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: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

what we have here is Darwin's Theory my friend. Just make sure you're vaccinated and so is ur children. Survival of the smartest! Dumb people shouldn't be passing their genes into the gene pool anyways.




posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 03:11 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.





Well this goes to show how powerful advertising is...people believe it and when they use actors as doctors it becomes even more convincing....i would like to know what the percentage of people believed the advertising back then i would bet the vast majority.....it is not that different today many many people believe the advertisers if they didnt advertising would not exist right ?....


For a long time, physicians were the authority on health. Patients trusted in their doctors' education and expertise and, for the most part, followed their advice. When health concerns about cigarettes began to receive public attention in the 1930s, tobacco companies took preemptive action. They capitalized on the public’s trust of physicians in order to quell concerns about the dangers of smoking. Thus was born the use of physicians in cigarette advertisements

www.healio.com... an-tested-approved
edit on 7-4-2016 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
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.


No, Bill Gates did not admit vaccines are used for human depopulation.

debunkingdenialism.com...



Bill Gates is obviously not claiming that vaccines, health care and reproductive health services will somehow magically lead to the mass murder of almost a billion people. Quite the contrary, health care in general and vaccines in particular saves lives. It is also worth noting that Gates is saying that world population will continue to rise despite vaccines contributing to better living standards. So vaccines will only reduce the increase in population growth, not reduce the absolute number of people.


Essentially, population growth is reduced by ensuring that people in the Third World can limit family size, safe knowing that their children are more than likely going to live. This is not some nefarious plot to kill off people living in developing nations.

Sheesh, how can people get it so wrong?
edit on 7-4-2016 by cuckooold because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: reddragon2015
a reply to: Chadwickus

what we have here is Darwin's Theory my friend. Just make sure you're vaccinated and so is ur children. Survival of the smartest! Dumb people shouldn't be passing their genes into the gene pool anyways.


Edited because I just read it in the right context.


The human immune system VS humans bio-engineering.


IT'S ON.

edit on 7-4-2016 by riley because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: riley

looks as childhood disease incidence rates prior to the introduction of vaccines
looks as childhood disease incidence rates after the introduction of vaccines

Game over.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

I personally believe in vaccines. However this is not a good arguement. The advancements in lifestyle and medicine throw a factor in that makes your analysis unknowable.

You could say the same about battlefield wounds and trauma treatment for car accidents. Neither of those things have to do with vaccinations.
edit on 7-4-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

You literally see a hard drop each time a vaccine is introduced. It's pretty hard to deny that correlation. E.g.:





You can't chalk that up to standards of living. The 70's and 50's weren't medieval times.
edit on 7-4-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Not really no. Of coarse there is a correlation but the question is which has a larger effect? Modern emergency treatment or vaccines for the mortality rate of disease? There is also a steady decline in mortality rates even prior to vaccines.

For instance this aecellular vaccine for pertusis is waning so quickly up to 50k people with the vaccine are getting sick. Yet the mortality rate is very low.

I am not an anti vaxer but the correlation is skewed by emergency room advancements and the broad understanding of treating infections.


Explain why if you take a graph from 1860-1940 you see just as large of a decline?

I think vaccines are important but I have a problem with the correlation being only attributed to vaccines. It's dishonest. They are effective enough to not need to skew the data for propaganda. You can look for yourself here. Scroll down to the TB chart. From 1910 to 1940 there is a larger rate of decline than after vaccines. The morbitity rate is probably a different story as well as the ability to hold the line flat without epidemics.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
edit on 7-4-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: GetHyped

Not really no. Of coarse there is a correlation but the question is which has a larger effect?
For incidence rates? Vaccines. Undeniably (although many do try).


Modern emergency treatment or vaccines for the mortality rate of disease? There is also a steady decline in mortality rates even prior to vaccines.


I said incidence rates. Advances in medicine and living standards largely account for the drop in mortality but the drop in incidence after the introduction of vaccines cannot be explained by living standards and medicine alone. The data doesn't lie.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Sure. This is true.

However the level of incident also declined with the standardization of Modern hygiene practices. Hell drs used to believe washing their hands didn't matter. They even fought against it as hogwash. You can see I also stated that in the morbitity comment.

The incident rate declined. Except in the case of the new introduction of the vaccine in question of this OP. Since the aecelluar vaccine the rate of incident has increased.

