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.

 

More Parents Refusing Vaccines For Kids

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
ever since my nephew and niece 3and 2 got the flu shot they get sick more
frequently a week after they got the shot they both got really sick high fever
vomiting diarrhea ,now my nephew gets random high fevers 101-102.

if you ask me i think it's all a scam to keep the money flow going to the drug companys

[edit on 19-2-2009 by smoking man]




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by smoking man
ever since my nephew and niece 3and 2 got the flu shot they get sick more
frequently a week after they got the shot they both got really sick high fever
vomiting diarrhea ,now my nephew gets random high fevers 101-102.

if you ask me i think it's all a scam to keep the money flow going to the drug companys


Every vaccine is basically a mini version of the disease, so a flu vaccine is giving a low dose of influenza. The idea is your body kicks in to fight it and builds up immunity...so you have to weigh out if it's worth it. I don't get the flu shot because influenza is a mutating virus and there are more breeds of it than cattle. So, while I may be immunized against flu A, I can still get flu C.

www.cdc.gov...

[edit on 19-2-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 


Yeah, but the flu vaccine still has Thimerosol.
I haven't had a flu shot in about 12 years and my flu episodes have always been normal ones. This last year I didn't have any.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by pureevil81
 


I hear this story all the time. There are many strains of the flu. You get vaccinated for one strain, doesn't mean you can't get an older strain.

But when you do get vaccinated, you are vaccinated against that strain for life. Which is why they encourage people to do it every year, eventually your gonna have a nice compliment against the strains.

In fact, many of the vaccines have several strains in them, they shoot for several of that year.

Most people feel bad and think they got the flu.

here is the flu people: if you can talk on a phone, sit up, carry a conversation, or do anything remotely human, you most likely just have a virus.

When you have the actual flu, if someone were to threaten you with a gun you would be happy because you feel like you are on death's door, and it would be a relief. You can't talk, just someone laying a hand on you is painful.
You basically sit there and cry and be the most miserable human being on the planet. I am not kidding, after the first day your convinced you have the ebola virus. So if you even have the capability of looking someone in the eye, you don't have the flu. You have a bug.

Many peopel refuse the shots, but once they get the actual flu, not a virus, they are lining up the next year to get the shot.

The flu is still serious, but even more so for children and the elderly.





[edit on 19-2-2009 by nixie_nox]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
The thing of it is that you have to look at history. Most people get one, bad illness in their life. They live and develope immunity or die.

If they are unlucky they may get two diseases.

So is the immune system really designed to handle dozens of vaccinations, for diseases that in all liklihood you may never get?

Stuff for chix pox and hpv is just silly. HPV can be avoided with a condom and regular pap smears.

I think parents just need to pick one or two of the big guns, like polio,and go with that. Maybe tetnus.

But I don't hink the human system was designed for an onslaught of constant antibodies, and that may be where the problem lies.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
But I don't hink the human system was designed for an onslaught of constant antibodies, and that may be where the problem lies.


This is a good point, as I recall in Ecology talking about each organism having a virtual 'pool' of resources. If you're using antibody production for various diseases, it's reasonable to think a person may be falling short on proteins or immunities (T cells perhaps?) towards others. I'm not sure if this is the case with the immune system but given what we know about human physiology, I have a hard time imagining that it is limitless.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by saint4God
 


Last year I was an unfortunate soul. I got viral meningitis and a severe case of lyme disease in the same year. Blood tests showed I got mono at some point.

(I really must of upset someone in a former life)

I am only now beginning to recover and feel somewhat normal. And it has been a year and a half since the meningitis.

With vaccines, though you may not always feel the effects, your body is still adjusting to it. Instead of one onslaught of the actual disease, we are just poking little bits of disease into someone, on a fairly regular basis.

I tend to think the effects are the same.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by nixie_nox]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by pureevil81
I had a flu shot one time, it was a few years ago. I felt like death for about a day, then over the next year I got, guess what..... the flu. Not just once or twice, 5 times that year.


