trusts that what the government and the pharmaceutical companies are pushing contain what they say they contain and/or are 'safe and effective'... well, by all means, vaccinate away, but the first fascist scumbag that comes at me and mine with a needle 'for the good of the herd' will be subject to my own personal vaccination program against that terrible disease called 'lead deficiency'.

Got it?
edit on 24-2-2016 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpongeBeard
a reply to: IvyNeptune

2. The only reliable sources are peer-reviewed research papers.

Really? Seeing as those are routinely shown to be very often full of faked and/or bad data and/or are paid for by those who have something to gain (or lose) by the outcome, I'm curious which 'peer-reviewed' papers you mean?

Also, many people don't know that many of these so called 'peer reviewed papers' (or studies) are simply statistical analysis of pre-existing data, and that 5 different researchers doing 5 different studies can come to 5 very different conclusions, depending on what data they decide to focus on and what data they decide to 'omit'.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: noonebutme
If parents don want to immunise their kids - that's fine. Just keep them away from schools, playgrounds, shopping centres and tell me before they interact with my kids.

I don't want your disease-ridden children near me.

Rotflmao!

If your children are vaccinated, what are you concerned about?

Oh, I guess now you'll fall back on the 'but what about those too young to be vaccinated or have compromised immune systems' nonsensical argument.

Sorry, but those who are immune compromised or have children too young for certain vaccines, it is your responsibility to keep yourselves/them away from situations where you/they may be exposed. It is ludicrous to suggest that you have the right to violently assault everyone else just to assuage your fears.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: noonebutme
If parents don want to immunise their kids - that's fine. Just keep them away from schools, playgrounds, shopping centres and tell me before they interact with my kids.

I don't want your disease-ridden children near me.

Rotflmao!

If your children are vaccinated, what are you concerned about?


1) No vaccine is 100% effective on 100% of people 100% of the time
2) Babies and the immunocompromised cannot be vaccinated



Oh, I guess now you'll fall back on the 'but what about those too young to be vaccinated or have compromised immune systems' nonsensical argument.


Well... yes. Obviously.


Sorry, but those who are immune compromised or have children too young for certain vaccines, it is your responsibility to keep yourselves/them away from situations where you/they may be exposed. It is ludicrous to suggest that you have the right to violently assault everyone else just to assuage your fears.


Sorry, but those who choose not to vaccinate because of their ignorant beliefs, it is your responsibility to keep them away from the general public where they may expose others to vaccine-preventable diseases because of your personal wilful ignorance. It is ludicrous to suggest that you have the right to spread vaccine-preventable diseases just to assuage your own wilful ignorance.

Or alternatively:

Sorry, but those who choose to drive on the roads when I am drink driving, it is your responsibility to avoid crashing into me. It is ludicrous to suggest that you have the right to stop me from recklessly endangering the public just to assuage your fears.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
Sorry, but those who choose to drive on the roads when I am drink driving, it is your responsibility to avoid crashing into me. It is ludicrous to suggest that you have the right to stop me from recklessly endangering the public just to assuage your fears.


Drunk driving is illegal. So far, not vaccinating is not.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

1. I believe that vaccinations could be made both safe and effective.


How are vaccines not safe?
How are vaccines not effective?

They are as safe and as effective as any other medication (even over the counter meds). Please elaborate.

Thanks to vaccines so many diseases have been eradicated or brought under control: Hib, yellow fever, smallpox, polio, diphteria, tetanus etc, I can name many more.

I never go for memes but this one is too good not to share here:


edit on 24-2-2016 by Agartha because: Spelling



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Absolutely nothing to do with my point whatsoever.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

You compared apples to oranges. In the case of drunk driving, the drunk is legally obligated to not drive. In the case of a non vaccinated person, they are not legally obligated to stay away from children who are vaccinated.

When my children were born I accepted the risk that they might be around kids who were not vaccinated. People drive on the street expecting others to abide by the law.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The legality of the matter has absolutely no bearing on my point in the slightest. I am not talking about the legal aspects, not vaccinating and drink driving both are selfish, reckless endangerment of those around you.

This should not be a tough analogy to follow.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Pick a different analogy then. Kids who have the flu should stay home from school. There's an analogy. Kids who have the measles should stay home, too.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You're really struggling with this. Or is it that you don't have a rational counterpoint? BTW are you still running the ruse that you're "totally" not anti-vax?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Well, my kids are all vaccinated. My 24 year old even had the Gardasil series in her teens. So, yep, I am a vaxxer.

Apparently, if you don't support mandatory vaccinations, you are 'anti-vax,' now -- according to you. *eyeroll*

I am just pro-parents-making-healthcare-decisions. Not anti-vax.



edit on 24-2-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: IvyNeptune
a reply to: noonebutme

Do you think that by choosing not to give a child a vaccination, that it is a form of neglect?

