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: 7
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: GetHyped

I don't know why it's so unreasonable to suggest even a minute dose of anything toxic --



Because toxicity is directly related to dosage. If you state something is toxic but can't state at what dose, you don't have an argument.

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: GetHyped

I don't know why it's so unreasonable to suggest even a minute dose of anything toxic --



Because toxicity is directly related to dosage. If you state something is toxic but can't state at what dose, you don't have an argument.

en.wikipedia.org...


Oh, BuIIsh*t.

Some people can take Lamasil for toenail fungus or Viagra for ED, BUT others can't take those medications because they have elevated liver enzymes and the medication could be toxic for them.

Same with any medication that contains a toxic substance. If people/children/babies were tested for accumulated levels of aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde...BEFORE a vaccine was administered...doctors might find that it is not safe to give them the vaccine.

There is no one-size-fits-all dose of anything toxic that is safe for everyone.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

so the entire field of toxicology is "Bullsh*t"?

Ok. I guess it's useful to know what level of willful ignorance i'm dealing with so i can avoid wasting my time engaging any further.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MotherMayEye

so the entire field of toxicology is "Bullsh*t"?

Ok. I guess it's useful to know what level of willful ignorance i'm dealing with so i can avoid wasting my time engaging any further.


This is probably the most pathetic attempt to use a strawman fallacy that I have ever personally encountered on ATS.


ETA: Seriously embarrassed for you!

edit on 8/6/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Raggedyman

You sure like throwing your uninformed opinions around as fact but you can't answer basic questions on the science? Interesting.

Here's the questions again in case you missed them the 4th time:


1 what is the NATURALLY occuring level of formaldehyde in the body of a human ? [ pick a body mass ]

2 - what is the mass of formaldehyde in a vaccine dose typically given to a patient [ of the body mass you chose for Q1 ]

3 - explain why you still think formaldehyde in vaccines = unsafe


Perhaps you could show us the controlled studies which involved the after-effects on newborn brains of having at least a dozen foreign substances injected into their systems on the first day of life?
I don't know anyone who says all vaccines are bad. But I do know a number of medical professionals who are taken aback when they learn what is actually contained within those shots and how early in life those chemicals are now being injected into the bloodstream.
How many controlled studies of flu vaccines have been done on pregnant women?
Bring them on please---show us the studies and how wonderfully well they turned out. Only BigPharma shills still believe what the CDC and DEA put out where the safety of medicines is concerned. Your post demonstrates that you have the talking points down pat. They are easily recognizable.
edit on 6-8-2017 by diggindirt because: addition



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Nice distraction, but it doesn't take away from the fact that none of the people touting the so-called dangers of formaldehyde in vaccines can answer the questions.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: diggindirt

Nice distraction, but it doesn't take away from the fact that none of the people touting the so-called dangers of formaldehyde in vaccines can answer the questions.



Nice deflection but if those studies exist you should be able to post us several links to show that they have been done and prove that vaccinating pregnant women for flu doesn't cause miscarriages or birth defects in unborn children. You should also be able to post studies showing that children vaccinated within hours of birth have no negative side effects from the vaccinations.

But the truth is that there are no such studies done on real people with their varied human chemistry. There are only computer models and the best the folks defending this barbaric practice can do is to say, "We don't believe any harm is done." See, there's a big difference between "believe" and having actual data from actual subjects from studies done using the scientific method rather than money-driven principles.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 10:28 PM
link   
An ebook available for download written in 1920

"VACCINATION THE MOST DANGEROUS AND REPULSIVE SYSTEM OF MEDICATION EVER DEVISED"