I developed asthma when I was 11. It's policy in England for all asthmatics to get flu jabs yearly and for the first 5 years I did. Every single one of those years I got the flu at least once and two of those years it developed into pneumonia and I was hospitalised for 4+ weeks. As soon as I turned 16 and was legally allowed to make the decision for myself I decided against getting them and I've never had the flu since, I'm 24 now.

I've mentioned this to countless doctors and asthma consultants over the years and I always get the same stoical response. It's psychological, the flu jab saves thousands of lives a year, blah blah blah...

Why is it that when your opinions on your illness' are in line with what the textbooks say they're accepted but when they go against them it's "all in your head"?



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by RogerT
 


See here's the thing. I made a comment, I defended it, and then I backed it up.



Your comment: But there has not been a link between autism and vaccines that has been proven. The evidence that says there is one simply does not exist.

You have not yet admitted the actual real meaning of this comment, never mind defending it or backing it up.

You simply post dubious studies about Thimerosol because you assume:


You are as aware as I am that the main reason so many people think vaccines cause autism is the thiomerosal which the body turns into ethylmercury, simplified it a bit there I know.


Whether this assumption is correct, partly correct, a bit correct or not correct is no justification IMO for continuing to be dishonest about what you said.

You can keep posting lies and obfuscation for another 100 pages, but your words are there on page 2 for all to read. Here is the link www.abovetopsecret.com...

Given your continued dishonesty, why should anyone believe anything you post in this thread?


If you would like to change angles simply because I have backed up my position with scientific data, more power to you. But the fact of the matter is I made a claim and then I backed it up. I didn't switch midstream, though it appears that you would like to since I have in fact shown that there are indeed eight major studies saying there is no link between the ethylmercury from thiomerosal and autism.


Why don't you go back and read what YOU wrote. Then come back and admit that the one who switched angles midstream is actually you!

There you go again with your thimerosol bashing


Here, one more time:

Originally posted by Jenna
But there has not been a link between autism and vaccines that has been proven. The evidence that says there is one simply does not exist.



I am just capable of backing up comments I make with evidence rather than attempting to cast doubt on the character and motives of people I debate with.


Well if you are capable of backing up your comments with evidence, what are you waiting for? Please provide evidence that supports your assertion: "The evidence to support a link between autism and vaccines simply does not exist"

None of the 8 studies you posted even address that issue. It is not in the abstract, discussion nor conclusion of any of the studies, nor is it supported by any of the data.

In fact, as NONE of your studies include non-vax kids in the study group, it would be impossible for any of them to support your assertion.



[edit on 19/2/09 by RogerT]

[edit on 19/2/09 by RogerT]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
We take a lot for granted. Many of you grew up with polio vaccine, with small pox eradicated, have never seen these diseases or the others for which vaccines are now available for. There really are some frightful diseases out there, and even the lesser ones can have lasting impact on the bodily systems. I'm not talking about flu vaccine here because flu constantly mutates, and if they ever come up with a cold vaccine I wouldn't like that either because some of these things our bodies really are designed to deal with. But the serious childhood diseases are well worth avoiding. As long as most children are vaccinated, the rest have some protection because there won't be many active cases. I'm not saying the vaccines are perfect, but the diseases are a lot worse. Wait and see. With our economic situation at present, many of us paying for individual health care and prices skyrocketing, will even more with the inevitable inflation that is coming, more families will go without insurance and there might very well be an ever larger number of children who go unvaccinated. Then we will see if these diseases are so bad. I have one relative who had polio as a child. He recovered but with lifelong consequences. When I was little we were warned not to go to where people congregate in warm weather, like swimming pools. Let's see how you all feel about it when you start seeing your neighbors get sick. Vaccines were developed for a reason, not just to make drug companies rich. In fact I bet they make more on medications used for chronic problems. They get sued all the time for vaccines.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 


Yet another post from you attempting to attack my character and credibility. Let me let you in on a secret, it does nothing to help your case. Since you are so hell bent and determined to "win", please proceed to prove those studies wrong.

Since my first reply to you I have been discussing those eight studies and the connection between thiomerosal and autism. I haven't changed angles. It has been and will remain that there is not a connection between the two. I have cited eight major studies that agree with me. What more do you want me to do?


