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: 9
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?


Short of Merck, Glaxo smith kline, Bayers and companies saying to the world our vaccines industry is a fraud, nothing will convince you of the danger. Why? because to pro-vaxxers, vaccines is a religion. Arguing religious beliefs is completely and utterly pointless.

Not even a mom crying in front of you cos she lost her baby to vaccines would have an effect i dread.




posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
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.


LOL medical professionals who don't know about vaccine ingredients? I'd like to know what kind of medical professionals you are talking about, that they are shocked about how immunization works.




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 can post studies that have been done on the safety of multiple vaccinations in infants and children's immune system, but you are referring specifically to the brain and foreign substances. By this I guess you mean adjuvants? If you do then we can immediately discard formaldehyde and aluminum, as babies ingest them from day one (and produce) and they are not foreign. Which substances are you referring to then?



How many controlled studies of flu vaccines have been done on pregnant women?


How many? Hundreds, too many to quote, but let me post a few:

Effectiveness of maternal influenza immunization in mothers and infants.

Effect of influenza vaccination in the first trimester of pregnancy.

Maternal influenza vaccination and effect on influenza virus infection in young infants.

I can post more if you want.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha
The majority of medical professionals today know only what they are told by the salespersons.

Your studies all took only the healthiest women. They cherry-picked the participants. Do health care professionals do such extensive tests before jabbing the flu vaccine into people? No.

Do you know about the studies they didn't finish? Due to the way the numbers were turning up? No. They make sure those studies get buried very deep. That's why those participating must sign non-disclosure agreements.

The FDA, DEA and CDC have revolving doors that lead back and forth between BigPharma and government. That should tell you something if you are looking at the situation with eyes open. BIgPharma buys more mass advertising than any other single group. BigPharma puts literally millions of dollars a year into politicians' coffers. Their profits rise as more and more people suffer unintended (?) consequences of their products.

I'm old enough to remember cigarettes being endorsed by doctors so I don't worship at the altar of the white-coated demi-gods anymore. I was part of that madness at one point in my life...and left the profession because I could see that the pharmaceuticals were doing more harm than good in many, many cases. When people must take three extra pills to counteract the side effects of one pill, something is seriously amiss. But if people want to put their faith in these "professionals" who are "educated" by people with degrees in public relations, not science, that's okay with me. It's fine until these "professionals" begin trying to force their concoctions on innocent children.


NOTE: These studies are done on the poorest of the poor as is illustrated by where the studies are conducted---places where mothers and infants normally have minimal or no prenatal/postnatal health care. Then only the healthiest of the participants are chosen as test subjects, creating a giant bias in methodology. I believe some of the NWO Agenda whatever papers call this "Culling the herd."



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Agartha
The majority of medical professionals today know only what they are told by the salespersons.




Have you ever worked in healthcare?
Didn't think so.
Because if you think any doctor just takes the word of a salesman then you are far, far out of touch with reality.
As for the smoking bit, the vast majority of doctors in the 50's and 60's knew smoking was bad and actively saught to get their patients to quit. The doctors you talk about were on billboards and ads, they weren't in clinical environments.
It's funny how time dulls memories, especially when, like yours, they're selective.

As for the studies you've so roundly dismissed, two of the studies were done at the Johns Hopkins and don't mention inclusion criteria so you've plucked that they used "poor people" and chose "only the healthiest" completely out of thin air. Some might say you're fabricating a non-existent reason.

Can you tell me this, of this is a way of "culling the herd" why is Earth's population continually rising? As vaccination has been around for a couple of hundred years it's not really been very successful, if I were part of the NWO I think I'd be looking at a different method of "culling the herd", possibly by starting an anti-vax movement so people succumb to easily preventable diseases.



posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

You might want to read the actual studies you linked. The methodology is there.

You also might want to read my reply before answering. Yes. I was part of the health care system---back when it was a profession rather than an industry. I spent 15 years there before deciding that it was heading in a direction I couldn't go. I left that profession.

It isn't me who is out of touch with reality. Docs have only so many hours in a day. They listen to BigPharma reps pitch their product then they begin handing out samples. If you think for a minute that a doc does extensive pharmacological research on every new drug, you have a lot to learn. Especially in today's industry docs are pressured to see one patient every 15 minutes of the day. That doesn't leave a lot of time for research. That is why we are seeing a lot of docs retiring and turning to other fields.

You really don't know what "culling the herd" means do you? It doesn't mean killing the herd, it means getting rid of the weakest members. Think about that. It is there in the documents if you take the time to read them. Perhaps a bit of education on your part would serve you better than the blind faith you seem to have in an industry that was once a profession that sought first to "do no harm."



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt

Your studies all took only the healthiest women. They cherry-picked the participants.


