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.

 

Combining Multiple Childhood Vaccines Not Safe

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: bigal7997

Ah yeah, I did typed it wrong, luckily I always link my evidence, eh? lol

Thanks for pointing that out!




posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: 727Sky

Yeah, which is why we're living longer and surviving childhood in larger numbers. Clearly the work of the nefarious tptb and their depopulation agenda!


Why would they want you to die if you are hooked into the medical system because you are sickly and dependent on their drugs ?



You must be American. The rest of the civilised world has socialised healthcare your conspiracy theory holds no water.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   
For the last twenty years parents have been saying their children had the same exact reaction symptoms wise. Fevers, seizures, screaming in agony and regression. Sometimes death. These are classic symptoms of encephalitis.

But they call it "coincidence". It is a coincidence that all these kids suffer from the exact same side effects. Then when the parents start speaking out more they are defamed with being called delusional. Some try go to the "vaccine court" which has thousands in the cue also waiting for years on end. Of course this is an old tactic where the legal system knows people may just give up as they already have enough stress to contend with.

They haven't tested them in combination so of course they can say "not proven to be unsafe" which means they can keep upping the number all they want with a trail of victims behind them.

Correlation does not equal causation?

Yep sounds like a great mantra but it is complete BS. It ignores a basic scientific tenant of cause and effect. If a parent brought their kid into hospital with those same exact symptoms from a disease then it would be taken seriously.. hey and we may even get to see that as a headline saying how antivaxxers are responsible for a random strangers serious disease. If it is after a vaccine however it is called "normal reaction". So many have been speaking out now.. and what is the response from the corporations? Demonize them in the media. Attack them like it's a witch hunt.. actually call them "baby killers" for daring to speak out because their children have been injured. There are many accounts of children dying the night after vaccination. For ANYTHING else, food poisoning, disease, allergy it would be investigated accordingly. For vaccines however it is still often called SIDS.

There has to be a tipping point where it is no longer undeniable. They can no longer be called delusional liars.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: riley

Correlation does not equal causation?

Yep sounds like a great mantra but it is complete BS.


www.tylervigen.com...

By your mind mindbogglingly faulty logic per capita cheese consumption causes people to die by becoming tangled in their bed sheets and all manner of other spurious correlations.

But hey, they correlate, and even though there's no evidence of causal link it MUST be undeniable! Anyone who says otherwise is a delusional liar, right?



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: riley

Correlation does not equal causation?

Yep sounds like a great mantra but it is complete BS.


www.tylervigen.com...

By your mind mindbogglingly faulty logic per capita cheese consumption causes people to die by becoming tangled in their bed sheets and all manner of other spurious correlations.

But hey, they correlate, and even though there's no evidence of causal link it MUST be undeniable! Anyone who says otherwise is a delusional liar, right?


You didn't bother actually saying what was in the link you posted.. and you opened with insults. There is no block function so yep just going to ignore you. However I will reply just this once to you.

This is an example of cause and effect rather than correlation.

Insult people and they get pissed off. THAT was your whole point of insulting me.. perhaps to also derail actual intelligent discussion ON the topic which you failed do to.

So on topic: Yes I do agree with others that NOT testing multiple vaccines has been a way to avoid confirming that they are indeed unsafe as reported by THOUSANDS of people. Why have they not tested these vaccines in conjunction? If they did so they would no doubt be proven to be UNSAFE which would be consistent with reports from the public (who, despite propaganda are capable of thinking for themselves). Thus far the response from the "medical" community/big pharma is to stick their fingers in their ears and say "We can't hear you, we can't hear you" repetitively. When that fails they get the state media to call the parents of actual vaccine injured children baby killers in order to try incite the rest of the community into attacking them.

So many examples if that in history. The rabid mob. The witch hunts.. Goodwin's law.

"Antivaxxers spread disease!", "Witches spread disease!", "Jews spread disease". "Muslims kill!" The black plague for instance was blamed on witches. Handy scapegoat.. and that was ALSO about medical rights and freedoms.

Coincidentally.

Public opinion is used as a weapon to stop people standing up for themselves. The problem is the truth is out and there's no way of forcing people to vaccinate without declaring war them. There is no way of forcing them to vaccinate without literally rounding them up to do so.