Personally I'm still waiting for your links to "another hundred sources" proving that the vaccines cause autism. Where is this "mountain of evidence" that you are so adamant exists? Seems as though you would rather try to cast doubt on me than back up your own statements. All I have gotten from you is post after post of accusations that I work for pharmaceutical companies, or that I'm not reading, or that I haven't shown there is no causal link. I posted links to eight studies showing there is no causal link between the two.

If you are going to continue to try to attack me, my character, or my honesty rather than support your own assertions that there is a "mountain of evidence", then I have nothing further to say to you on this matter. This has turned into an exercise in futility and I will no longer beat my head against a wall only to receive character attacks in return.

Have a great day.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Hey Jenna

This is the post that RogerT offered links to studies that show a link between vaccines and autism or rebuttals to studies that showed no link between vaccines and autism

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Big Pharma obviously pays for these studies that you presented which means that the huge conflict of interest should render these studies invalid for use as evidence in a court room and at the very least it should put serious doubt on the validity of the findings in the reports

So a question for you Jenna:

Doesn't this make you stop and think ... doesn't the sceptic in you automatically question these reports??



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
From Wikipedia:
In 1958 there were 763,094 cases of measles and 552 deaths in the United States. With the help of new vaccines, the number of cases dropped to fewer than 150 per year (median of 56). In early 2008, there were 64 suspected cases of measles. 54 out of 64 infections were associated with importation from another country, although only 13% were actually acquired outside of the United States; 63 of these 64 individuals either had never been vaccinated against measles, or were uncertain whether they had been vaccinated.

So let's see, vaccines dropped the number of cases of measles by almost 100% and we have people wondering whether or not vaccines are helpful? Weird

[edit on 19-2-2009 by Leto]



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Horza
 


And I will ask you the same question I asked them, did you go to the list of 600 sources and see what all is actually listed on it? If not please do so before asking me to look through it as I have already done so. As I said in this post, I don't consider studies on carnitine deficiency, fatty acid metabolism, taurine in pediatric nutrition, administration of taurine to patients with epilepsy, or chronic constipation as a symptom of milk allergy to be the same thing as a study on the theoretical connection between vaccines and autism. And that is merely a sampling of what is listed there.

While all those studies are well and good, and it is important to find out what exactly is causing autism, none of those have any bearing on the current discussion. The one section in that pdf concerning studies on autism and vaccines is a list of studies that showed causal effect followed by links to anti-vaccine websites which are naturally going to be biased in anything they write about the subject. And as I have stated before I don't find blogs to be the best sources of scientific/medical information.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by RogerT
 


Since my first reply to you I have been discussing those eight studies and the connection between thiomerosal and autism.


NO. You said there is no EVIDENCE for a LINK between VACCINES and AUTISM.

I've highlighted the key words.

The problem is that you seem to think that it is ok to make statements that assume:

evidence is the same as proof
link is the same as cause
vaccines is the same as thimerosol

Now, in case anyone thinks I am merely splitting hairs, this is also what the vaccine industry is doing in an effort to mask the chronic and massive failure of their products.

They have now added another to the list above:

autism is the same as 'symptoms that look like autism'



I haven't changed angles.


If you are ok with confusing two distinct terms as the same thing, then you can kid yourself that you didn't change angles.


I have cited eight major studies that agree with me.


I've already discredited at least one of those, and the fact you then went on to quote from this garbage paper as evidence indicates you either didn't read the paper, didn't understand it, or you think it is ok for those who conduct studies to draw false conclusions from 'rigged' data.

More likely, I think you probably assume anyone labelled a scientist is infallible and therefore if they write it, it must be so.



What more do you want me to do?



I want you to be honest about what you wrote on page 2.



Personally I'm still waiting for your links to "another hundred sources" proving that the vaccines cause autism.


You didn't read a single one of the 33 studies listed on Polings blog, so why bother supplying you with anything else?

By the way, I have not made any statement suggesting there is proof that vaccines cause autism. I said there is a mountain of evidence.

Do you really not understand the difference between evidence and proof?



Where is this "mountain of evidence" that you are so adamant exists?