??? How on Earth did you come to this conclusion???

The first study is prospective, controlled, blinded and randomized.
The second study is retrospective cohort.
The third non-randomized, prospective, observational cohort.

Where do you see the cherry picking of healthy women? Please copy and paste where you see that written on those studies I posted so we can see it too.



Do you know about the studies they didn't finish? Due to the way the numbers were turning up? No. They make sure those studies get buried very deep.


Not true, many well known antivaxx have done studies to blame vaccines for practically everything, without results. It's not that the studies are not finished or buried, it's that they cannot find evidence that could go against immunization.


The FDA, DEA and CDC have revolving doors that lead back and forth between BigPharma and government. That should tell you something if you are looking at the situation with eyes open. BIgPharma buys more mass advertising than any other single group. BigPharma puts literally millions of dollars a year into politicians' coffers. Their profits rise as more and more people suffer unintended (?) consequences of their products.


This Big Pharma conspiracy doesn't make sense in countries with socialized health care, Big Pharma may work in the US where people are charged horrendous prices for mediocre care. But it's not Big Pharma, it's the government of the United States you should be blaming: Americans are charged a lot more for drugs than people in the UK, because if it gets too expensive it would be outside strict budgets the NHS works with (for example).



I'm old enough to remember cigarettes being endorsed by doctors


In Europe several studies in the 1940s showed a link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer and by 1950 doctors started recommending people quit smoking (I can look for those old studies if you want). Many countries banned cigarettes adverts on television in the '60s. Once again, what you talk about happened in the US, although I agree with Pardon? and I refuse to believe real American doctors promoted smoking.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

Up until around the 40s-50s Doctors did promote smoking, I can't exactly say how many, but you have to take in mind that they were also prescribing heavy amounts of tranquilizers, Sedatives, Heroin, Cocaine, Barbiturates, Methamphetamine, Amphetamines, "Diet Pills" pretty much everything at that time.

For a Doctor to promote smoking cigarettes to help you relax? It is pretty easy to see, especially GPs.

It's not a hush hush thing either, just type "Doctors promoting smoking" into Google and you will see.

Doctors promoting Smoking - Google

I'm not here defending.

After that time? I could not tell you, all I could tell you was to get a new Doc if he's telling you that.
edit on 10-8-2017 by MuonToGluon because: Added + Fixed



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: Agartha

Up until around the 40s-50s Doctors did promote smoking, I can't exactly say how many, but you have to take in mind that they were also prescribing heavy amounts of tranquilizers, Sedatives, Heroin, Cocaine, Barbiturates, Methamphetamine, Amphetamines, "Diet Pills" pretty much everything at that time.


Those adverts were all in the US, and most were actors dressed as doctors.

Doctors started noting a link between the rise in lung cancer and increased cigarette consumption and in 1930 they started investigating this relationship with studies: Müller FH. Tabakmissbrauch und Lungencarcinom. Zeitschrift für Krebsforschung 1939;49:57–85.

But like you said, medicine has advanced a lot and things that were recommended by doctors fifty or one hundred years ago, are (luckily) not anymore.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

Very correct.

I was just mentioning that they did at one point, even if the doctors knew the links then, some would of still done it.

Think of the Opioid epidemic now, and the cause.

I remember my GP telling me around 2008 or so about Nitrazapam "You can stay on this for life with zero bad effects"...that was not the case, especially when you need to stop using them...then he got done for over prescribing them.

Point is, even if they know, they would still do it.

Lucky things are slowly changing now, just not fast enough.
edit on 10-8-2017 by MuonToGluon because: Fixed



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: diggindirt

Your studies all took only the healthiest women. They cherry-picked the participants.


??? How on Earth did you come to this conclusion???


I'll give you a clue: It begins with 'T' and rhymes with "Fley didn't read/understand the study and are making crap up out of whole cloth in the belief/hope that no one else reads/understands the study".



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I am under the impression that public schools and other organizations, such as the hospital I work at for instance, force people to take vaccinations.

Sometimes the real world sucks.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Fowlerstoad

Vaccinations being required to work/attend an organization/school is not the same as forcing people to be vaccinated.



posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

From the posted link to the study:


Exclusion criteria for mothers were a history of systemic disease, previous complicated pregnancy or preterm delivery, spontaneous or medical abortion, congenital anomaly, and hypersensitivity to or receipt of a study vaccine in the previous 3 years. After providing written informed consent, pregnant women were randomly assigned to one of four groups for the primary study, with women in groups 1 and 2 receiving pneumococcal vaccine and those in groups 3 and 4 receiving influenza vaccine. For our analysis of the effect of maternal influenza immunization, the mothers and their infants were analyzed in two groups: those who received influenza vaccine and the control group (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at www.nejm.org).


