More Parents Refusing Vaccines For Kids

Originally posted by pmbhuntress
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.

The vaccine you refer to is Gardasil: The latest killer (27 have died as of August, 2008 in the USA alone) but it's disguised as safe and effective.

Here's a piece from a British newspaper, talk about having a conflict of interest:

Paul Blackburn, a senior vice president at GlaxoSmithKline, has been appointed to the board of Ofsted. Schools Secretary Ed Balls is at the centre of a controversy over the appointment of a top executive with a drugs company to the board of education watchdog Ofsted. Paul Blackburn, 53, is a senior vice-president at GlaxoSmithKline, which is being sued by hundreds of parents and patients who claim its drugs have caused suicide and psychosis.

His appointment came two weeks before the company won a reported £100million contract to vaccinate all schoolgirls of 12 and 13 against the sexually transmitted virus linked to cervical cancer. Family campaigners argued that the jabs would ‘normalise’ childhood sex.

Also please don't have your daughters using the Contraceptive Pill, it's a form of chemical castration, a lot of women never put 2 and 2 together after having been on the Pill for many years and then wonder why they can't get pregnant.



Chuffer

Originally posted by Chuffer
The vaccine you refer to is Gardasil: The latest killer (27 have died as of August, 2008 in the USA alone) but it's disguised as safe and effective.

Not surprisingly you fail to provide a single source for your claims.

A quick look at the Wikipedia article for Gardasil (en.wikipedia.org...) shows this:

As of February 2009, 40 million doses of Gardasil had been distributed worldwide, with no evidence the vaccine has caused serious adverse effects.(www.cdc.gov...),
According to the Centers for Disease Control, the vaccine was tested in over 11,000 women and girls (ages 9 to 26). The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control say that the vaccine has only minor side effects, such as soreness around the injection area. The FDA and CDC consider the vaccine to be safe. It does not contain mercury, thiomersal or live virus or dead virus, only virus-like particles, which cannot reproduce in the human body. (www.cdc.gov...)
Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, will continue to test women who have received the vaccine to determine the vaccine's efficacy over the period of a lifetime.


[edit on 20-2-2009 by Leto]

Originally posted by RogerT

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.

I tried to find your post with the information but was unable to find it, can you repost it or point me to the location of your post?

Originally posted by RogerT
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

I still haven't been able to find the post of yours with graphs, so while I wait for you to point me to your post I'll go ahead and post some facts that contradict your statements.

The fatality rate from measles for otherwise healthy people in developed countries is 3 deaths per thousand cases, or .3%. In underdevoloped countries the fatality rate shoots up to 280 deaths per thousand cases, or 28%. (www.journals.uchicago.edu...) In people with a weakened immune system the fatality rate is about 30%. (www.popline.org...)

What happens when people stop vaccinating their children? Measle rates increase and people die. In the early 2000s Nigeria began fighting against vaccines, using religion and scare tactics to prevent people from vaccinating their children. Between January and mid-March of 2005 in Nigeria 561 children died because of measles. In just those three months 23,575 cases of measles were recorded in Nigeria. (www.irinnews.org...)

Despite a safe and effective vaccine for measles having been available for the past 40 years, more than half a million people have died from measles worldwide in 2003.

In the early 2000s the vaccination rate for measles in UK fell dramatically due to the scare tactics used by one doctor by the name of Andrew Wakefield who without any evidence claimed that the MMR vaccine causes autism. Due to the dramatic fall of vaccinations in the UK, measles cases rose to 971 in 2007, the biggest rise since records began in 1995. (www.hsj.co.uk...) In 2008 the number of cases of measles in the UK rose to 1,217. (www.guardian.co.uk...)

In the US in July 2008 127 cases of measles were reported. Most of the cases were acquired outside of the United States and afflicted individuals who had not been vaccinated. (www.reuters.com...)

I await your sources to the contrary.

[edit on 20-2-2009 by Leto]

reply to post by Leto


Sorry to keep you waiting, I only come to ATS once or twice a day when I can free a bit of time.

I gave a link in my first post in the thread, I also posted a graph in the post you replied to. You can get the raw data for the US by asking the CDC, perhaps it is on their website.

If you wish to find anti-vax info, there are a handful of fairly active websites that collect the studies, quotes, whistleblower testimonies and experts deserting the vax industry. Most link with each other, so it's a simple matter to surf between them.