Yes


Is it only a form of neglect once they get the disease they should have been vaccinated for? What about if they die from it?

No, the neglect was when the parents decided NOT to vaccinate.


One of the reasons I ask is because a few times in my country parents who are against modern medicine (often for religious reasons), had children die, and then were prosecuted for neglect.

As well they should be. Children should not have to suffer because their parents are stupid idiots and believe in ridiculous outdated archaic beliefs that put peoples' lives at risk.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: saadad
In, so if this vaccines are not 100% sure how come diseases that we vaccine are extinct? How come nobody gets this diseases, I m talking about people who are vaccinated.

Because they DO work. But I would not say they are a 100% guarantee - I suspect no medical doctor would disagree. But they do work and because they work, have almost eradicated many of these diseases.


So this vaccines work pretty well, like 99.9% of the time. So why bother with other kids that are not vaccinated. Many of this kids have a good reason why they are not vaccinated, like allergy's. That is a good reason to vaccinate your kid, to protect kids that are not vaccinated.

Because these diseases can come back -- just as we've seen with measles and small pox in certain locations where stupid parents didn't vaccinate their kids.

And the BIG worry is these diseases mutate into a form that the current vaccinations are no longer effective. Then we have a bigger issue. We're back to pandemics.


And the way you say, my kids need to be protected. I wonder if your view would change if your kid can't be vaccinated because of allergy.

Unless it was a genuine medical issue whereby the vaccination would cause a serious life threatening condition then of course not. But how many people are actually "allergic" to the small pox vaccination? Or measles?


You don't need to answer, we know the answer. But many people think like you do, selfish.

No I will answer -- I'm not selfish. The fact that I don't want my children to be needlessly exposed to potentially infected children due to that parent's ignorance is not selfish, in my opinion. Perhaps I'm overly cautiously or borderline hypochondriac but selfish?

Who's the selfish one? The parent who believes vaccinations cause autism (no scientific empirical evidence) so do not vaccinate their kids which then allow them to perpetuate the disease in society, or the one who will keep their kids away from such people?

edit on 24-2-2016 by noonebutme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye


I am just pro-parents-making-healthcare-decisions. Not anti-vax.




So let's say you're the parent of an immune compromised child. For such reasons, your child is not able to receive a particular vaccination.

Now let's say your child goes to school...and there is a particular child that has anti-vax parents. Said child doesn't get vaccinated for anything, including diseases that your child COULD NOT have been vaccinated for, due to the immune compromising deficiency. How upset would you be if your child caught a rare, deadly, but completely vaccine-preventable disease from his classmate? Would you say it is the parent's right to put YOUR immune-compromised child at risk?


A2D



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: rickymouse
Actually, there is not much difference between ethyl and methyl mercury.


Yes there is. One is purged from the body in days with no harmful side effects, the other is a cumulative poison.


Some people have a reduced rate of eliminating either of these from their bodies. The enzymes that do this vary from person to person. It's the same with lead poisoning, some people excrete it readily, others have it build up in the tissues, and others store it in their bones.

Maybe you should do a little more research on how metabolism, which includes enzyme activity, effects these things.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: rickymouse
Actually, there is not much difference between ethyl and methyl mercury.


Yes there is. One is purged from the body in days with no harmful side effects, the other is a cumulative poison.


Some people have a reduced rate of eliminating either of these from their bodies. The enzymes that do this vary from person to person. It's the same with lead poisoning, some people excrete it readily, others have it build up in the tissues, and others store it in their bones.

Maybe you should do a little more research on how metabolism, which includes enzyme activity, effects these things.


Which enzymes are responsible for reducing the rate of ethylmercury excretion and what's their method of action?



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: noonebutme
If parents don want to immunise their kids - that's fine. Just keep them away from schools, playgrounds, shopping centres and tell me before they interact with my kids.

I don't want your disease-ridden children near me.

Rotflmao!

If your children are vaccinated, what are you concerned about?

Oh, I guess now you'll fall back on the 'but what about those too young to be vaccinated or have compromised immune systems' nonsensical argument.

Sorry, but those who are immune compromised or have children too young for certain vaccines, it is your responsibility to keep yourselves/them away from situations where you/they may be exposed. It is ludicrous to suggest that you have the right to violently assault everyone else just to assuage your fears.


How do you know where these people are going to be exposed?

There are also a certain percentage of children (and adults) on whom the vaccination hasn't "taken" (hence the requirement for some vaccine to have multiple shots).
Do you know who these people are?
Can you point them out in the street?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join