Going by what history had taught us, and the seething hatred expressed to vaccine victims that would seem to be the next logical step in this sorry human saga.
edit on 27-6-2016 by riley because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: riley

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: riley

Correlation does not equal causation?

Yep sounds like a great mantra but it is complete BS.


www.tylervigen.com...

By your mind mindbogglingly faulty logic per capita cheese consumption causes people to die by becoming tangled in their bed sheets and all manner of other spurious correlations.

But hey, they correlate, and even though there's no evidence of causal link it MUST be undeniable! Anyone who says otherwise is a delusional liar, right?


You didn't bother actually saying what was in the link you posted.. and you opened with insults. There is no block function so yep just going to ignore you. However I will reply just this once to you.

This is an example of cause and effect rather than correlation.

Insult people and they get pissed off. THAT was your whole point of insulting me.. perhaps to also derail actual intelligent discussion ON the topic which you failed do to.

So on topic: Yes I do agree with others that NOT testing multiple vaccines has been a way to avoid confirming that they are indeed unsafe as reported by THOUSANDS of people. Why have they not tested these vaccines in conjunction? If they did so they would no doubt be proven to be UNSAFE which would be consistent with reports from the public (who, despite propaganda are capable of thinking for themselves). Thus far the response from the "medical" community/big pharma is to stick their fingers in their ears and say "We can't hear you, we can't hear you" repetitively. When that fails they get the state media to call the parents of actual vaccine injured children baby killers in order to try incite the rest of the community into attacking them.

So many examples if that in history. The rabid mob. The witch hunts.. Goodwin's law.

"Antivaxxers spread disease!", "Witches spread disease!", "Jews spread disease". "Muslims kill!" The black plague for instance was blamed on witches. Handy scapegoat.. and that was ALSO about medical rights and freedoms.

Coincidentally.

Public opinion is used as a weapon to stop people standing up for themselves. The problem is the truth is out and there's no way of forcing people to vaccinate without declaring war them. There is no way of forcing them to vaccinate without literally rounding them up to do so.

Going by what history had taught us, and the seething hatred expressed to vaccine victims that would seem to be the next logical step in this sorry human saga.


The thing is though, vaccines are continually tested.
That's what happens with medicines, they don't stop being tested once they are released otherwise issues like the one with the rotavirus vaccine, Rotashield, wouldn't happen (just in case you don't know about that one read up here web.stanford.edu...).

What's really wrong though is anti-vaxxers trying to fit their own studies to an already decided conclusion like the one in the OP.
"Studies" like that one are designed solely to put people off vaccinating. They hold no scientific sway whatsoever but people who may not be scientifically minded and the anti-health brigade fall for them every time and tout them at every opportunity.
Then you get people comparing the backlash against the anti anti-vaxxer's lies to what happened to Jews & blacks...

Climb down from you nonsensical belief-based mountain-top and have a word with yourself eh?
And when you've done that read this below. If you don't think it's right tell me why.www.sciencedirect.com...

And this
edit on 27/6/16 by Pardon? because: Added link



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

I really like the sciencedirect link you posted, it shows that you either didn't read it or you don't know what a meta-analysis is.
Here's how a meta-analysis works. I want X to be true. So I cherry pick a few studies that show X may be true. I combine the data while disregarding each studies own biases. I publish this as a new "study."
If you wish to convince me, just show me the independent double blind placebo controlled study showing that vaccines are as safe as saline. You can just link to the whole study. Since vaccines have been repeatedly shown to be absolutely safe it should take you no time at all to find it...



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigal7997
a reply to: Pardon?

I really like the sciencedirect link you posted, it shows that you either didn't read it or you don't know what a meta-analysis is.
Here's how a meta-analysis works. I want X to be true. So I cherry pick a few studies that show X may be true. I combine the data while disregarding each studies own biases. I publish this as a new "study."
If you wish to convince me, just show me the independent double blind placebo controlled study showing that vaccines are as safe as saline. You can just link to the whole study. Since vaccines have been repeatedly shown to be absolutely safe it should take you no time at all to find it...


Which studies were used in the meta analysis and why were they included?
Why were other studies not included?
How was the data collated and why was that particular data used? Was there inherent bias in the individual studies and how was this factored in and negated or ignored?
What can you see that is wrong in how they've reached their conclusion?
It's great that you make a sweeping statement but you need to provide more detail if you wish to debunk it so easily.

