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.

 

Girl Gets Sex Jab Against Her Will

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 03:40 AM
link   
jesus.
a girl gets a jab and all this. AFAIK 13yr old girls aren't too fond of needles, so IMO she went bitching to her mom and blew it all out of proportion. cervical cancer is not an STD(or STI) and so its an ordinary immunization. if you get any other meaning out of this thread then your obviously retarded. a immunization is NOT RAPE and there is no such thing as MIND CONTROL. if u disagree with either of those statements then you are obviously mentally deficient and deserve to be put on the government depopulation list.




posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by slykiwi
if you get any other meaning out of this thread then your obviously retarded.


Huh. That's funny. I felt the exact same about your post.

Thanks for the.... contribution


FYI, the issue is that they formally did not give consent prior to getting the vaccine, that is documented.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by midnightbrigade
you know, you have a decent argument there..but i do find it humorous in that being and obvious feminist, you have jfk as your avatar...he was a HUGE womanizer


What might amuse you more is that I'm a right of center, practising catholic man!


JFK was a huge womaniser indeed, but he did make great and stirring speechs and was a fine leader. Objection to one aspect of a man or culture's way of living never wipes out the whole lot for me.
And imagine what JFK would have been like in these days when women can be pumped full of so many hormones and vaccines that he could have womanised with the possible consequences being so diminished - dupont circle would be littered with running mascara.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
We went ahead and got measles and chicken pox. Got to stay home from school. Some of the kids got mumps.

And therefore we all are immunized for life.
.
i don.t belive that vaccinations really immunize a person for a special disease
they claim that this is what happens, but where is the real proof?

and if the jabs do what they claim, peopel have to refresh it and refresh it and refresh it
and forget it, get ill at a very adult age with complications and voila another strange case in records to push parents.

bad conscience makes a good amount of money



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by slykiwi
a immunization is NOT RAPE and there is no such thing as MIND CONTROL.


sorry but it is battery could be compared to rape
no matter what is done to your body unvolutarily it is kind of rape

parents and kid said no and they went over that border

and really nobody can be sure if this "praised as a gift of heaven" jabs really work. they could be a present of hell as well



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   

cervical cancer is not an STD(or STI) and so its an ordinary immunization. if you get any other meaning out of this thread then your obviously retarded. a immunization is NOT RAPE and there is no such thing as MIND CONTROL. if u disagree with either of those statements then you are obviously mentally deficient and deserve to be put on the government depopulation list.



I generally agree with you, most people have no idea what is best for them, and since nobody on this thread is doing anything but guessing, and have no involvement with the UK immunization programs or hpv research themselves, its all opinion.

When I was 8 years old I went in for heart surgery and not wanting the shots (out of fear and misunderstanding) I overpowered 4 nurses and a doctor and forced them to put off the surgery for several days until I calmed down.

I bring that up because, if we just focus on probability here, its _most probable_ she wanted the shot. What _most probably_ happened, her mother said no, she googled it, decided for herself, and asked for the shot. End of story.

Anyone who is going to come on a public forum and accuse a school of letting a doctor assault a teenager in front of her classmates to force her to get a shot against her will is not lucid.

Too bad they didn't have an optional policy with polio and smallpox, I'm sure there's people who would fight those too, and I for one, would let them opt out.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by slykiwicervical cancer is not an STD(or STI) and so its an ordinary immunization. if you get any other meaning out of this thread then your obviously retarded.


Cervical cancer is not an STD. Nor is there in fact a vaccine for cervical cancer. The ads may make it sound that way, but this is not true.

The vaccine being discussed protects (supposedly) against infection with four specific strands of Human Papillomavirus. These four strands are almost exclusively transmitted through sexual encounters. I don't know what the latest figures are, but far more than half of adult Americans (and I'm sure it's similar elsewhere) have been exposed to sexually transmitted HPV.

The title of the original article is absurd, but this is a vaccine to protect against a sexually transmitted virus.

Whether it works the way they want it to is very much in question. They don't know for sure yet, for example, if protecting against these 4 strains of HPV (two of which can lead to cancer and two of which can lead to warts) may increase women's danger of developing cancer from one of the several other strains of HPV that are floating around.

