Nationwide Revolt Against Dangerous Vaccines Accelerates, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 18 times

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 01:06 PM by antar

My little 10 year old step daughter who has serious health problems was told by her Cardiologist to come to him for shots and vaccines because he wanted to be assured the mix was pure and not tainted... Period.

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 01:28 PM by morbidtracie

reply to post by MajorMalfunction

My own theory on this is that it can be body chemistry.
Everyone is different therefore, not every child is affected by autisim.

Another theory is that not all vaccinations have the mercury in them.
Some kids are being used as test subjects.

But, I do agree that more research as to what exactly goes into the vaccines should be researched.

Are there any alternatives to vaccinating?

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 01:32 PM by apc

Not much I can add except...

If there's anything wrong with Jenny McCarthy's kid, it's probably because of Jenny McCarthy. That skank has put more drugs and other... objects... into her body than I can or would like to count. She should be glad she didn't have some sort of mutant lobster child.

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 03:14 PM by RogerT

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
BTW, what medical degree does Jenny McCarthy have? Because I'm not about to take the panic reaction of a blonde with big knockers as proof of anything except that she's looking for a scapegoat for what happened to her kid. The argument from authority does not prove thimerosol causes autism any more than saying Einstein used the word god proves there is a creator.

There's more info and REAL research in this thread.

The idea that vaccines are dangerous is a very bitter pill for parents to swallow.

For those that already vaccinated their kids, there's the almost unbearable thought to confront that they've harmed their child's health for life. That makes it VERY difficult to look objectively at the evidence.

For those considering what to do, there's the ever present fear, mostly propogated by the medical establishment, of 'killer' diseases that we are led to believe will pounce on our child if we don't give them the jabs.

Then there's the standard rhetoric of "I got jabs and I'm ok", which is kinda dumb, and not too dissimilar from "My grannie smoked 40 a day all her life and lived till she was 97" as proof that smoking is harmless.

The other common cheer for vaccination is to cite all the nasty diseases that have all but vanished from the earth since vaccination started. Trouble with that one is that without exception these diseases were already on the decline before the vaccines, and sometimes the introduction of the vaccine coincides with a resurgence of the disease. (this is from my research, but I stand to be corrected)

Personally, I wouldn't vaccinate my children if you paid me, and I've fought with doctors over it, who after all, have their quota to fill or they don't get their full bonus (UK GP's).

My eldest is 10, never had a jab, nor a single pharmaceutical, hardly ever gets sick, and then usually for only a day whilst the rest of the class are out for a week. My youngest is 6 months.

Whilst I was vaccinated with all the fashionable shots as a child, when parenthood loomed I decided to get an education on vaccines. I was also 10 years into personal research on natural health, so admittedly, my bias was already in place.

Pre internet (at least for me), this came in the form of a little book called the immunisation bible - not religious.

This book or booklet, contained countless hundreds of references to scientific literature, mostly from Nature and Science publications. The abundance of evidence put forward was compelling and the argument 3-fold and simple enough:

1. Vaccination is unnecessary
2. Vaccination does not work
3. Vaccination is dangerous (to the immune system) and potentially lethal.

One of the most interesting studies for me suggested that the group that most refused vaccinations for themselves and their children were the medical doctors.

I'm sorry, I nolonger have the book, so cannot quote references or post links, but I sure read it cover to cover multiple times, including some of the research papers.

Even though the theory of vaccination is very seductive, introducing disease intravenously, even weakened or dead, into a healthy body just doesn't make natural sense. The immune system is designed to react to the normal and natural spread of disease, most commonly via the respiratory system. The process is quite different from injecting a pathogen, let alone a pathogen mixed with a bunch of other noxious and/or toxic substances.

[edit on 18-10-2007 by RogerT]

[edit on 18-10-2007 by RogerT]

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 03:19 PM by RogerT

reply to post by Unit541

man you nailed it, and so eloquently, with compassion too! Star for you

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 03:21 PM by Files

I used to get the Flu shot almost every year since I was a kid. I stopped getting them last year back with found out it contained 90% mercury.

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 03:30 PM by RogerT

Originally posted by niteboy82
I was vaccinated, and I don't have autism. Almost everyone I know from childhood was vaccinated. Still no autism.

I do believe that if parents make this decision, they should be prepared for their children without vaccines to be closely watched, because if they come down with some disease, they are going to be subjecting a lot more people to it as well.

That would be like walking around with Hepatitis and infecting everyone you encountered, knowingly so. It is just wrong.