First stop for me is usually www.whale.to. Not that I buy everything that is posted there, but it's a good place to start looking for an alternative view.

For Gardasil, you could try here:
www.cynthiajanak.com...

I haven't vetted it, but it looks interesting at first glance.

I skimmed your measles stuff. Sorry it's late and I want to go to bed, so my response may be a little off the mark.

Mixing 3rd world with 1st world, mixing morbidity with mortality, quoting any of these without referencing a whole gammut of other environmental variables makes any conclusion almost certainly flawed.

Here's a very silly analogy:

Before England beat Germany in the world cup in 1966 there were 261 measles deaths in the US that year. In 1967, after the world cup, there were only 81 deaths. Therefore, the English victory reduced measles deaths in the US by more than two thirds.

Obviously that's absurd. There are other factors at play and probably the world cup had nothing to do with it, although you can't prove it did or it didn't, and if I assert it strongly enough to enough people for a few generations, I can probably start a mass belief going - something about the feel good factor of Germany getting beat that boosted global immune systems .....

I could probably take each one of your statements and give you a handful of other possible interpretations, some may be just as convincing even for you.

Regarding measles, the data demonstrates that the disease has become less and less fatal as time progresses, and the introduction of vaccines has not had much if any effect on the mortality trends.

Vaccination may well have had a reductive effect on reported measles cases, but that's a completely different discussion as far as I'm concerned, and like everything that falls into the vaccination debate, it's never as simple as it may first appear.

It's interesting, that those parents that come on ATS and post about their vax-free kids, invariably say that their children do not get sick anywhere near as often as their peers. I do not believe these are lies or delusions, as I also witness the same thing with my children. Is it because they have refused the vaccines, or is it because they are probably more conscious of other aspects of their children's health choices, such as diet?

Either way, it's not proveable, but it's interesting evidence

Here's my stance on vaccines, one more time.

I have not seen any convincing or conclusive evidence that the vaccinations currently given to our children are necessary, effective and safe.

If any one of those points has a reasonable doubt, and the safety issue in particular has massive doubt, then I'll just say no, and use the other, highly effective, proven and 100% safe and healthful modalities to maintain my body and that of my children in a disease free state, or effect healing when we occasionally lose balance and become 'ill'.

Injecting new born babies, infants and toddlers with dubious cocktails of highly toxic chemicals and pathogens, is IMO insanity.

I believe we will look back at this period of allopathic dominance and realise we were no less barbaric than those that practiced blood letting and drilling holes in the skull to release bad spirits as their scientific approach not too long ago.

This will be my last post in this thread, as I will now be dedicating my limited ATS time to another topic. I apologise for bugging out mid-debate.

Ciao for now

edit to add one final comment before sleep....

I don't think any ATS veteran will accept wikipedia as a reliable source. Personally I think it's a good place to start for a bit of info, but as it's so easy to edit ( manipulate ) the content, I wouldn't take anything on wikipedia too seriously

[edit on 20/2/09 by RogerT]

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


I wonder why there would be concern at all about unvaccinated kids bringing disease into the schools. If the other kids are vaccinated, and it really does protect them, what is the problem? Only the unvaccinated kids are at risk, no one else.

Originally posted by RogerT
For Gardasil, you could try here:
www.cynthiajanak.com...

I haven't vetted it, but it looks interesting at first glance.

Well first of all Cynthia Janak is biased against vaccines. On April 2008 she posted an article claiming Gardasil is poison. Here's a quick debunking of her ridiculous claims: www.leavethelightson.info...

Second did you download the VAERS data that she is talking about? It's a huge mess of data. The readme file for VAERS (vaers.hhs.gov...) states that the VAERS data should be interpreted with caution, that it is made up of unverified reports of health events that occur after vaccinations. It goes on to state that for any reported event, no cause and effect relationship has been established.

That file is huge and contains data from multiple vaccines, so I don't know how she tallied up the figures for Gardasil.

As for her comment about "whatever the heck" non-domestic means, clearly it means that the data is from outside the U.S. So she combined the data from the U.S. and the non-domestic reports and claimed that they were all from the U.S.

It is interesting to note that in the chart she included in her November 2008 article it clearly shows that the rate of adverse effects is 2.3% from those that got the vaccine and 2.3% from those that got a placebo, in other words the vaccine had no effect on the adverse effect rate. Cynthia Janak apparently did not notice this.