As for your gold standard trial, tell you what, you can recruit the children who's parents will be fine doing this double-blind rct.
I'm sure you understand what this will involve but if you don't this is how it will pan out...
Half of the children will be randomly chosen to receive the vaccines and half won't, because of the blinding we won't know who is who.
Then the children will be given the illnesses directly, monitored and the results collated and concluded.
I'm sure you would be more than happy to enrol yours or your family and friends' children into this as obviously the vaccines don't work and things like tetanus are not really a problem...
I wouldn't which is why I'm happy with epidemiology studies and post-market surveillance.
And why my kids are fully vaxxed and fit & healthy.

Even if, god forbid, an ethics committee somehow approved your study and the results showed that they were safe, your belief still wouldn't allow you to accept it so throwing your red-herring of a study in is pointless.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 04:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigal7997
a reply to: Pardon?

Which studies were used in the meta analysis and why were they included?
Why were other studies not included?
How was the data collated and why was that particular data used? Was there inherent bias in the individual studies and how was this factored in and negated or ignored?
What can you see that is wrong in how they've reached their conclusion?
It's great that you make a sweeping statement but you need to provide more detail if you wish to debunk it so easily.

It's YOUR source that YOU used, not mine. You tell me what their studies were. An abstract is insufficient.


As for your gold standard trial, tell you what, you can recruit the children who's parents will be fine doing this double-blind rct.
I'm sure you understand what this will involve but if you don't this is how it will pan out...
Half of the children will be randomly chosen to receive the vaccines and half won't, because of the blinding we won't know who is who.
Then the children will be given the illnesses directly, monitored and the results collated and concluded.
I'm sure you would be more than happy to enrol yours or your family and friends' children into this as obviously the vaccines don't work and things like tetanus are not really a problem...
I wouldn't which is why I'm happy with epidemiology studies and post-market surveillance.
And why my kids are fully vaxxed and fit & healthy.

Even if, god forbid, an ethics committee somehow approved your study and the results showed that they were safe, your belief still wouldn't allow you to accept it so throwing your red-herring of a study in is pointless.

Excellent, you finally admit that a true safety trial can't be done. Your argument, and really that of the Vax religion, is that vaccines are safe and effective, and they're so safe and effective that we can't bother proving it.
I'm sure your happy with epidemiological studies and the like. I'm not, so therefore I choose not to vaccinate my children. And guess what, they're happy and healthy just like your kids.
edit on 28-6-2016 by bigal7997 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2016 by bigal7997 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

edit on 29-6-2016 by GoShredAK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigal7997


originally posted by: bigal7997
a reply to: Pardon?

Which studies were used in the meta analysis and why were they included?
Why were other studies not included?
How was the data collated and why was that particular data used? Was there inherent bias in the individual studies and how was this factored in and negated or ignored?
What can you see that is wrong in how they've reached their conclusion?
It's great that you make a sweeping statement but you need to provide more detail if you wish to debunk it so easily.

It's YOUR source that YOU used, not mine. You tell me what their studies were. An abstract is insufficient.


As for your gold standard trial, tell you what, you can recruit the children who's parents will be fine doing this double-blind rct.
I'm sure you understand what this will involve but if you don't this is how it will pan out...
Half of the children will be randomly chosen to receive the vaccines and half won't, because of the blinding we won't know who is who.
Then the children will be given the illnesses directly, monitored and the results collated and concluded.
I'm sure you would be more than happy to enrol yours or your family and friends' children into this as obviously the vaccines don't work and things like tetanus are not really a problem...
I wouldn't which is why I'm happy with epidemiology studies and post-market surveillance.
And why my kids are fully vaxxed and fit & healthy.

Even if, god forbid, an ethics committee somehow approved your study and the results showed that they were safe, your belief still wouldn't allow you to accept it so throwing your red-herring of a study in is pointless.


Excellent, you finally admit that a true safety trial can't be done. Your argument, and really that of the Vax religion, is that vaccines are safe and effective, and they're so safe and effective that we can't bother proving it.
I'm sure your happy with epidemiological studies and the like. I'm not, so therefore I choose not to vaccinate my children. And guess what, they're happy and healthy just like your kids.