Really, the point to this is not what the shot was for. The point is that, at least as reported, neither the girl nor her mother had given permission for her to be vaccinated. That makes vaccinating her illegal. If in fact she had decided she wanted the shot against her mother's will, that's another question, but that is not how the story reads at all.

This is not a cervical cancer vaccination! This is a vaccine for a common, sexually transmitted virus called Human Papillomavirus that occasionally (maybe about 2% of the time) leads to cancer or pre-cancerous changes.

[edit on 10/14/08 by americandingbat]



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghaleon12
I'm sympathetic towards this, as I don't recommend vaccines. But they make it sound like it was some ninja giving the vaccine. If the vaccine was given above the deltoid muscle, the girl would have possibly had to roll up her sleeve. Not to mention that unless they have some pretty strange medical practices over there, they always swab the area with rubbing alcohol, which should have been enough time that the ninja-nurse theory goes out the window, or Doctor in this case I guess.

[edit on 13-10-2008 by ghaleon12]


I dunno... Nurse grabs her arm (which may already be exposed this time of year), swabs and then jabs... what's a 13 year old going to do?
From what I've seen, I believe she would go silent, sit still and feel helpless. And on top of her being 13, she was singled out and alone.

If it were me, that nurse would be missing teeth now. But it wasn't me, or you. It was a 13 year old girl they singled out and I think they bullied her.

It was an assault, an attack. An I reckon it was a heinous crime committed by control freaks on power trips. To me, it seems very simular to rape.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
AHH. This is unacceptable. If the mother DID NOT sign the consent form (which it says in the OP that she didn't) then the child should have NOT recieved the vaccination. SIMPLE as that.

What's worse, is he took her aside to talk to her about her consent form, and then gave her the shot anyway. THIS is wrong. The parents should have been contacted if the person administering the shot had an issue.

And, as LucidLunacy has pointed out, the test period for this drug is not yet over, and it is not sufficient time to see the possible side affects. If this girl, twenty years from now develops some serious side-affects - there may be a possible law-suit on someones hands...

- Carrot



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
It seems to me that the real issue is not what the actual shot was, but that the parents wishes were not abided by. The school did not have the right to do what they did and if it were my child I would be having that nurse arrested for assault. I would also be taking up my issues with the school district and possibly a lawyer. The point isn't the type of shot, but they had no right to do what they did.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by slykiwi
a immunization is NOT RAPE and there is no such thing as MIND CONTROL. if u disagree with either of those statements then you are obviously mentally deficient and deserve to be put on the government depopulation list.


Patients have the right to refuse treatment even if it has been proven to be beneficial to the patient. That's why we have INFORMED CONSENT forms to be filled out. Patient is informed of the potential or actual benefits of a medication or treatment as well as the potential adverse reactions, side effects, hazards. The decision is left to them. In the case of a minor child, the parent/guardian has the LEGAL right to make that decision.

This is a clear cut case of assault and BATTERY and it could very well be argued as a case of rape. Rape is legally defined as PENETRATION (even if by instrumentation). Just because no one got their yaya's out doesn't preclude the rape accusation.

Any healthcare worker who values their license to practice will NEVER give an injection without informed consent. They couldn't pay me enough to give an injection to anyone who had a refusal form on file. In this case the healthcare worker(s) not only didn't value their license(s), they didn't value their lives. If it had been my child, there would not be much of a lawsuit because there wouldn't be enough left of my child's assailants to appear in court.

Odd that you mention that people like me "should be put on the governments depopulation list". By saying that, you're obviously admitting that the government HAS a depopulation list and yet you still agree to children being vaccinated by a drug that has neither proven its necessity or efficacy. "Mentally deficient"? Was that a confession or an accusation?



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 01:23 AM
link   
my reference to the depopulation list was a satirical jab at those who believe in such things. in my opinion the government is too incompetent to organize such an operation, and even if it could, why would it. you defined rape as penetration, but penetration of the upper arm? cmon. thats just stupid. assault at most, but for her good and for the greater good. you might like to consider, she might have just said she didn't want it, (along with most of the other girls) and if she didn't have the form on hand, the nurse may have just took her statement as an excuse and injected her anyway.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Supercertari

Originally posted by midnightbrigade
you know, you have a decent argument there..but i do find it humorous in that being and obvious feminist, you have jfk as your avatar...he was a HUGE womanizer


What might amuse you more is that I'm a right of center, practising catholic man!