PS I apologise for the strawman regarding mortality rates. It wasn't your arguement.
edit on 7-4-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Sewers do not get any credit. If India had a decent water/sewer system the polio vaccine wouldn't have been as necessary.
edit on 7-4-2016 by riley because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I think most people's issue with Vaccines is that they contain Heavy metals, Chemicals that are generally considered unsafe in any other instance and by products that don't appear to have a reason to be in them. There are some studies, that link heavy metals to autism also.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
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.




posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

I only linked CDC and government websites relating to the risks and side effects.

So the CDC and government are now voodoo-junk websites? Good to know.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99


And a scene from a movie called "Liar Liar," no less--so very appropriate for a thread based on hyperbole and fear-mongering from the OP




posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

For your reading Pleasure -

Read the Article



The University of Oxford study is only the latest to show that fully vaccinated individuals may still develop pertussis, at high rates. In a study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, researchers reviewed data on every patient who tested positive for pertussis between March and October 2010 at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California.5

Out of these 132 patients:

81 percent were fully up to date on the whooping cough vaccine
8 percent had never been vaccinated
11 percent had received at least one shot, but not the entire recommended series

It's clear that children and adults who have received all the government-recommended pertussis vaccine containing shots can still get the disease -- and this study even suggests they may in fact be more likely to get the diseases than unvaccinated populations. Researchers noted the vaccine's effectiveness was only 41 percent among 2- to 7-year-olds and a dismal 24 percent among those aged 8-12.




"A Canadian study also investigated how many parents would need to be vaccinated in order to prevent infant hospitalizations and deaths from pertussis using the cocoon strategy, and the results were dismal. They found the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) for parental immunization was at least 1 million to prevent 1 infant death, approximately 100,000 for ICU admission, and >10,000 for hospitalization."




In the video profile of pertussis vaccine injury below, Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) interviews a Houston family with a history of vaccine reactions that spans three generations. Now, a 12-year-old child in the family has become permanently disabled from a reaction to the DTaP vaccine that was given to her, along with 6 other vaccines, at age 15 months.

Either way, getting whooping cough or getting a pertussis vaccination entails a risk. But, remember, the vaccine carries with it two risks: the risk of a serious side effect AND the risk that the vaccine won't work at all or will only work for a short period of time. What happened to this family is a potent reminder of just how important it is to make well-informed decisions about vaccinations.




articles.mercola.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

I only linked CDC and government websites relating to the risks and side effects.

So the CDC and government are now voodoo-junk websites? Good to know.


Oh no, they post real statistics, you just don't post what they say and anybody who read my reply to you can see.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: scubagravy

It's not small doses. Viruses are attenuated and bacteria are weakened so that they do not perform the same functions as their more active counterparts. Your body recognizes surface proteins of these pathogens and develops an immune response using a variety of mechanisms.

It is not a small dose process although that is what a lot of people think. In modern history the first noted vaccine was created through the observation of a lack of infection of smallpox in dairy workers. These workers had already contracted cowpox from close contact with cows, but cowpox does not produce symptoms in humans. Because cowpox and smallpox have similar surface proteins, the dairy workers immune system had already built up a proper response before smallpox could cause infection. It was this simple observation that paved the way for vaccines that have saved millions upon millions upon millions of lives. One could never overstate how great a discovery this was.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
So... how much does it pay to be an openly bought shill nowadays?

Never mind. The shill handbook has a pat response for my obvious trolling of your trolling.

* vaccine- free for 22 years now. Haven't contracted zyka nor passed on Ebola. ( Anecdotal)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: riley
Sewers do not get any credit. If India had a decent water/sewer system the polio vaccine wouldn't have been as necessary.
Are you a doctor ? well i am . i'd be happy to discuss the consequences of avoiding vaccination .

one thing for sure : if you deny science and mock it, you're actually being ignorant . you're not smart and certainly you're not "cool and open minded"

Whooping cough is actually a curable disease . lets talk about TORCH instead . lets talk about the consequences instead and thats HIE , Asphexia and brain damage to infants .

lets talk about a little boy who is unable to walk,talk or laugh cause his stupid parents decided to be "cool"

I'm sorry if i seem harsh . but this ignorance is starting to cost human lives .




top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join