Originally posted by RogerT

Regarding measles, the data demonstrates that the disease has become less and less fatal as time progresses, and the introduction of vaccines has not had much if any effect on the mortality trends.

Where is your source for these claims? My sources, which I included, claims the opposite.

Originally posted by RogerT
Vaccination may well have had a reductive effect on reported measles cases, but that's a completely different discussion as far as I'm concerned, and like everything that falls into the vaccination debate, it's never as simple as it may first appear.

Those that get their vaccinations don't get measles, how can that be interpreted in any other way?

Originally posted by RogerT
If any one of those points has a reasonable doubt, and the safety issue in particular has massive doubt, then I'll just say no, and use the other, highly effective, proven and 100% safe and healthful modalities to maintain my body and that of my children in a disease free state, or effect healing when we occasionally lose balance and become 'ill'.

What's this "highly effective, proven and 100% safe and healthful" alternative to vaccination?

Originally posted by RogerT
I don't think any ATS veteran will accept wikipedia as a reliable source. Personally I think it's a good place to start for a bit of info, but as it's so easy to edit ( manipulate ) the content, I wouldn't take anything on wikipedia too seriously

None of the sources I provided are from Wikipedia.


[edit on 20-2-2009 by Leto]

Originally posted by Leto

Originally posted by RogerT
For Gardasil, you could try here:
www.cynthiajanak.com...

I haven't vetted it, but it looks interesting at first glance.

Well first of all Cynthia Janak is biased against vaccines. On April 2008 she posted an article claiming Gardasil is poison. Here's a quick debunking of her ridiculous claims: www.leavethelightson.info...

And the big Pharma companies are not biased against anyone slating their products? Please.

Are you aware looking at your measles rant that measles is nothing more than a Vitamin A deficiency. The vast majority of disease which is based on Pasteurs loony Germ Theory is all about lack of proper nutrition. Pasteur on his deathbed recanted his Germ Theory and he confessed his belief that “The terrain is everything; the bacteria nothing.” He was talking about Claude Bernard who had also proven what the great Antoine Bechamp had already proven years before about how disease happens in the body.

The germ theory came from Louis Pasteur, a chemist, who has been found to be a fraud, and plagarist of Prof Antoine Beachamp (erased from the history books) a genius contemporary of his who discovered the true theory of disease. Even Pasteur on his death bed admitted "the terrain is everything". It was a tradegy for the man in the street that Pasteur's theory became the dogma, but very fruitful to the medical establishment who have frightened him rigid with germs ever since while fleecing him in the process.

If you think about it carefully, you will realize there is actually a logical flaw in the idea that germs cause disease: all people exposed to these “causative” germs do not succumb to the disease. If germs actually cause disease, then anyone exposed to the causative germs should get the disease. In fact, healthy individuals usually have many if not most of these “causative” germs constantly residing in their bodies, and yet continue to be healthy. So the germs themselves are not in and of themselves causative. As the scientists say, germs cause disease in susceptible individuals. This statement actually puts the causative factor squarely in the arena of host resistance: if you are healthy, if your terrain is balanced, you will not develop disease, even if you are exposed to, or even harbor, the associated germs.

I'll leave you to think about that.

Bye Bye

I remember getting some sort of flu shot back around 1994-1996 near my work. They asked if I was allergic to eggs. I said no and signed papers. This was outdoors at a fair or something. All I remember was getting sick for a couple of days and felt weak. I cannot imagine children with smaller bodies reacting to more than one shot in one day. Parents should know what is in those vaccines. I certainly didn't remember what what injected in me but BLINDLY trusted these strangers. God!

Originally posted by Chuffer

Are you aware looking at your measles rant that measles is nothing more than a Vitamin A deficiency.

Uh no measles is a disease caused by a virus, in 2007 measles caused almost 200,000 deaths.(www.who.int...)

Vitamin A, which is a part of proper nutrition, as well as proper hydration, and antibiotics for pneumonia lowers the risk of death once measles has formed. Vitamin A deficiency does not and cannot cause measles. Furthermore injecting yourself with vitamin A would not prevent measles.

Originally posted by Chuffer
If you think about it carefully, you will realize there is actually a logical flaw in the idea that germs cause disease: all people exposed to these “causative” germs do not succumb to the disease. If germs actually cause disease, then anyone exposed to the causative germs should get the disease. In fact, healthy individuals usually have many if not most of these “causative” germs constantly residing in their bodies, and yet continue to be healthy. So the germs themselves are not in and of themselves causative. As the scientists say, germs cause disease in susceptible individuals. This statement actually puts the causative factor squarely in the arena of host resistance: if you are healthy, if your terrain is balanced, you will not develop disease, even if you are exposed to, or even harbor, the associated germs.

