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.

 

Anti Vaxxer passes whooping cough onto her baby

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

1 out of a million, so roughly the same chance as getting hit by lightning.

Why so negative?
Why the fear mongering?



edit on 6/4/16 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
There is literally nothing that can prove that her refusing the vaccination made any difference in any way.


FFS, stop lying!
Even when children are seriously ill because of this bs you continue to spread this voodoo junk "science" as if it's real.

There is nothing to prove it? How about the fact that she passed this on to her baby, when medical science has PROVEN that taking a vaccine reduces the risk? You seem to think that the notion of something not being 100% effective makes it entirely ineffective for everyone, always.

No vaccine is 100% effective, that's a fact, but it is 100% effective are DRASTICALLY REDUCING THE CHANCES of encountering these things.

So, what's your solution?
Ignore science entirely because some f-ed up $cientologist on a blog screams unfounded and unscientific bs for profit, putting the lives of hundreds of thousands of kids at risk, because their idiot parents don't know science from a fairytale?

And yes, I said for profit. While you claim that we should believe all medical advancement is evil because a company making a drug is making a profit, the anti-vaccination crowd are making money off their YouTube propaganda, their ebook bs and their junk science websites.

Now, I wonder which side the person with minimum intelligence should trust?
edit on 6-4-2016 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Vector99

Trace amounts, if I recall, there's more mercury in a can of tuna.

Tuna causes autism?!



I am not saying don't get shots and I agree they are safe for most people without allergies to them but they recommend pregnant and nursing woman don't eat tuna. Same with kids. If you do eat canned tuna its recommended to be skip Jack tuna which is called light tuna. It has 3 times less mercury than albacore.

Informed decisions are important. Having a good Dr who is interested in the medical field beyound a paycheck is crucial. Drs can and do screw up. We have a heroine epidemic in part because of Drs. Over use of pain medication.
The long term studies on ADD drugs are showing some bad and inneffective results. So I wouldn't necessarily redicule people for not blindly following anybody. The same goes for an anti vaxer just watching you tube videos. Kids go to school they are germ factories it's well worth strongly considering the vaccines to prevent illnesses that could seriously effect your kids.

I do however as a libertarian have a little concern over forced decisions. The discussion between drs and patients should be more about choices and consequences than it is. Luckily we have an outstanding pediatrician but it took a few to get there. Personally I think pharma is missing an opurtunity to make a ton of money offering different vaccines like in this pertusis case the option to get the older whole cell vaccine. Hell they could even have some kind of "organic" like vaccines (for a lovely nominal fee) I understand it's extremely expensive to do the research and development but the market is there IMO.
edit on 6-4-2016 by luthier because: Clarity



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

I really, really hate these types of inflammatory threads, so let's speak about some numbers and percentages and ratios, shall we?

My source for 2014 data (in the U.S.) is from the CDC.

Okay, in 2014, there were 3,330 reported cases of Pertussis in infants less than six months old. This was 10.1% of all reported cases (although there were 110 cases of unknown age, so let's add 10.1% of that to our total reported cases of Pertussis in infants, to be fair). So, we're going to say that, statistically speaking, we're looking at about 3,341 cases of the disease in infants.

Of that 3,341 who reportedly contracted the disease, there were 8 deaths in infants aged less than three months old. So, statistically speaking, we're looking at 0.2% of all pertussis cases of children less than six months old end in death for those less than three months old. I wish that the CDC would stay consistent and give the number of deaths in infants less than six months, but they change it to three months for some reason.

So, for someone who is (rightfully, IMO) concerned about vaccines and how they affect unborn, developing fetuses in the womb, the odds are stacked really, really high in favor of the decision NOT to vaccinate if fear of Pertussis-related death is the concern.

And speaking of numbers, lets look at the reality of exactly how deadly Pertussis was in 2014--with 32,971 cases reported, there were a total of 13 deaths. Doing simple math, that equates to a 0.0004% death rate.