JFK was a huge womaniser indeed, but he did make great and stirring speechs and was a fine leader. Objection to one aspect of a man or culture's way of living never wipes out the whole lot for me.
And imagine what JFK would have been like in these days when women can be pumped full of so many hormones and vaccines that he could have womanised with the possible consequences being so diminished - dupont circle would be littered with running mascara.
HA,ha,ha-Oh,we definately need more feminsts like you.Welcome to the sisterhood and good choice of avatar as JFK was real pretty.Jokes on you and your assumptions midnightbrigade,don't be quick to rush to judgement-you may get burned,yours a Bible Basher of Alabama.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by slykiwi
and if she didn't have the form on hand, the nurse may have just took her statement as an excuse and injected her anyway.


Think about that for a second.

The nurse knows there were forms for this. The nurse knows she needs to see the forms, as to see the written consent. It doesn't matter what the nurse did or did not think. The point is she was given the shot when she was not supposed to of been given it.

Also, your grammar and sentence structure is juvenile. Might want to work on that. Especially since you claim we are all retarded.


[edit on 15-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 04:24 AM
link   
If something is forced into the blood stream of my child i could see it as a form of rape.

Keep your dirty jabs away from my children.

If this stuff is so good, why would they have to force it on people.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by slykiwi
jesus.
a girl gets a jab and all this. AFAIK 13yr old girls aren't too fond of needles, so IMO she went bitching to her mom and blew it all out of proportion. cervical cancer is not an STD(or STI) and so its an ordinary immunization. if you get any other meaning out of this thread then your obviously retarded. a immunization is NOT RAPE and there is no such thing as MIND CONTROL. if u disagree with either of those statements then you are obviously mentally deficient and deserve to be put on the government depopulation list.


Absolutely agree, especially (being in that age group in UK) with girls these days.

They have so much power just because they are female and are slightly more vulnerable than males.

She opens her mouth, the doctor goes down. And a huge issue in the UK is the whole "Oh no not my child" attitude that parents take. The mother would probably refuse to believe the slightest possibility that her child was lying/blowing it out of proportion.

Its a vaccine for a #ing deadly disease.... As the guy a few above said, some people don't know what's good for them. Jesus christ, if it doesn't work it wont kill you so why not get it if all it will do is give you a smaller chance of contracting the disease?

They are just attention seeking idiots and (as I'm sure some older UK residents will support this claim) there a LOADS of these people in the UK.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gregor100

Originally posted by slykiwi
Its a vaccine for a #ing deadly disease.... As the guy a few above said, some people don't know what's good for them. Jesus christ, if it doesn't work it wont kill you so why not get it if all it will do is give you a smaller chance of contracting the disease?


Please read the linked article.

Also, forgive my ignorance but I don't know what AFAIK means. Oh, and cussing is against the T&C.

We used to be told that Thalidamide was good for its intended purpose and wouldn't kill you. We were also told that about PhenPhen, Vioxx and a host of other drugs. If you want to believe that everything the Pharmawhores dump out of their labs is a blessing to mankind, then help yourself. The rest of us will consider logically the claims made and pass when logic and common sense contradict the drug advertisements disguised as "research".



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
People just don't get it!

The AMA and FDA work hand in hand to destroy our youth (and everyone else for that matter) with lethal, mercury laden vaccines which never do anyone any good, while disabling and killing thousands later in life.

The first mistake anyone makes is trusting their Doctor. Its all downhill from there.

Just say "NO" and really mean it...your life and those of your loved one's depends on it.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by beefeater
 


The girl's parents should sue the doctor for treating the girl not only without their permission, but against their explicit refusal against the treatment.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by beefeater

Girl Gets Sex Jab Against Her Will


www.express.co.uk

Health officials are investigating after a mother complained her 13-year-old diabetic daughter received the Human Papilloma Virus inoculation against her will at school.

Debbie Jones, 47, even considered police action after discovering daughter, Gail, was injected despite signing an official form refusing consent.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Shouldn't it be the police and district attorney that is investigating not the health officials who have a vested interest in protecting their own people?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join