You've dismissed it simply because in your mind you refuse to acknowledge a meta analysis as they "cherry-pick".
You've not even bothered to look up what they've used or not used and how they've come to their conclusion.
Took me at least 90 seconds to find it.
Here you go.
autismoevaccini.files.wordpress.com...
Now, tell me what's wrong with it.

Your second point is that you're not happy with epidemiological studies but you would be happy to inflict potentially life threatening diseases on children in order to prove that you are wrong.
And you would dismiss the results anyway as to accept them would smash your beliefs.

But given your lack of criticism for the "study" in the OP I can only assume that you think that the whole paper is based upon sound data and methodology.
Correct?
It must be otherwise someone with your vast scientific knowledge would have been able to pick it apart wouldn't you?

Again though, what you want is to give kids diphtheria, tetanus, polio, measles etc, vaccinate half of them and see whether kids are harmed by the vaccines?
And that's the only study which would change your mind?
Seriously, that's what you want?






edit on 29/6/16 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

I do wish you would read the links you post. It would save both of us quite a bit of time.
From the pdf you posted:
"2.2. Eligibility criteria
This review included retrospective and prospective cohort stud-ies and case-control studies published in any language looking atthe relationship between vaccination and disorders on the autisticspectrum. No limits were placed on publication date, publicationstatus, or participant characteristics. Studies were included thatlooked at either MMR vaccination, cumulative mercury (Hg) orcumulative thimerosal dosage from vaccinations to ensure all pro-posed causes of ASD or regression were investigated. Outcome measures included development of any condition on the autisticspectrum as well as those specifically looking at regressive pheno-type. Papers that recruited their cohort of participants solely fromthe Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the UnitedStates were not included due to its many limitations and high riskof bias including unverified reports, underreporting, inconsistentdata quality, absence of an unvaccinated control group and manyreports being filed in connection with litigation [5,6]. We excludedstudies that did not meet the inclusion criteria.
2.3. Study selection
Two authors (LT, AS) independently reviewed the abstracts andmethods of returned results to assess for eligibility for inclusion.Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by consensuswith the third author (GE)."


The authors culled out studies using VAERS data. The reason they have gave may be completely legitimate, but they've removed possible sources all the same. It is unclear whether this happened before or after the abstract review, but at some point they were left with 929 sources. The two authors read the abstracts and culled out 729 of those, leaving them with 160 studies that they further culled to 12 using other methods.
The abstract is a summary of the paper and includes a short summary of the results. Could having knowledge of the results be a/the determining factor as to whether that study was culled? I don't know, and frankly no one does other than the authors. But to start by excluding all studies using a HHS data collection system, finding 929 studies, then weeding those down to 12, well, I find that suspicious. No different than if I presented a study that showed MMR causes autism and I found 929 studies on the matter but picked 12 for my meta-analysis, you would rightly be calling it BS.

And thus, let me move on to your next complaint, that I "would be happy to inflict potentially life threatening diseases on children in order to prove that you are wrong." I trust then that you believe Edward Jenner a monster for experimenting on his gardeners 8 year old son. Or perhaps Jonas Salk whom experimented on his whole family. What do you think of them, dare I ask?

But yet you seem fine, no, perfectly content experimenting on children with your poorly tested vaccines. Does it disturb you when you hear of some child dying from the MMR vaccine, or paralyzed from HPV vaccine? Do you honor their sacrifice on the altar of what you call "medical science?" Probably not. I can only assume you plug your ears and blame their genetics, or some existing complication, or say, "that just happens sometimes."

As far as the study in the original post, you shouldn't assume I'm for it just because I didn't pile on to the long list of those that attacked it. Merely being in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons makes it suspect, and I didn't feel as though I could add useful information to its attack.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 01:17 AM
link   
I very recently witnessed two different 2 1/2 month olds get their first shots. It was five vaccines in one visit.

Dtap, hep B, pcv-13, and polio.
(dtap Is two in one)
The first one broke into a fever of 102 and got really cranky and just not her usual self. Luckily she was better within about a day and a half. That fever didn't even go down with Tylenol though.