Infants aged younger than three months are at the highest risk of death--for obvious reasons--but even so, not even one-quarter of one percent of children who contract Pertussis under the age of six months old see deadly consequences from the disease.

Look, you can sit here and put people in the frying pan for not vaccinating themselves--I don't, because I understand that a person's body is their own domain concerning what goes into it--but let's not pretend for even a small amount of time that refusing a DTaP vaccination during a pregnancy equates to some terrible, life-threatening decision for the world, or even an infant, because the odds are that even if that infant contracts it, they will be absolutely fine when they recover.

And just for the record, that link has the numbers of Pertussis cases and if they receive the vaccination, and the overall conclusion is this: Of the total number of 6,957 included in the breakdown of ages 6 months through 6 years, 6% received 1-2 doses, and 42% received 3+ doses. Only 8% are known to have had zero doses, and 44% are unknown.

Do you see that? At least half of the reported cases of Pertussis have had at least one vaccination (assuming there are at least 3% of the unknowns that have had at least one dose...a pretty safe assumption, IMO). The highest percentage of vaccinations falls into the 3+ category.

So, get off of the high horse of pretending that a DTaP vaccination would probably have stopped this baby from contracting the disease, because really, that's an assumption that equates to talking out of one's own sphincter. Seem to me that it would have been about a 50/50 chance, regardless.
edit on 6-4-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
Oh really now. Would you consider the FDA.GOV website pseudoscience? Here is what they say

Thimerosal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine

link


LOL really? Go to your own link and check table 1 where you'll see that all the vaccines are thimerosal free, with the exception of SOME flu vaccines and one Dtap. You can request a 'thimerosal free' influenza vaccine and the only Dtap with trace amounts is not a common one. The most common Dtap in the UK is Pediacel and in the US Adacel, which are BOTH FREE from thimerosal.

So NO child is given vaccines with thimerosal, not since 2001.

Stop the pseudoscience and fearmongering.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: maria_stardust




Anti-vaxxers can't always rely on the herd immunity to protect their non-vaxxed children


They don't need to rely on a myth

www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com...

www.vaccinationcouncil.org...



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Excuse me for butting in, i just wanted for arguments sake elaborate a little on the smoking thing and informed decisions since they came up, as you can see in the ad below in the 1950s we had advertising saying smoking is good for you and this is endorced by doctors of all fields ...


Yes. You had advertising saying this.

See if you can find the medical studies from the time saying smoking was good for you.

Seriously, you can't expect an ad to show a product in a bad light. They're not what a sane person would use for a guideline for behavior.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight

They don't need to rely on a myth



Except your cites are totally based on the opinion of Russell Blaylock, an anti-vaxer. He's also an ardent chemtrailer.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Excuse me for butting in, i just wanted for arguments sake elaborate a little on the smoking thing and informed decisions since they came up, as you can see in the ad below in the 1950s we had advertising saying smoking is good for you and this is endorced by doctors of all fields ...


Yes. You had advertising saying this.

See if you can find the medical studies from the time saying smoking was good for you.

Seriously, you can't expect an ad to show a product in a bad light. They're not what a sane person would use for a guideline for behavior.


There were plenty of manipulated data studies from the tobaco industry that used medical drs. With health benefits as well. More were based on that it wasn't unhealthy though.

An overview can be found here.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

You have to click on the PDF.

Here is research on drug manufactures manipulating data as well for profit
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
edit on 6-4-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: NewzNose




I was forced into being "vaxed" and would not have had I had the choice and knew that my government, the same government that arranged for my vaccinations were spraying Agent Orange, which intentionally put people at risk for cancer and God knows what else, injected innocent and unaware people with syphillis, flouridated us, lead poisoned us, built our low income homes with asbestos and....the icing on the cake...looked the other way while 100s if not1000s of kids were placed into the Mantauk project and split their mind and trained them to respond to their code word in horrific ways.


