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: 5
23
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Who knows formaldehyde and other chemicals cocktail in a new born could cause any reaction.


Who knows? We all know thanks to thousand of trials and tests done on vaccinated children, and thousands of tests done comparing the health of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children.

Tests done all over the world, UK, Germany, Argentina, Canada, Australia, Philippines, Nigeria,you name it. I can post a few here if you want to, seeing as you say to be pro-knowledge.







Agartha
Please pay attention

Thanks
Just a few grabs
Did you know that vaccine manufacturers run their own safety studies?

That the government passes these drugs based on those studies?

That vaccine manufacturers are protected from legal action for any harm their supposedly ‘safe products’ do?

Why have we entrusted the safety of millions of children to the oversight of a group of people whose sole focus is making billion dollar profits?

realnewsaustralia.com...


Yet you say you have what
"I can post a few here if you want to, seeing as you say to be pro-knowledge."

Please do, prove the link wrong, please




posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Can you not understand that there is a huge difference between:

a) a substance that is produced naturally in and distributed throughout the body in miniscule amounts over extended periods of time, and

b) injecting any amount of the same substance directly into the body in one dose and all in one location.

?


You and the OP are never going to ask the question by ignorant-ape, we can see that now, let me give you the figures you lack:

No, there isn't a huge difference between your point a) and b) because the level of formaldehyde produced naturally in the body is more than 100 times higher than the minuscule amount found in vaccines.

Formaldehyde is also highly soluble in water and tests have shown 99.98% is removed from the injection site within 30 minutes; it is metabolized (broken down) in the muscle.

There have been many tests that have shown the safety of formaldehyde in vaccines, here is one of them which will give you dosages and metabolic rates:

Pharmacokinetic modeling as an approach to assessing the safety of residual formaldehyde in infant vaccines



Impossible to do, because there have never, ever been any true, placebo controlled testing done on vaccines, at all, period.


There are thousands of tests on vaccines available online for your to read....... vaccines are the most tested drug in the world.





originally posted by: Raggedyman

So you are telling me that you know the dose of formaldehyde in vaccines is safe for all babys born and injecting it into them on day 1 wont cause any issues at all.


Yes, some of us have studied and understand science, see my reply above.


I am sorry sweety, as much as you want this to be about formaldehyde
Its not just about formaldehyde

If we mix chemicals we can have a serious reaction.
Stop your myopic blah, its silly

Science ?, still waiting on the
Repeatable
Observable and
Testable evidence

I think you are hiding behind the word "science" because you have nothing else to offer but the word "SCIENCE"

How many times have I seen this argument
I know science
(I cant find any, cant relate any, cant do any)
But I know science and you dont
(hope I am not asked to show any science)
I am smart and you must believe what I say because I KNOW SCIENCE

Dumb argument, dumb argument picking on formaldehyde on its own to, silly

Sharpen up please
edit on 5-4-2017 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-4-2017 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 01:32 AM
link   
I haven't read past page 4 of replys to this thread on my phone.

at a school I volunteer teacher aid for a boy with autism , the intercom beeped and said the nurse will be at school on Friday for the teachers to get their flu shots. I am interested how many of the teachers will come down with the flu afterwards and if how many kids will suddenly get the flu.

That is all.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 04:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

if you didnt wish to discuss formaldehyde in vaccines - why the hell did you raise the issue in your OP ?



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

when you attempt to cite " naturally occuring formaldehyde " i know that you are either utterly dishonest or totally scientifically illiterate

which is it - just for my ammusement ?

but to answer fallacy "A" :

the levels of formaldehyde in bodiliy fluids = 50 times the quantity in a vaccine dose

and to address fally "B" :

if your claim is true - then why is the abnormal pathology from this " toxin " not present and immeditatly identifiable at the injection site ?
edit on 5-4-2017 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

vaccination theory is identical for all species and all vaccine preventable desiesies - get over it

you are now just being utterly dishonest and moving the goal posts

i use the rinderpest example - simply because there is NO other explaination other than - the vaccine worked



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

no - you are anti knowledge and anti science - your reaction to the formaldehyde questions demonstrates this

formaldehyde in a vaccine dose = 2 % [ aprox ] of the levels of formaldehyde that are natural metabolites in the body

ergo = ZERO danger

further - no " newborn babies " recieve vaccine injections of any sort



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 04:51 AM
link   
screw this - i am done with this thread - i has better things to do than continue with idiots who are willfully anti science - EVERYTHING has been explained to them - but they just regurgitate more batcrap and move the goal posts



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

a reply to: Raggedyman

You two, parroting antivax sites, accuse me of not understanding the science and safety implications behind vaccines? LOL

There have been many studies comparing children who have been vaccinated and children who have not been. Of course nobody is ever going to test children by just giving them a placebo (saline solution mentioned), because that would be unethical: how cruel can you be to test children so??? Instead we can compare children who have been vaccinated against children whose parents decided not to immunise them.

A sad small study was done in Nigeria in 1990, where the university of Medical Sciences followed 50 babies until they reached the age of 5, to compare their health: 25 have been vaccinated and 25 have not. 3 out of the 25 unvaccinated died of preventable diseases (measles and tetanus). None of the vaccinated children died.
Vaccinated versus unvaccinated children: how they fare in first five years of life.