The doctors said these vaccines weren't supposed to cause a fever and any reaction would be mild. I think her temperature was way too high, that was not normal or safe. It was BS.

Five vaccines at once in a little infants body does not seem right.

The other baby had a worse reaction.

After a few hours his legs started shaking uncontrollably, he got a fever, he wouldn't sleep, he had diarrhea and his mom said he reminded her of wilted lettuce.

That's really scary and it isn't right!

These two babies are due to get the same set of shots again in 2 months.

I'm stressing out trying to figure out if they should be spread out, or if they are all even necessary.

Its awful seeing a child that small get sick and suffer because of some crap they were injected with at a doctors office.

I know its important so my kids are getting their shots but good lord a part of me wants to just say no to all vaccines. I hate the risk of a bad reaction.


I'm not sure what we're going to do honestly. One of those babies is my daughter.....
edit on 2-7-2016 by GoShredAK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: GoShredAK
I very recently witnessed two different 2 1/2 month olds get their first shots. It was five vaccines in one visit.

Dtap, hep B, pcv-13, and polio.
(dtap Is two in one)
The first one broke into a fever of 102 and got really cranky and just not her usual self. Luckily she was better within about a day and a half. That fever didn't even go down with Tylenol though.

The doctors said these vaccines weren't supposed to cause a fever and any reaction would be mild. I think her temperature was way too high, that was not normal or safe. It was BS.

Five vaccines at once in a little infants body does not seem right.

The other baby had a worse reaction.

After a few hours his legs started shaking uncontrollably, he got a fever, he wouldn't sleep, he had diarrhea and his mom said he reminded her of wilted lettuce.

That's really scary and it isn't right!

These two babies are due to get the same set of shots again in 2 months.

I'm stressing out trying to figure out if they should be spread out, or if they are all even necessary.

Its awful seeing a child that small get sick and suffer because of some crap they were injected with at a doctors office.

I know its important so my kids are getting their shots but good lord a part of me wants to just say no to all vaccines. I hate the risk of a bad reaction.


I'm not sure what we're going to do honestly. One of those babies is my daughter.....


I am old and have watched three generations of babies born if great grand babies count. Out of all these babies one of my daughters has an autistic daughter. She swears the child was fine until the MMR shots. So my opinion is jaded as no doubt yours is too now. I don't know why anyone would argue spreading these all important (sarcasm) shots out for that would solve many problems with the doubters.
edit on 727ndk16 by 727Sky because: ...



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Combining those together is about the equivalent of combining Coke, Acid and a good stiff Drink together and drinking it really fast expecting something good to happen.




posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 02:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigal7997
a reply to: Pardon?

I do wish you would read the links you post. It would save both of us quite a bit of time.
From the pdf you posted:
"2.2. Eligibility criteria
This review included retrospective and prospective cohort stud-ies and case-control studies published in any language looking atthe relationship between vaccination and disorders on the autisticspectrum. No limits were placed on publication date, publicationstatus, or participant characteristics. Studies were included thatlooked at either MMR vaccination, cumulative mercury (Hg) orcumulative thimerosal dosage from vaccinations to ensure all pro-posed causes of ASD or regression were investigated. Outcome measures included development of any condition on the autisticspectrum as well as those specifically looking at regressive pheno-type. Papers that recruited their cohort of participants solely fromthe Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the UnitedStates were not included due to its many limitations and high riskof bias including unverified reports, underreporting, inconsistentdata quality, absence of an unvaccinated control group and manyreports being filed in connection with litigation [5,6]. We excludedstudies that did not meet the inclusion criteria.
2.3. Study selection
Two authors (LT, AS) independently reviewed the abstracts andmethods of returned results to assess for eligibility for inclusion.Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by consensuswith the third author (GE)."


The authors culled out studies using VAERS data. The reason they have gave may be completely legitimate, but they've removed possible sources all the same. It is unclear whether this happened before or after the abstract review, but at some point they were left with 929 sources. The two authors read the abstracts and culled out 729 of those, leaving them with 160 studies that they further culled to 12 using other methods.
The abstract is a summary of the paper and includes a short summary of the results. Could having knowledge of the results be a/the determining factor as to whether that study was culled? I don't know, and frankly no one does other than the authors. But to start by excluding all studies using a HHS data collection system, finding 929 studies, then weeding those down to 12, well, I find that suspicious. No different than if I presented a study that showed MMR causes autism and I found 929 studies on the matter but picked 12 for my meta-analysis, you would rightly be calling it BS.