Noooooo...they wouldn't do this to us would they!!! Its not about the money...they have our best interests at heart.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


Bill Gates Admits Vaccines Are Used for Human Depopulation
www.youtube.com...



Uploaded on 28 Feb 2010 Next are two short excerpts from a recently filmed TED presentation (Feb 2010) by none other than Bill "Microsoft" Gates. At the heart of Gates' address lies the central Global Warming dogma, which dictates that Co2 emitted by human beings are the primary culprit for the unwanted heating of the globe. Since this artificial alleged human-induced heating effect allegedly stands to devastate the planet if left unabated, Global Warming dogma proponents therefore argue that human Co2 emissions must be drastically reduced. As Gates casually addresses the issue, he goes on to state that one way to accomplish this goal is to reduce the global human population.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

but its not about the money...yeah right!

www.wsj.com...
Vaccine Makers Enjoy Immunity


By AVERY JOHNSON Updated Feb. 23, 2009 12:01 a.m. ET One of the little-noticed reasons that Wyeth was attractive enough to command a $68 billion price for rival Pfizer Inc.'s planned takeover sits in a building catty-corner from the White House across Pennsylvania Avenue. That is where a special "vaccines court" hears cases brought by parents who claim their children have been harmed by routine vaccinations. The court -- and the law that established it more than two decades ago -- buffers Wyeth and other makers of childhood-disease vaccines from much of the litigation risk that dogs traditional pill manufacturers and is an important reason why the vaccine business has been transformed from a risky, low-profit venture in the 1970s to one of the pharmaceutical industry's most attractive product lines today.




Vaccines' transformation into a lucrative business has some observers questioning whether the shield law is still appropriate. Critics say the vaccine court's ruling this month that routine childhood immunizations aren't linked to autism underscored the limited recourse families have in claiming injury from vaccines. "When you've got a monopoly and can dictate price in a way that you couldn't before, I'm not sure you need the liability protection," said Lars Noah, a specialist in medical technology at the University of Florida's law school who has written about vaccines.




Barbara Loe Fisher, the co-founder of a nonprofit parents' group called the National Vaccine Information Center, says the inclusion of high-priced new vaccines, like Merck's Gardasil, which aren't vital to preventing pandemics, runs counter to the spirit of the original law, which she worked on in the 1980s.


Nah...it isn't about the.....money
edit on 6-4-2016 by TheConstruKctionofLight because: immunity



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

well if they are trace amounts they must be safe!!!!

Preservative-free' vaccines and flu shots still contain deadly toxins

Thursday, December 20, 2012 by: S. D. Wells

www.naturalnews.com...#


Flu vaccines contain mercury! This is the big preservative-free lie, and it is documented. The following is from court house news (Courthouse News Service is a nationwide news service for lawyers and the news media):

Friday, March 23, 2012: "The Food and Drug Administration is not liable for approving a mercury-based vaccine preservative because more expensive, mercury-free vaccines are available upon request, a federal judge ruled. Thimerosal is a mercury-based compound that is FDA-approved as a vaccine preservative. Organizations such as the Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs; however, have expressed concern about the preservative. As a precautionary measure, most vaccines administered to children or pregnant women do not include thimersosal, but the flu vaccine is a significant exception.Thimerosal-preserved flu vaccines are necessary to ensure sufficient supply at a reasonable price," according to the judgment." (www.courthousenews.com...)

An inside look at the main ingredients of "multi-jabs" (combo vaccines)

One major problem with the multi-jabs, even preservative-free ones, is that several vaccines at once enables the chance of the tiny amounts of viruses introduced by these vaccines and their genetic material to meet and "mingle." You see, then the recombination of such strains are super viruses, and can rise up later and attack the system. Still only worried about the preservatives?

Measles and Mumps Live Virus Vaccine: (M-M-Rvax) Made by Merck. Injected into one-year-old babies and contains gelatin, sorbitol, sodium chloride, bovine cow serum, and human albumin.