In Germany in 1990 they decided to follow 1314 babies from birth to the age of 20, specifically to find out early predictors for asthma and the incidence for the disease was a lot lower for those vaccinated (once again comparing vaccinated vs non vaccinated)
Early-life determinants of asthma from birth to age 20 years: A German birth cohort study

In the Philippines 2000 babies were followed until the age of 11 to compare physical and cognitive development of vaccinated and non vaccinated. Results: there was no effect on height and weight, but vaccinated children scored higher cognitively than those not vaccinated.
The effect of vaccination on children's physical and cognitive development in the Philippines

Regarding your OP you said:


Did you know that vaccine manufacturers run their own safety studies? That the government passes these drugs based on those studies?


Did you know that most vaccines fail the initial trials and are rejected immediately? Why should the governments/ taxpayers pay for those initial trials? Seeing as the companies will profit from sales, of course they are responsible to pay for the initial clinical trials, taking in consideration that phase 3 alone costs hundreds of millions.

But once they reach the post marketing phase they are monitored by countless number of agencies, all around the world: they are tested and monitored by universities, governments, other pharmaceutical companies, non profit organizations, etc etc etc. It's not as simple and easy as your antivax sites tell you. Let's say one team in one country has been paid to approve one test, how can they possibly subvert all teams and groups in hundreds of countries around the world? How can 'Big scary pharma' subvert companies that are their rivals? Companies who want to sell exactly the same product. We are talking about millions of people to bribe, a ridiculous amount for the small profit vaccines represent.


You also said:


That vaccine manufacturers are protected from legal action for any harm their supposedly ‘safe products’ do?


That's simply not true, but I await eagerly for your evidence to prove your point.




edit on 5-4-2017 by Agartha because: Spelling...

edit on 5-4-2017 by Agartha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I am sorry sweety, as much as you want this to be about formaldehyde
Its not just about formaldehyde

If we mix chemicals we can have a serious reaction.
Stop your myopic blah, its silly

Science ?, still waiting on the
Repeatable
Observable and
Testable evidence

I think you are hiding behind the word "science" because you have nothing else to offer but the word "SCIENCE"

How many times have I seen this argument
I know science
(I cant find any, cant relate any, cant do any)
But I know science and you dont
(hope I am not asked to show any science)
I am smart and you must believe what I say because I KNOW SCIENCE

Dumb argument, dumb argument picking on formaldehyde on its own to, silly

Sharpen up please


People of ATS - What did my last Post in this Thread say about this User? Did he not do exactly everything I stated he would do?



I'm not going to argue, debate or discuss with you - We provide proof, you scream empirical evidence, god, diamonds made in trees, 6000 years old, be arrogant, insult, then you will say that you can twist a definition to how you want it to fit - You will lie to try and look like you win then act arrogant and yell like a child.


-----------------------------------------------------------



Science ?, still waiting on the
Repeatable Observable and
Testable evidence


He wants this from Medical Science, which has been provided, however he wont provide exactly the words he has just stated that he wants from "science".

He does not care for discussion, it's his words and his words only, you cannot provide debate or discussion of any aspect with this person; He will lie and twist his own words to suit whatever agenda he wants, formaldehyde was a key part of his agenda, we provided evidence and ground against it, he fought the entire way and insulted us, arrogant, treated us like children and called us vegetables - Now he has stated after many pages that Formaldehyde is not important while yelling "science science science" and being an arrogant insulting jerk.

It's a one way street and there is only his side and no one else, I do not understand why he is on a Discussion forum when he only wants talk about his side and nothing else.

He will drop into any thread that has a fossil in it millions of years old and start yelling about Creation Theory and that Carbon dating and Radioactive dating is wrong and false and that all science and everyone but his book is wrong.

There is no discussion and everyone of his posts are insults to any member that dares says something against his agenda, even when we provide what he requests.

Sidenote: This is a template I typed up a while back (slight adjustment), I write certain ones up for difficult members that are easy to predict when they go down a path like this - He and others are so easy to predict because they only have 1 face and yell about the same thing and do the exact same actions in every post.


edit on 5-4-2017 by MuonToGluon because: Added Content



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: tanstaafl

a reply to: Raggedyman


A sad small study was done in Nigeria in 1990, where the university of Medical Sciences followed 50 babies until they reached the age of 5, to compare their health: 25 have been vaccinated and 25 have not. 3 out of the 25 unvaccinated died of preventable diseases (measles and tetanus). None of the vaccinated children died.
Vaccinated versus unvaccinated children: how they fare in first five years of life.

However the study was done in a population that was malnourished and living with poor hygeine- just like the West in the early 19th Century- so it is not a reasonable thing to compare it with any local example.

Additionally, if such a small study was produced by anybody proposing a reduced number of vaccines or positing effect for any natural treatment - the authors would be laughed out of town. So if you are ok with advancing a study like this, please be consistent and support the appropriateness of others advancing such small studies.

Re the rest of the studies I will look at them later.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Barliman

Of course it was a small sample test and a long time ago too, and I'm really glad nobody's done this kind of study again, as it is really unethical.

Regarding your points,however, it does not matter whether the area was poor and people were living with poor hygiene, the results won't change: the vaccinated children all survived their first five years of life, whilst 3 unvaccinated died (of preventable diseases).

My other studies are just to show that the poster I was replying too is wrong, that there have been many studies done comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children. That was the point of the 3 studies I posted.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Wouldn't it be interesting if just once, one of the anti-vaxxers on here could produce a robust study showing that current vaccines are actually harmful rather than denying the hundreds of studies showing otherwise purely based upon their own ignorance of the science behind them?

Then we might actually be on the same playing field and I'd start taking notice.

Until then however...



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?


edit on 6-4-2017 by ttobban because: ...

edit on 6-4-2017 by ttobban because: ...




top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join