"Indeed, this modern vaccine system of medicine is so violent and dangerous that it has been frequently known to kill in from ten to fifteen minutes, after injection of the serum, by what is known as "serum sickness/' which is a kind of rapid blood and nerve poisoning affecting vital nerve centers, to which some persons are very susceptible.1 This is, of course, a more violent, rapid and fatal action than occurs in the most virulent and deadly natural diseases and is comparable only to a stroke of lightning or shock of electricity or to the violent action of the most virulent chemical, mineral, animal, or vegetable poisons known in toxicology. In other fatal cases, where the poisoning action is slower, death finally occurs from lockjaw, paralysis, meningitis, or pneumonia, which are frequent results of vacci­nation. And these fatal results of vaccination are commonly denied and concealed in death certificates by recording the terminal disease of lockjaw, paralysis, meningitis, or pneumonia only as the sole and original cause of death without any record of the inflicted disease—vaccination—as the primary or con­tributory cause of the death. This evil practice is, of course, a gross falsification of our vital statistics, and is now a frequent offense by some of our vaccinating doctors, as I can legally prove by documentary evidence when required."

1 See U. S. Hygienic Laboratory Bulletin 91, Dec, 1913. Also "Preventive Medicine," by Dr. Rosenau, 1914, page 410.

vactruth.com...



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 10:40 PM
link   
"Vaccines are safe"

Really?

"Not all doses of IPV were contaminated. It has been estimated that 10–30 million people actually received a vaccine that contained SV40."

"Some evidence suggests that receipt of SV40-contaminated polio vaccine may increase risk of cancer. However, the majority of studies done in the U.S. and Europe which compare persons who received SV40-contaminated polio vaccine with those who did not have shown no causal relationship between receipt of SV40-contaminated polio vaccine and cancer."

web.archive.org...://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/updates/archive/polio_and_cancer_factsheet.htm

we are sorry but we were unaware, too bad for you if you develop cancer later on in your life...



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Conan The Usurper

That's what the compensation fund is set up for incidents like that.

Funny that, that they even have a fund for instances when a vaccine causes harm to an individual....

It's almost like that they know that in a subset of people that a vaccine can cause problems, and they never claim they're 100% safe...

WEIRD.

Tip: For the sarcasm impaired folks (and the anti-vaccination child murderers) - There is sarcasm loaded in this post.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 01:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Raggedyman

At what does is it toxic?


What, really, isnt that the whole argument
Isnt that the whole issue at stake here

There are many other toxins, not just formaldehyde



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Raggedyman

At what does is it toxic?


What, really, isnt that the whole argument
Isnt that the whole issue at stake here

There are many other toxins, not just formaldehyde


You're wrong as usual.
A substance is only a toxin at a specific dose.
Below that dose it isn't toxic.

So, show me the "toxins" in vaccines that are toxic at their respective doses in said vaccines and indeed exactly what that toxic dose is.
There's a start.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: GetHyped

I don't know why it's so unreasonable to suggest even a minute dose of anything toxic --



Because toxicity is directly related to dosage. If you state something is toxic but can't state at what dose, you don't have an argument.

en.wikipedia.org...


But thats a stupid thing to say

I am immune to prawns and peanuts as well as bees
Other people including one of my children are not immune, in fact those can be lethat

We were not all created equal

Intelligence either evidently

Physical symptoms of allergic reaction can include itchiness, urticaria, swelling, eczema, sneezing, asthma, abdominal pain, drop in blood pressure, diarrhea, and cardiac arrest. Anaphylaxis may occur. ... In Western cultures, peanut allergy is the most common cause of food-related anaphylaxis death.en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Conan The Usurper
An ebook available for download written in 1920

"VACCINATION THE MOST DANGEROUS AND REPULSIVE SYSTEM OF MEDICATION EVER DEVISED"

"Indeed, this modern vaccine system of medicine is so violent and dangerous that it has been frequently known to kill in from ten to fifteen minutes, after injection of the serum, by what is known as "serum sickness/' which is a kind of rapid blood and nerve poisoning affecting vital nerve centers, to which some persons are very susceptible.1 This is, of course, a more violent, rapid and fatal action than occurs in the most virulent and deadly natural diseases and is comparable only to a stroke of lightning or shock of electricity or to the violent action of the most virulent chemical, mineral, animal, or vegetable poisons known in toxicology. In other fatal cases, where the poisoning action is slower, death finally occurs from lockjaw, paralysis, meningitis, or pneumonia, which are frequent results of vacci­nation. And these fatal results of vaccination are commonly denied and concealed in death certificates by recording the terminal disease of lockjaw, paralysis, meningitis, or pneumonia only as the sole and original cause of death without any record of the inflicted disease—vaccination—as the primary or con­tributory cause of the death. This evil practice is, of course, a gross falsification of our vital statistics, and is now a frequent offense by some of our vaccinating doctors, as I can legally prove by documentary evidence when required."

