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.

 

Vaccines again...,

page: 13
32
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

I likely have a page or 2 myself within this thread, so there is no lack of input of opinion by me within this thread. Isn't it kind of stretching into unwelcome territory by caring much what a person may or may not feel about something that no commentary was offered to support? You guess it's a problem that I needed to have a full testimony by sharing a video, while I see it as a problem that another person is so invasive on what another should either feel or act on... dragging debates off topic. Kind of like pushing mandated vaccines on innocent children... god forbid freedom be practiced, so we need to gather the mandates in case conformity falls off the rails.

You know, I am starting to see patterns within this sensitive debate subject. It seems as if the people that prefer to 'question all' spend more time focusing on general concepts and leave the specifics to fall back to being less relevant. In balancing fashion, it seems the specifics and small details are a primary focus of those that are prone to fall in line with what traditions were set in the past. The law of averages provides a general balance of which equates to an approximate 60% of people don't care to do anything more than float through life... these people tend to do what they're told, when they're told to do it. There's the other 40% who either are retarded or think and operate outside of conformity. This means that debates like this will equate to one side thinking the other side are sheeple, while the other side thinks the minority sector is completely crazy. Really, it just comes down to which side of the fence we choose to be on.

In the grand scheme of things, I'd advise to remove brain space to store & display thoughts about what another person may or may not have thought about a random video. It's a 'buyer beware' scenario to get involved with all the speculation of what brains may have pondered. In such cases, I just take what info I can from some added addition and move on with life. To stop and have to have these entry level discussions is kind of an indication that I prefer to be seen as crazy.

Most of the crazies, myself included, that won't vaccinate aren't going to stop with furthering information and concepts to appease a society that just does what they're told to do. If the CDC came out publicly tomorrow and said vaccines are more harmful than 1st thought, then vaccine supporters would stop them immediately, most likely. That means that it will take a paid organization to come forth and admit such things for vaccine supporters to even approach the thoughts that vaccines may be more harmful than 1st thought, most likely.

I support vaccine program scrutiny and changes... at all times, to fit the times... that includes the removal of mandated vaccines. We have to keep in mind that most governments treat cannabis (a natural plant) as a something to fear, while billions of dollars are spent annually on synthetic (unnatural) remedies. Every single synthetic drug warns of the possible risks and side affects, and we're supposed to buy into the opinions that unnatural vaccines are safe at all times? Seriously, how it it not seen as a money game to be priority over a people game? Those aspects alone should have people deeply questioning the need for mandates on vaccines... it won't stop the approximately 60% of people or more from taking vaccines without question or authority in the matters though.

People who don't prefer vaccines generally don't mind, or even prefer that the masses get vaccines... it's the lack of choice that is bothersome. Now, why for vaccine supporters, is it the individuals who don't want to get vaccines that are the main problem with the vaccine program over the vaccine program likely needing mending/alteration within itself? The contradictions there should not be ignored... but will continue to do so...




posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   
education continued.

thinkingmomsrevolution.com...#-american-academy-pediatrics/



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
New Canadian study: Autism-Aluminum adjuvant link corroborated

medium.com...@jbhandley/new-canadian-study-autism-aluminum-adjuvant-link-corroborated-330e947f5f62



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Conan The Usurper
education continued.

thinkingmomsrevolution.com...#-american-academy-pediatrics/



Not an educational site unless you believe that reading misinformed pseudo-scientific nonsense is somehow "educating".



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Conan The Usurper
New Canadian study: Autism-Aluminum adjuvant link corroborated

medium.com...@jbhandley/new-canadian-study-autism-aluminum-adjuvant-link-corroborated-330e947f5f62


Can you explain to me, in layman's terms, how that study shows ANY corroboration.
And explain to me why I shouldn't dismiss the obvious errors in it?
edit on 19/9/17 by Pardon? because: Syntax



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 01:01 AM
link   


Synthetic medications have affects... and they are conveyed to consumers as 'side affects'.

Why is it that all these synthetic medications knowingly cause affects that are typically the exact affect that they were created to prevent to begin with, yet these trending patterns are discredited when it applies to vaccines and their links to 'affects'? It's simply poor math to add up the growing number of synthetic toxins within humans, witness alarming ASD rates, and then move to discredit any chances of links. It seems one would almost have to put their thoughts into a state of make believe to discredit ASD links to vaccines in at least a small way.

No wonder vaccine mandates are pushed with such determination... it's like TPTB keeps upping the anty as glaring warning signals are ignored by the fearful. Sure, it's commonly known to view drug addicts to pass on genes of synthetic alterations. It's how mother nature works... if a mother that's addicted to drugs births a child while sober for 9 months, that baby is still more susceptible to drug addiction then a baby born to a mother that never took drugs. Let that sink in now... no drugs while pregnant STILL has an affect on a baby(s) RNA/DNA structuring. But, because a doctor with a degree and high insurance premiums tells us its for the betterment of all mankind to vaccinate the current herds of people... well, people will simply ignore that these synthetic toxins 'affects' are being passed to children people have yet to even create.

The immune systems of children of vaccinated/toxin infested parents are not the same as if the parents toxins weren't passed on in our genes through RNA coding/DNA structuring.

Herd immunity does not work. It should be embarrassing to modern medicine to ignore the 'AFFECTS' of synthetic vaccines on our future children, and sweep it under the rug while labeling 'AFFECTS' as a small number of possible 'SIDE AFFECTS'. It's one thing for victims of vaccines to play along with the CDC games, but its plain absurd for these elements to be ignored by our medical professionals.