Please go back and re-read my posts. I have given plenty of pointers as to where to find it.

There is even evidence amongst the members of ATS. Some have posted here for your benefit and you dismiss them out of hand by suggesting they are not scientists and did not conduct scientific studies, so their information, knowledge and experience does not count as evidence.



Seems as though you would rather try to cast doubt on me than back up your own statements.


Another weak attempt at deflection?


All I have gotten from you is post after post of accusations that I work for pharmaceutical companies,


It was a question, that's why it was followed with a ?
Accusations don't have a ?

Another of your collapsed distinctions?



or that I'm not reading,

... if the shoe fits ...


or that I haven't shown there is no causal link.


that's correct, you haven't shown there is no causal link between vaccines and autism - which was YOUR initial statement.


Have a great day.


Thanks, I will. You too


[edit on 20/2/09 by RogerT]



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Here's an analogy that exposes the nonsense of these 8 studies you champion when applied to the question 'Is there a link between vaccines and autism?' which is what you initially claimed, and as you still won't retract or even admit the statement, I'm assuming you still do believe it.

Scenario:

Parents are noticing on a massive scale that kids who eat doughnuts are becoming obese.

A theory is postulated that it is the jelly in the doughnuts that is causing the obesity.

8 major studies are run to test this theory.

They fall into 3 camps:

Camp 1.
Test group: some kids eat doughnuts with jelly, others eat doughnuts without jelly.
Observation: No statistical difference in obesity rates amongst these kids.
Conclusion: No link between jelly and obesity.

Your (vaccine industry) assertion: DOUGHNUTS DO NOT CAUSE OBESITY

Camp 2.
Test group: kids who only eat doughnuts without jelly.
Observation: No statistical difference in obesity rates amongst these kids.
Conclusion: No link between jelly and obesity!!

Your (vaccine industry) assertion: DOUGHNUTS DO NOT CAUSE OBESITY

Camp 3. (and this one is the real kicker)
Test group. all kids eat doughnuts with jelly, but some eat more regularly than others.
Observation: No statistical difference in obesity rates amongst these kids.
Conclusion: No link between jelly and obesity!!!

Your (vaccine industry) assertion: DOUGHNUTS DO NOT CAUSE OBESITY



NOW, the common sense, intelligent question, is this:

If we are looking for a relationship between doughnuts and obesity, don't we need a test group that compares kids who eat doughnuts with kids who DON'T EAT DOUGHNUTS ???

Find me a paper that studies vax kids with non vax kids, that relates to autism, and we have something to talk about.

The closest thing you are going to find is the Amish Study, and it isn't even slightly vaccine positive.

[edit on 20/2/09 by RogerT]



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Leto
 


Sigh.

Yet another vaccines conquered measles myth!

Why do people just not read.

I posted the links to graphs drawn from official data exposing this myth here on this thread not more than 3 pages back.

You can cherry pick numbers all you like, but when you look at a more complete picture, the truth emerges like a freight train in the night


Measles was virtually GONE from the countries that kept records BEFORE the vaccine was even introduced.

The disease was dying out, on a down trend, being let go, services nolonger required ....

The vaccine industry, and it's spokespeople, witting or unwitting?, simply claim credit for a continuing trend.

This is the same for just about every major classic vaccine schedule disease. In fact in some cases, disease incidence actually goes up when the vaccine is introduced, only to later resume the downward trend as a dying disease.

here's a link to a graph of measles in the US using CDC figures. Other countries show the same thing, sometimes more dramatically, but I don't have time for more digging out of links right now.

Measles vaccine licensed in 1963, MMR in 1972.

www.vaccinationnews.com...



[edit on 20/2/09 by RogerT]



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat

Originally posted by Chuffer
* Pasteur very likely created the disease known as "hydrophobia," rather than found a cure for it.


I'm always fascinated by people who think that discrediting Pasteur is a means of discrediting vaccination, or that discrediting Charles Darwin is a means of discrediting evolutionary theory.

Do you really think that Pasteur is the latest word in vaccination theory?

Or that he very likely created the disease known as "hydrophobia", also known as "rabies"? That's a new one to me.