These vaccines containing thimerosol could be updated. It could be phased out. No doubt, there is no reason that comes to mind (other than the almighty dollar) not to. For the time being however, I severely question the logic in knowingly exposing a child to proven dangers, to prevent potential dangers. What point is there of not giving your child a vaccine to prevent one condition if a whole plethora of other diseases is possibly going to take its place?

Sorry, but you are making assumptions here and posting it as truth, as well as using the 'my grannie smoked 40 a day' argument.

Your argument falls apart if you are willing to consider that vaccination is not effective.

If that is the case, and I believe it is, then the absolute opposite to your statement about exposing dangers holds true, in both paragraphs.

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 03:43 PM by RogerT

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction

I have a perfect right.

People in the modern world don't see this stuff anymore exactly BECAUSE we have vaccinations.

If you can prove that, I'll give you a thousand dollars. If you can't, then your certainty becomes merely assumption - first 3 letters being the key.

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 03:47 PM by MajorMalfunction

I would dearly love to see this "proof" that deadly diseases were on the decline before vaccines.

This table shows the truth: HALF A MILLION children dead of measles per year. 152,000 dead of mumps.

People who are against vaccinating their children are only protected from their kids' dying because parents who are responsible get their kids vaccinated.

Weak arguments trying to compare vaccines with smoker's cancer notwithstanding.

[edit on 18-10-2007 by MajorMalfunction]

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 03:50 PM by MajorMalfunction

By the way RT, nice shift to ad hom attack when you can't show the proof of your evidence.

Can we stick to facts, or do you have more names you'd like to call me?

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 03:56 PM by RogerT

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
I would dearly love to see this "proof" that deadly diseases were on the decline before vaccines.

This table shows the truth: HALF A MILLION children dead of measles per year. 152,000 dead of mumps.

People who are against vaccinating their children are only protected from their kids' dying because parents who are responsible get their kids vaccinated.

Weak arguments trying to compare vaccines with smoker's cancer notwithstanding.

[edit on 18-10-2007 by MajorMalfunction]

The table shows nothing of the sort, sorry. To understand the picture you need to see the patterns emerging with the diseases over time, before and after, not just 'then and now'.

"(some undefined time) before the world cup final of 1966 when England beat Germany - annual bubonic plague deaths: 25 million. 2005 annual bubonic plague deaths: zero" --- proves NOTHING.

I'll try to dig out some graphs for you. I witnessed them in presentation by a researcher who's spent a large portion of their adult life on this subject. It was a while ago, but maybe I can find the details - bear with me.

[edit on 18-10-2007 by RogerT]

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 04:02 PM by RogerT

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
By the way RT, nice shift to ad hom attack when you can't show the proof of your evidence.

Can we stick to facts, or do you have more names you'd like to call me?

Sorry, no attack on you personally intended, my beef is with the assumption.

It peaves me when people state assumptions as fact, especially when using their assumptions to ram an opinion down the throats of those that may disagree.

Prove your fact is true and I'll give you a thousand bucks, otherwise, get off your high horse.

[edit on 18-10-2007 by RogerT]

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 04:18 PM by RogerT

reply to post by MajorMalfunction

OK, a quick search revealed a few charts. Not from the same source, but I suppose that means the message is getting across

Never linked images before, so apologies if this doesn't work.

Here's one for measles in the US from the CDC, vaccine introduced in 1963:

compare that with your chart that reveals 'the truth' stating 503,282 annual deaths (estimated)

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 04:20 PM by RogerT

whooping cough England and Wales:

polio:

[edit on 18-10-2007 by RogerT]

[edit on 18-10-2007 by RogerT]

[edit on 18-10-2007 by RogerT]

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 04:31 PM by RogerT

Here's some typical statistical evidence suggesting the possibility that vaccinations may actually promote the diseases they are supposed to eradicate:

Whooping cough in the U.S. has been rising for the first time ever in recorded history since 1978 (or just after that to be precise), and consistently ever since. The 1996 level was the highest since 1967 (CDC MMWR Oct 31 ‘97). So what happened in1978? This was the year that the U.S. mandated w.c. vaccination for school entry. So much for the so-called "herd immunity" idea. In fact researchers worked out from hospital admissions that by 1985-1988 the rate had ALREADY reached what were in fact pre-vaccine levels (JAMA 1992), and the sustained increase has continued since, so, with a mandatory 5-dose course of DPT vaccination, the whooping cough rate now is FAR higher than before the vaccine was even introduced.

www.vaccination.inoz.com...