People seemingly need these things explained in 'layman's terms' because the ability to think freely is or has already been diminished. You'd think at this point in history, where TPTB continuously prove to be self serving and outdated... that people wouldn't even want their hands held through the complex world of frightening microorganisms. Why do such a small percentage of people think for themselves as a primary measure to what's advised as compared to how common place it is for the masses to do what they're advised to do before applying free thought and will into the decision making?


edit on 23-9-2017 by ttobban because: spelling

edit on 23-9-2017 by ttobban because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

What most people here will ignore is the fact we don't know what is safe and what is not safe for a naive immune system. Is it really necessary to vaccinate a newborn baby against Hep B? Why would you do that?

Also there is a stark difference between producing endogenous or eating a specific type of chemical and injecting it to illicit an immune response.

I won't get into it because I have decided not to discuss this stuff anymore as people are just far too invested to have a rational discussion (on both sides).

However I will just say that specific conditions relating to behavioural and learning difficulties are attributed to auto-immune conditions which can be triggered by over active or under stimulated immune responses.

We don't fully understand the immune system if anyone tells you they do they have not studied it. I have a sneaking suspicion the problems you are arguing about are insidious and epigenetic in origin. In which case causality will be almost impossible to prove.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Question for you...
Thimerosal is toxic. In certain quantities. How far below the LD50 is the dosage in a vaccination? And what is it's biological half-life? Same with the other two ingredients mentioned.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

Lets say its 99.99% below, or say I dont know, what is classeed as safe is the question I want answered and how do we know its safe
Who decides we or babies are all equal and none react differently to different amounts of any toxin, irrespective the name?



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I get what you're saying. I mean the actual LD50 though. I understand that there exceptions for every rule. Not denying that at all. And I'm not arguing the point that some people/children/infants may have adverse reactions to Thimerosal, Polysorbate 80, Formaldehyde, etc. But there's a specific biological chemistry involved in processing each different chemical, and a specific time it takes to pass through the body. Just like other chemicals. Like methylmercury.
For instance, Ethyl mercury is actually readily absorbed into cells through the bloodstream. Methyl mercury, however, takes longer to absorb than it takes for t he body of a human to flush it out. Chemistry is important. Infants, for instance, have a higher metabolism. They can flush methyl mercury completely out of their system, even if given in an intramuscular injection, more than a day faster than a healthy 40 year old. And a healthy 40 year old can flush it before cellular absorption becomes a risk.

Look, I'm not trying to debunk you here. I'm merely asking questions based in biological and chemical fact. Look up the answers to what I asked. That's all I want.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

Relax, you cant debunk me
I dont have any answers, just lots of qyestions
Accept vaccines, dont accept, I understand why people are for and against.
I think it is an individuals choice and should remain so

I dont understand the science of the issues at play, I certainly can see the emotion

Median lethal dose is the median, mid number, higher and lower is subjective isnt it, on individuals?

In Australia there is no Thimerosal in vaccines for children
Polysorbate 80, Formaldehyde I dont have time to check or research, I appreciate the value of vaccines, not denying their value.
I also wont deny a parents concern for a newborn child either

This issue is not just about science or statistics and its sad it seems to be the main discussion item

What if I posed that same question about peanuts or prawns as you have?



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I was never not relaxed. I'm pfishy. Relaxed is my norm.
So, to your questions about peanuts or prawns (shellfish in general, we call prawns 'shrimp'), there's plenty of sound research behind the why of those particular allergies. There's a known driver for each typed. Iodide compounds for shellfish, and a certain protein for peanuts.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Oh, and in case we haven't met, Hi. I'm phishy. I'm not a dealer of emotions. I'm merely a keeper of personal honesty.
I don't really take sides. I just call people out on contradicting statements, obviously bad science, or absolute BS.



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

But, I'm not calling YOU out here. Merely asking for clarification.



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 01:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Raggedyman

Oh, and in case we haven't met, Hi. I'm phishy. I'm not a dealer of emotions. I'm merely a keeper of personal honesty.
I don't really take sides. I just call people out on contradicting statements, obviously bad science, or absolute BS.


Cool, great, so are you saying emotions are dishounest and/or are BS, not scientific...
Thats your opinion

I am raggedyman, pleased to meet you pfishy

You and your opinion are just that, yours.
I hate bad science and pseudo sciences as well, not big on those who manipulate it or manipulate discussions in a direction the discussion was never intended to go.

Reread my op if you are interested, that doesnt sound like a company I would do buisness with, all care no responsibility



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 01:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Raggedyman

I was never not relaxed. I'm pfishy. Relaxed is my norm.
So, to your questions about peanuts or prawns (shellfish in general, we call prawns 'shrimp'), there's plenty of sound research behind the why of those particular allergies. There's a known driver for each typed. Iodide compounds for shellfish, and a certain protein for peanuts.


And maybe some compounds protiens unknown in babies for the different chemicals in vaccines.
I dont know, maybe, maybe not....

Thats not a statement, I dont know. I just understand why some parents are cautious, simple?



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Charlyboy
Is it really necessary to vaccinate a newborn baby against Hep B? Why would you do that?


Incredibly much so, yes.

Hepatitis B is one of the easiest of the Hep family to get, you can get it from just living in the same home of a person who has it, or a visitor to a home who has just used a spoon or a fork, it's a touch contact virus/saliva virus, and baby has no means to begin an immune fight against it yet.

The person with Hep may not even be aware that they contracted it at the point they have spread the virus onto a surface, or when in contact with a baby.

Its spread is incredibly virulent, it has the same if not higher risk similar to contracting the flu - if baby gets Hep B...very high chance of death mainly caused by liver failure, and usually before liver failure via the fever and virus itself overwhelming the entire babies limited immune system.

That vaccination is very very important, I cannot stress that more.
edit on 28-9-2017 by MuonToGluon because: Fixed







 
32
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join