Diptheria, Tetanus and Polio Vaccine: Five injections given between two and six years of age, plus boosters "recommended" every 10 years. This monster jab contains formaldehyde, phenoxyethanol and aluminum phosphate.

DTaP, IPV, HBV and Hib: (Diphtheria, tetanus, polio, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenza type B) Given to infants from two to 12 months old with boosters less than a year later. This beast of a shot contains aluminum hydroxide, formaldehyde, and bovine cow serum.

(news.softpedia.com...)

Attention all humans, are you allergic to injecting any of the following ingredients directly into your blood?

Okay, so you request the "preservative-free" flu shot or vaccine and you think you're better off than everyone else? Think again. What do all of the following "ingredients" do and why are they in the vaccines?

Bovine cow serum: Extracted from cow skin. When injected causes connective tissue disorders, arthritis and lupus; also shortness of breath, low blood pressure, chest pain and skin reactions.

Sorbitol: Synthetic sweetener which metabolizes very slowly and aggravates IBS and gastrointestinal issues.

Gelatin: Derived from the collagen inside animals' skin and bones. Injecting gelatin poses the risk of infection from synthetic growth hormones and BSE infectivity (mad cow disease).

Sodium chloride: Raises blood pressure and inhibits muscle contraction and growth.

Egg protein: Vaccines are prepared in eggs (certainly not organic). May contain growth hormones, antibiotics, and salmonella bacteria.

Thimerosal: A neurotoxic mercury which causes autism: There are 25 mcg in one average flu vaccine, and the EPA safety limit is five micrograms, so children who are vaccinated simultaneously with multiple* vaccines receive over 10 times the safety limit of mercury in one day.

Human albumin: The protein portion of blood from pooled human venous plasma; when injected causes fever, chills, hives, rash, headache, nausea, breathing difficulty, and rapid heart rate. Injecting "pooled blood" can result in a loss of body cell mass and cause immunodeficiency virus infection, or contain SV40, AIDS, cancer or Hepatitis B from drug addicts.

Formaldehyde: Highly carcinogenic fluid used to embalm corpses. Ranked one of the most hazardous compounds to human health; can cause liver damage, gastrointestinal issues, reproductive deformation, respiratory distress and cancer. Plus, formaldehyde has been known to fail to deactivate the virus the vaccine is intended to cure, thus enabling a live virus to enter your blood and infect your system.

Phenoxyethanol: A glycol ether/chemical; highly toxic to the nervous system, kidneys, and liver. The FDA warns "can cause shut down of the central nervous system (CNS), vomiting and contact dermatitis" in cosmetics; imagine when injected into your blood.

Aluminum phosphate: Greatly increases toxicity of mercury, so caution about minimum mercury tolerance is therefore severely underestimated. CDC scientists and all doctors are well aware of this.

MSG (monosodium glutamate): When injected becomes a neurotoxin, causing CNS disorders and brain damage in children. Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

You can't be serious...

You do realise that better health care in poorer countries leads to families having less children, right?

Like, from 10+ kids to 2 or 3?

I guess not.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Excuse me for butting in, i just wanted for arguments sake elaborate a little on the smoking thing and informed decisions since they came up, as you can see in the ad below in the 1950s we had advertising saying smoking is good for you and this is endorced by doctors of all fields ...


Yes. You had advertising saying this.

See if you can find the medical studies from the time saying smoking was good for you.

Seriously, you can't expect an ad to show a product in a bad light. They're not what a sane person would use for a guideline for behavior.


There were plenty of manipulated data studies from the tobaco industry that used medical drs. With health benefits as well. More were based on that it wasn't unhealthy though.


That's why you should never trust studies done by advocacy groups. If the Tobacco Institute says smoking is good for you, if CSPI says meat is bad for you, etc, of COURSE they do.