Are you trying to tell me that a healthy person wouldn't get HIV from someone who has HIV? Would you be willing to be injected with blood from an HIV patient to test your hypothesis?

[edit on 21-2-2009 by Leto]

Originally posted by Leto

Originally posted by Chuffer

Are you aware looking at your measles rant that measles is nothing more than a Vitamin A deficiency.

Uh no measles is a disease caused by a virus, in 2007 measles caused almost 200,000 deaths.(www.who.int...)

Vitamin A, which is a part of proper nutrition, as well as proper hydration, and antibiotics for pneumonia lowers the risk of death once measles has formed. Vitamin A deficiency does not and cannot cause measles. Furthermore injecting yourself with vitamin A would not prevent measles.

Originally posted by Chuffer
If you think about it carefully, you will realize there is actually a logical flaw in the idea that germs cause disease: all people exposed to these “causative” germs do not succumb to the disease. If germs actually cause disease, then anyone exposed to the causative germs should get the disease. In fact, healthy individuals usually have many if not most of these “causative” germs constantly residing in their bodies, and yet continue to be healthy. So the germs themselves are not in and of themselves causative. As the scientists say, germs cause disease in susceptible individuals. This statement actually puts the causative factor squarely in the arena of host resistance: if you are healthy, if your terrain is balanced, you will not develop disease, even if you are exposed to, or even harbor, the associated germs.

Are you trying to tell me that a healthy person wouldn't get HIV from someone who has HIV? Would you be willing to be injected with blood from an HIV patient to test your hypothesis?

[edit on 21-2-2009 by Leto]

So going by your belief in HIV I'll assume you're in the HIV=AIDS camp. Yes/No?

I'd be quite happy to inject myself with the so called bogus HIV virus. Who ever heard of a virus that supposedly enters the body and hides for 10 years before becoming active, that alone should tell you it's only whack jobs that believe it. Seriously if all the BS we hear about viruses is true then it's job is to replicate and make copies of itself, not hide and then one day decide it's time to replicate. Why is it that so called HIV is transmissable by body fluids BUT NOT Saliva? Are you aware how bogus the HIV tests are? Do you know that even having a cold can put you in the running for being told that you have HIV, even scarier is being pregnant, how many women have been put on deadly AZT drugs after having a positive result for HIV how scary is that?

AZT is toxic, it kills...... It kills the immune system, it kills healthy tissue.....I regard HIV as the greatest hoax and fraud in all of medical history, and I would say AZT would be up there."-- John Lauritsen interview by Gary Null

Neither of the "HIV-antibody" tests -- the Elisa or the Western Blot -- has ever been properly validated, which means that no one knows what their results mean. The tests are chemical reactions to antigens, which are substances that provoke an immune response. Many dozens of conditions can produce a positive result on these tests, including drug abuse, flu vaccinations, past infection with malaria, pregnancy, and liver disease. Nevertheless, physicians still use these worthless tests, assume that positive results mean HIV infection, and give their patients doom-diagnoses of "HIV-positive" or "AIDS". 'AIDS: A Death Cult' by John Lauritsen

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective


This is a touchy issue to be sure, so I'll try to be careful how I choose my words.

I can see both sides of the coin on this issue.

I can understand why a parent would not want to forcefully subject their child to a vaccine that may have long term detrimental effects, those which have not been completely proven nor misproven.

I can also see the side of parents who worry about their children being exposed to an environment where other non-vaccinated children may bring these types of diseases into the curricular environment and risk infecting other people.

Let the debate begin....

www.nbc4i.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

articles.mercola.com...

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
I'll start. I'm not an expert by any means on this subject, but I am a parent and I did get my kids vaccinated. The only reason I did get them vaccinated was the fact that my doctor recommended it and I knew that the schools required it. I must admit now though that's not a good reason.

For those of you who have researched the claims specifically related to vaccines and autism, I'd seriously like to get the benefit of your research. Is there any documented, scientific research contradicting what the CDC puts out?

articles.mercola.com...

I had my full vaccinations as a child and still got whooping cough in highschool. A friend of mine got her full vaccination and still got the measles.