Anyone UK based wondering if they can opt out, here's some interesting info: (link at end)

Q Are any vaccines compulsory in the UK?

No, however most parents who question them are often met with disapproval from their GPs and health visitors. Concerned parents should take as long as THEY need to make an informed decision. Most vaccines can be given at much greater ages, if this is the parent's wish, so there is no need to decide by the times indicated on the immunisation programme.

www.informedparent.co.uk...

[edit on 18-10-2007 by RogerT]

[edit on 18-10-2007 by RogerT]

How to Quote

[edit on 10-19-2007 by worldwatcher]

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 04:51 PM by RogerT

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
I would dearly love to see this "proof" that deadly diseases were on the decline before vaccines.

Is that enough, or would you like more?

If you can disprove the validity of this data, or throw uncertainty on it, please let me know and I'll gladly rethink my own assumptions.

If not, then I'd appreciate you ceasing your rhetoric and inferences that loving and caring parents who'd rather not have their children injected with questionable material of questionable efficacy are somehow irresponsible.

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 05:06 PM by RogerT

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist

Are you saying the vaccinations don't work? .......

....

If it doesn't work, then, you are putting mercury in your child's veins for nothing.

Probably the most quoted case demonstrating the outright failure of a vaccine is the Corpus Christi outbreak of measles in 1985 where 99% were vaccinated.

(I read in one report that the 1% that weren't vaccinated were amongst the 60 or so kids that didn't get the measles, but that information is not common amongst other reports.)

An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced. Serum samples from 1806 students at two secondary schools were obtained eight days after the onset of the first case. Only 4.1 percent of these students (74 of 1806) lacked detectable antibody to measles according to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and more than 99 percent had records of vaccination with live measles vaccine. Stratified analysis showed that the number of doses of vaccine received was the most important predictor of antibody response. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals of seronegative rates were 0 to 3.3 percent for students who had received two prior doses of vaccine, as compared with 3.6 to 6.8 percent for students who had received only a single dose. After the survey, none of the 1732 seropositive students contracted measles. Fourteen of 74 seronegative students, all of whom had been vaccinated, contracted measles. In addition, three seronegative students seroconverted without experiencing any symptoms. We conclude that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune.

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 05:23 PM by niteboy82

Originally posted by RogerTSorry, but you are making assumptions here and posting it as truth, as well as using the 'my grannie smoked 40 a day' argument.

What? Are you telling me that because of the fact that I know personally over at least 2,000 people my age without autism, that more than likely received vaccinations, that I am just making an assumption? They aren't autistic! What in the world do you want me to say, that they are so you can have proof for your theory?

Your argument falls apart if you are willing to consider that vaccination is not effective.

In my lifetime, I have known one person with a disease that could have been prevented with a vaccine. That was whooping cough, and guess what? She didn't have the vaccine... go figure.

If that is the case, and I believe it is, then the absolute opposite to your statement about exposing dangers holds true, in both paragraphs.

I would ask you to provide some peer-reviewed proof on the matter that there is no need for the vaccines in the first place.

*Edit - Quote Issues*

[edit on 10/18/07 by niteboy82]

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 05:45 PM by apc

Maybe some people should skip their next tetanus booster (even better if they've never had one), have some stray cats spit and poop all over a few rusty nails, and then jump up and down on them (the nails...).

Besides the obvious wealth of comical pleasure this would bring to the rest of us (myself at least), it should provide sufficient evidence that yup, vaccines work!

reply posted on 18-10-2007 @ 05:46 PM by 27jd

Ah, RogerT, I see my favorite "intelligent but fragile and puny vegetarian nerd" has found another venue to tirelessly promote hippyism. But what's that I read? YOU were vaccinated? So the diabolical medical community has already had their way with your body, and here I thought your mind was so pure and untainted by the evils of modern medicine.

Anyway, here is a pretty balanced (although you will certainly say it's not, and attack the source) site, with good (although not in your eyes) info on vaccines.

Clinical studies of vaccines have shown them to be 85%-100% effective after appropriate dosing, with the exception of pertussis, which is only 75%-90% effective.6 The clinical effectiveness of immunizations, however, is best substantiated by observing the dramatic decline in incidence of disease since their institution. During the first six years after licensure of an effective vaccine, the incidence of invasive Haemophilus influenzae disease, for example, declined by 95% among children younger than five years old.
www.healing-arts.org...