WHOOOOOOOOOSH

You completely missed the whole point of my thread/reply. The fact that ALL disease is based on Pasteurs Germ Theory says it all, vaccines are produced for these so called diseases. Improvements in basic health and hygiene and access to better fresh water have been far better preventives than vaccines. On the point of Pasteur creating Rabies I think they mean in a money making sense.

"Had it not been for the mass selling of vaccines, Pasteur's germ theory of disease would have collapsed into obscurity."--- E. Douglas Hume

In 1915, another medical doctor wrote an article for the top British medical journal Lancet. Dr. Montais studied 21 cases of tetanus, each of whom had received Pasteurian inoculation. The conclusion of the article, which appeared in the 23 Oct 1915 issue, was that in every case, the tetanus had been caused by the inoculation. Dr. Montais said that "Pasteur had created a new form of disease." The Post-Antibiotic Age: Germ Theory by Tim O'Shea

Rabies was an old superstition — a relic of the times when devils ran to and fro between animal and man carrying disease.

Pasteur, who had previously had a hemorrhage of the brain, changed this old superstition into a money-making disease.

Rabies is now a pet child of the Vivisection Trust which works internationally.

If vivisection has proven anything it has proven the impossibility of man contracting any real disease from a dog.

How long will filthy lucre keep the facts from the fooled public?

"My final conclusion after more than 40yrs in the medical business is that the unofficial policy of the WHO and the unofficial policy of the Save the Children fund and other vaccine promoting organisations is one of genocide and murder" Dr Archie Kalokerinos MBBS, PhD,FAPM

"A single vaccine given to a 6 pound newborn is the equivalent of giving a 180 pound adult 30 vaccinations on the same day" Dr Boyd Haley, Professor and Chair, Dept of Chemistry, University of Kentucky

If one were to choose among the greatest benefactors of humanity, Louis Pasteur would certainly rank at the top. He solved the mysteries of rabies, anthrax, chicken cholera, and silkworm diseases, and contributed to the development of the first vaccines. He debunked the widely accepted myth of spontaneous generation, thereby setting the stage for modern biology and biochemistry. He described the scientific basis for fermentation, wine-making, and the brewing of beer. Pasteur's work gave birth to many branches of science, and he was singlehandedly responsible for some of the most important theoretical concepts and practical applications of modern science.

Pasteur's achievements seem wildly diverse at first glance, but a more in-depth look at the evolution of his career indicates that there is a logical order to his discoveries. He is revered for possessing the most important qualities of a scientist: the ability to survey all the known data and link the data for all possible hypotheses.

It's a pity that the last 2 paragraphs above are a complete lie but hopefully you'll see the light for the lie that is Pasteur and his Germ Theory




posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   
My kids have had most of there shots. I believe there are just a few left. But I have to say that I am more worried about the Mercury in the Vaccines they give them then any thing else. Then you have the fact that there always making something better.

Just like this new vaccine they want to give young girls. They say it will help to prevent a type of cancer. Yet how do we really know that 40 years or even 20 years after they get it they wont get a different cancer, because they had the shot. So many drugs out there can kill you years later. We see it daily where people are going up against the big drug companies for wrongful death. Sometimes thousands of suits in one case.

I thank God the one for the cancer isnt mandatory. Because I will not allow my girls to have that. Sorry but I dont think so. How do we know its not a way to start a population control? We dont. The government has done shots in other countries that did just that and made the women infertile. So how do we know? Of course I personally wouldnt put it past the government to do something like that.

Just thought I would add this. My youngest daughter is Autistic, they still have not been able to prove or disprove if this is from shots or not. But most Peds. Say its from the vaccines.

[edit on 20-2-2009 by pmbhuntress]



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by Horza
 

And as I have stated before I don't find blogs to be the best sources of scientific/medical information.


Yes you did say this before.

Can you tell me why Poling posting abstracts of studies on his blog is any less valid than you posting quotes of studies on ATS?

If we should discount these 33 studies just because Poling quoted abstracts on his blog, we should also discount your 8 studies because you quoted extracts on ATS, no?

Isn't it the credibility of the data that is important, rather than the venues where it is quoted?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join