And thus, let me move on to your next complaint, that I "would be happy to inflict potentially life threatening diseases on children in order to prove that you are wrong." I trust then that you believe Edward Jenner a monster for experimenting on his gardeners 8 year old son. Or perhaps Jonas Salk whom experimented on his whole family. What do you think of them, dare I ask?

But yet you seem fine, no, perfectly content experimenting on children with your poorly tested vaccines. Does it disturb you when you hear of some child dying from the MMR vaccine, or paralyzed from HPV vaccine? Do you honor their sacrifice on the altar of what you call "medical science?" Probably not. I can only assume you plug your ears and blame their genetics, or some existing complication, or say, "that just happens sometimes."

As far as the study in the original post, you shouldn't assume I'm for it just because I didn't pile on to the long list of those that attacked it. Merely being in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons makes it suspect, and I didn't feel as though I could add useful information to its attack.


The simple reason they removed data from VAERS is because it's not robust nor reliable data.
Pretty much anyone can report to VAERS. It only has to be in a certain timeframe after receiving a vaccine and no causation has to be proven. So whilst VAERS can sometimes be useful, simply pulling data from it is meaningless unless you follow through each individual case and dig deeper. (Hence why the original OP's "study" is bogus).
Since there hasn't been a single VAERS case that has been followed through and definitively shown that the report of "autism" was directly linked to vaccines it seems pretty obvious why they were excluded.
Again, you're not telling me why the data they used isn't reliable, just that you disagree with their methodology (which from a scientific method is extremely valid).
Again, refer back to the rotavirus vaccine which was pulled due to safety concerns. Was that glossed over at all?
No. That was found using post-market surveillance which is used for all vaccines irrespective of how long they've been released for.

As for Jenner and Salk experimenting on their families, forgive me if I'm wrong, but that happened quite a few years ago.
I don't believe suitable ethics guidelines were in force then.
Does that happen now? No, there are other ways of showing efficacy and safety (not that Jenner and Salk were experimenting to look at safety, just to see if it worked. So it's a bad example anyway).
But does that mean that you would still agree on that mode of testing for safety?
It seems like it does.

Going back to the OP's theme, what would be good would be for you to provide evidence of multiple vaccines causing harm.
You know, a scientific study proving it or something would be a start otherwise you're basing what you think purely on belief.
What a surprise...



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: awareness10
Combining those together is about the equivalent of combining Coke, Acid and a good stiff Drink together and drinking it really fast expecting something good to happen.



No it isn't.
That's probably the most lame and inaccurate analogy I've ever heard.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

It just goes to show how desperate anti vaxxers are to try and use an unverified, self reported repository like VAERS as a credible source, a source that claimed vaccines turned you into The Incredible Hulk!!



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Is someone who has seen their own child and their baby nephew have a bad reaction to the same multiple vaccines and is now apprehensive to allow doctors to inject them again an anti vaxxer?

you guys get so rude and angry towards anybody questioning the safety of todays vaccines, but do any of you have kids? have you seen them suffer due to a bad reaction? Do you even know what it feels like to see your baby in pain? Or the sickening stress of being unsure whether or not they'll get better?

I have witnessed two first hand accounts of 2-month old infants reacting badly to multiple vaccines so I am inclined to believe the title of the OP.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: GoShredAK
Is someone who has seen their own child and their baby nephew have a bad reaction to the same multiple vaccines and is now apprehensive to allow doctors to inject them again an anti vaxxer?

you guys get so rude and angry towards anybody questioning the safety of todays vaccines, but do any of you have kids? have you seen them suffer due to a bad reaction? Do you even know what it feels like to see your baby in pain? Or the sickening stress of being unsure whether or not they'll get better?

I have witnessed two first hand accounts of 2-month old infants reacting badly to multiple vaccines so I am inclined to believe the title of the OP.


That's because ''they are'' rude. They're angry and don't stop to use their brains before injecting harmful substances into themselves or their children.

Tis sad... People are so brain dead it scares me, and i dont scare easily...
edit on 7/2/2016 by awareness10 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join