1 See U. S. Hygienic Laboratory Bulletin 91, Dec, 1913. Also "Preventive Medicine," by Dr. Rosenau, 1914, page 410.

vactruth.com...


Any chance you can post scientific articles proving your stance rather than dodgy YouTube links and ebooks from over a hundred years ago?
Don't get me wrong, no-one will take you seriously because of the nonsense you've already posted as "fact" but at least there'll be some damage limitation for you.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: GetHyped

I would imagine that is only determinable on a person-to-person basis. Some people have more accumulated formaldehyde in their systems than other people. So, a smaller dose might be toxic for some, while a larger dose may not be toxic to others.

I don't know why it's so unreasonable to suggest even a minute dose of anything toxic -- which can accumulate in a system -- might prove toxic for people that already have high accumulations of the toxic substance.

Actually, I know it's not unreasonable. What's unreasonable is the idea that every person must have the same opinion that vaccines are to be assumed completely safe for every single person and if you disagree or have serious apprehensions, you need to be called names and bullied to get in line.

My kids are vaccinated. If other parents don't want to vaccinate, I am just not that worried about it. If my kids were not candidates for vaccinations, I would protect them from others that could spread diseases -- even if vaccinations were mandatory, across the board. There aren't vaccines for everything...every flu virus, etc...

I feel as strongly about defending the freedom to choose not to vaccinate, as I do about my personal decision to vaccinate myself and my kids.



You don't accumulate formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde does not bio-accumulate.
It is metabolised immediately if ingested or injected (especially in the microscopic amounts in vaccines.


You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with bio-accumulation for some reason (my best guess is because you don't understand it).



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Raggedyman

At what does is it toxic?


What, really, isnt that the whole argument
Isnt that the whole issue at stake here

There are many other toxins, not just formaldehyde


You're wrong as usual.
A substance is only a toxin at a specific dose.
Below that dose it isn't toxic.

So, show me the "toxins" in vaccines that are toxic at their respective doses in said vaccines and indeed exactly what that toxic dose is.
There's a start.


Toxins, hmmm
You must be very naive

I know a bloke who can drink twice as much alcohol as me and not be nearly as affected by the alcohol, big fella, drinks all the time

But hey, you know everything and we are all dummys

Thats the finish



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

No one is immune to shellfish or bee stings.

Even a person who does not have an allergic reaction to them half their life can develop an allergy towards it

I can point out the stupid, however it is not that person's post and illiteracy in knowledge.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

Thats so funny because you think that for real.
You really think like that, thats so funny



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: GetHyped

I don't know why it's so unreasonable to suggest even a minute dose of anything toxic --



Because toxicity is directly related to dosage. If you state something is toxic but can't state at what dose, you don't have an argument.

en.wikipedia.org...


But thats a stupid thing to say

I am immune to prawns and peanuts as well as bees
Other people including one of my children are not immune, in fact those can be lethat

We were not all created equal

Intelligence either evidently

Physical symptoms of allergic reaction can include itchiness, urticaria, swelling, eczema, sneezing, asthma, abdominal pain, drop in blood pressure, diarrhea, and cardiac arrest. Anaphylaxis may occur. ... In Western cultures, peanut allergy is the most common cause of food-related anaphylaxis death.en.wikipedia.org...


You're not immune to prawns and peanuts.
You're not allergic to them though.
Immunity has no relationship to being allergic to something.
Compare apples with apples else you'll look very foolish.

Eat 100g of salt in a day then tell me toxicity isn't dose-related (don't eat 100g of salt, you'll die).

edit on 7/8/17 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

So you know alcoholics (that doesn't surprise me), what is your point.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join