They were screened for health. Did you not read the study?
There was no control group. Did you not read the study?
This is standard for BigPharma. They call them scientific studies but they are not done using the scientific method, only something that might be written up to look like the scientific method. They are paid by BigPharma. What don't you understand about unbiased, controlled scientific studies?

You can "refuse to believe" all you wish. It doesn't change facts.

I was in this community for many years. I know their methods. Their methods are geared toward making money for their MoneyMasters. But I'm sure you fully accepted all BigTobacco's studies showing that their product couldn't possibly be causing anyone harm??? Jiminy Jesus---it's the same thing.

You are perfectly free to get your children all the vaccines you feel they need. Nobody is trying to stop you. You are not perfectly free to force others who are of a different opinion to induce chemicals into the bloodstream of their offspring.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
They were screened for health. Did you not read the study?


Well, yes, I did read the study and let me explain: inclusion and exclusion criteria is not cherry picking people as you said. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are essential to find suitable candidates, to make sure the sample used is as similar as possible.

In this study they excluded women with systemic diseases, for example, such as HIV, AIDS, lupus etc as they would obviously not react to the vaccine in the same way as those without such disorders. To get honest and replicable results the authors had to pick women who were similar in health, and if you really think that's cherry picking then you really don't understand how clinical trials work.



There was no control group. Did you not read the study?


They did have a control group, and the control group had pneumococcal vaccines:


After providing written informed consent, pregnant women were randomly assigned to one of four groups for the primary study, with women in groups 1 and 2 receiving pneumococcal vaccine and those in groups 3 and 4 receiving influenza vaccine. For our analysis of the effect of maternal influenza immunization, the mothers and their infants were analyzed in two groups: those who received influenza vaccine and the control group


I think it's you who didn't read the study properly.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

It has the same effect, though you always have the choice to quit your job at the hospital, the 'State' will not allow you to go without schooling if you are a young child, and not all parents can homeschool.

So yeah, you could 'choose' not to get vaccinated technically. But what kind of choice is that?



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Fowlerstoad

You're still not forced. You still have the freedom of choice, but not the freedom to recklessly endanger others.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Fowlerstoad

You're still not forced. You still have the freedom of choice, but not the freedom to recklessly endanger others.


We used to allow children who weren't vaccinated for polio, measles, chicken pox, etc. to go to school, despite the risk.

Back when there were no vaccines for polio, measles, chicken pox, etc..., children were still allowed to go to school. We didn't 'not educate' children because they could spread dangerous/communicable diseases.

The fact is, there are some people who insist that every parent makes the same choice when it comes to vaccinations or their children should be deprived of the same access to education. It's hysteria that is NOT unlike what you find in the anti-vax world.

I had kids fully understanding there were parents that refused to vaccinate their kids AND that my vaccinated kids might be exposed to them. That's WHY I vaccinate my kids. I accepted that risk when I decided to put my vaccinated kids in public school (my kids are aged 26, 11, & 4, btw).

Depriving healthy children of an education because you are afraid they will get sick is pathetic.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Fowlerstoad

You're still not forced. You still have the freedom of choice, but not the freedom to recklessly endanger others.


We used to allow children who weren't vaccinated for polio, measles, chicken pox, etc. to go to school, despite the risk.


Yeah, and tens of thousands of kids a year in the US alone were crippled or killed by those diseases.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Fowlerstoad

You're still not forced. You still have the freedom of choice, but not the freedom to recklessly endanger others.


We used to allow children who weren't vaccinated for polio, measles, chicken pox, etc. to go to school, despite the risk.


Yeah, and tens of thousands of kids a year in the US alone were crippled or killed by those diseases.



And the children who survived polio went on to be educated (FDR had polio and became president), all the children who didn't even get polio went on to be educated, too, and they raised their children to be educated and value education, etc.

But, here you are arguing that some children should be left without access to education because they *could* catch the measles and pass it on to a child who has been vaccinated for measles or an immuno-compromised child.

Fearmongering.

ETA:

"LET'S NOT EDUCATE SOME KIDS WHO AREN'T VACCINATED AND THAT WILL ENSURE THEY TAKE A MORE EDUCATED APPROACH WITH THEIR HEALTH AND THEIR CHILDREN'S HEALTH!!!!"

Withholding an education is a horrible, cruel and unusual punishment that no child deserves.
edit on 8/11/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

And what about the children who were permanently crippled or even died from Polio? What about them? The ones that spent their last days in an iron lung (if they were lucky), for example?

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for parents who endanger the children of others due to their own willful ignorance/stupidity. Don't like it? Go find a private school or home school your children.
edit on 11-8-2017 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join