It's a reason you look for that part of a paper that tells you who paid for the study and if the researchers are connected with anything related. Then you dig deeper if possible.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam




He's also an ardent chemtrailer.


And yet you often quote your "unnamed sources" within the military...I see how that works...



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Infants aged younger than three months are at the highest risk of death--for obvious reasons--but even so, not even one-quarter of one percent of children who contract Pertussis under the age of six months old see deadly consequences from the disease.


Unfortunately that's corrrect, the majority of deaths occurr in babies younger than 3 months who are under the age limit for the vaccine. This is why it's so important to vaccinate the mothers, as the maternal antibodies will cross the placental barrier to protect newborns until they are ready for their own immunisation.

I have been following the Pertussis statistics for the last couple of years because there have been an increase, both here in the UK and US. THIS STUDY came to the conclusion that the new vaccine we have been using sin the '90s is not as effective as the whole cell one that was used previously.

But although Pertussis cases are increasing, deaths are not and the reason why is that the vaccine makes the symptoms a lot milder. In the 1940s before the vaccine almost 10,000 children used to die, in 2014 only 11, a big difference.


edit on 6-4-2016 by Agartha because: Spelling

edit on 6-4-2016 by Agartha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Bedlam




He's also an ardent chemtrailer.


And yet you often quote your "unnamed sources" within the military...I see how that works...


None of them believe in chemtrails.

I'd say if you do, it sort of predisposes me to think you are not the best source for info. Like Dr Mercola, Russell would like to sell you his medical doom porn books as well.



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I agree but the drug manufactorers are the ones running trials on their own products. Which is why I posted the second article. If you click it there are several other links on the right of the page. Some of which list the tie between journalism and the drug industry.

There is plenty of reason to be skeptical of pharma and for that matter drs as well. Same people giving aderol to pre teen kids. Even though studies show it not only causes permanent adverse brain changes but doesn't work very well. Yet millions of kids are in the stuff because their parents don't read the research.

I don't feel this way about the standard vaccines but I certainly don't pretend there isn't reason to be concerned with what the industry standard is.
m.livescience.com...
www.theguardian.com...
thinkprogress.org...
www.economist.com...
edit on 6-4-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier
Indeed the same media outlet ran this story a couple of years ago. They also seem to have "forgotten" about it.


www.abc.net.au...
Merkel and colleagues say that despite vaccination rates of 95 per cent in the US, pertussis has reemerged at a "startling rate", especially since the late 1990s.

"This resurgence is mirrored throughout the industrial world despite similar high rates of vaccination," they write.

Merkel and colleagues hypothesised that this resurgence was in part due to acellular pertussis vaccines, which replaced whole-cell vaccines in the late 1990s.
Baboon study

To test their hypothesis, the researchers inoculated one group of infant baboons with the acellular vaccine, and one group with the whole-cell vaccine - at ages 2, 4 and 6 months.

At 7 months, they infected the baboons with pertussis bacteria. As expected, they found an unvaccinated control group developed disease symptoms while neither vaccinated group did.

But, in support of their hypothesis, the researchers found that the bacterial colonies survived for up to 6 weeks in the nasal passages of both unvaccinated and acellular-vaccinated monkeys, while the whole-cell-vaccinated monkeys were free of bacteria within 3 weeks.


It did seem like they were going to make the public aware that they should be careful of spreading the disease even if they have been vaccinated. The OP headline his sheer propaganda. I certainly would avoid it if I were pregnant I am still not convinced of the Zika "official story". I've even seen adverts pushing a 4 strain flu shot (yes a FOUR strain even after the Fluvax fiasco) on pregnant women! Sorry but they DO have thimerosal and other neurotoxins in them yet have decided they are suddenly "safe" for fetuses despite removing those ingredients in children's vaccines. They have not studied the effects of gestational vaccines and we won't see the results for the babies for a few years.

At which point they can dismiss whatever negative effects there are as "Coincidence"

edit on 6-4-2016 by riley because: emphasis




top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join