It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Grieving mother blames cancer vaccine

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 01:27 AM

Originally posted by wmd_2008
It would be really interesting to see someone in your family coming down with something that a vaccine would have prevented just to see what you would say then!

It would also be interesting to see someone you know coming down with something which they were vaccinated against. We had a recent measles outbreak, and more than half who contracted it were vaccinated against it. Makes you wonder how effective the vaccine really is...

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Problems like this are unfrotunate but say the odds of the vaccine killing you is 1 in a million and the odds of catching an infection that would kill you was 1 in 100k what would you choose.

Well, it might depend on how effective the vaccine actually was. For example, how long will the vaccine last? Will you need multiple doses? And is the alleged infection really that dangerous? Is the vaccine really that safe?
All questions which could skew the decision away from the seemingly obvious.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
You can walk outside and get knocked down and killed lifes all about chance so scaremongering benefits no one


Originally posted by Ayana
I'd rather take my chances with the vaccine, as since I'm diabetic, I'm much more likely to die from these things.
And I couldn't let my family go through that.

It is a shame when things like these happen, but they don't happen enough to put me off.

I wouldn't ever tell anyone that they MUST NOT take the vaccine, as there may be situations such as yours, where they could be beneficial. All I'll do is tell people that there is a side to vaccines which rarely makes the MSM, and that they should research for themselves and come to their own conclusion. After all, are the people who make them genuinely trying to help people, or simply make the best profit. Pharmeceuticals are BIG business!

I have come to the conclusion that I would rather take my chances with any of the infections (such as H1N1), than with the vaccine.
However, everyone's free to come their own decisions, and I wish you good health for the future

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 02:01 AM
reply to post by Curious and Concerned

Thanks for starting your interesting thread, Curious and Concerned.

Working from "inside the industry", I can state it is a fact there is no such thing as a "perfectly safe" medical technology or procedure.

With all medical advances there is an accompanying medical risk.

Vaccination technology is an example of that.

As I wrote in another thread earlier today:

I think the most important thing for people to do is to try very hard to get an understanding of all the complex facts & arguments, without being totally distracted by one's own emotions & prejudices.

That is to say....try very hard "not to throw the baby out with the bathwater".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:07 AM
Trust me, I'd rather not get vaccines as I don't like the sore arm for days afterwards

But I know for a fact if I did get really ill and die from not getting one, how bad it would be for my family so I think getting the vaccines, in my case, makes me feel better than not.
But there's always a chance that you could be allergic or get ill from it anyway.
That's the point of virus' - they mutate. So I've had the swine flu one, but I could still get it.

But if I did get it... At least I'd know I had tried to protect myself, so there wouldn't be the guilt.

Its up to everyones own personal opinion at the end of the day, really.
If we all agreed then the world would be a bit boring...

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:35 AM
To make an informed choice, you have to get the stats on incidence of side effects of any medical procedure. And then of course you have to decide if you believe them!

We take risks every day of our lives.
We drive to the shops and possibly die in a smash. Should I not drive because someone I know got killed last week?
We go into hospital and possibly die there - or maybe it saves our life.
Nothing is 100%, Nothing is guaranteed. You look at the possibilities then make a judgement call.
However, you could still die, because you can't take the risk out of life. And it's easy to say after the event, could have, should have, shouldn't have...

[edit on 10-1-2010 by unicorn1]

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:56 AM
reply to post by unicorn1

I like you and I like your whole point.

That was the thing I was trying to say, you've just said it about 20 x better then I would ever manage!

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:58 AM
reply to post by Ayana

how does that compute in your head, girl gets jab drops dead,of course it is something else, why are you even on this website if you are going to just straight out believe the tripe cover up that they spew out, why are you here?,

does anybody remember this

Thalidomide, launched by Grünenthal on 1st october 1957,[10] was found to act as an effective tranquiliser and painkiller and was proclaimed a "wonder drug" for insomnia, coughs, colds and headaches. It was also found to be an effective antiemetic which had an inhibitory effect on morning sickness, and so thousands of pregnant women took the drug to relieve their symptoms.[4] At the time of the drug's development it was not thought likely that any drug could pass from the mother across the placental barrier and harm the developing fetus.[7]

need i say more, be wary of any drug that a trusted doctor prescribes

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:46 AM

Originally posted by THELONIO
reply to post by Ayana

how does that compute in your head, girl gets jab drops dead,of course it is something else, why are you even on this website if you are going to just straight out believe the tripe cover up that they spew out, why are you here?,

That's nice of you, thanks.

Everyone has different opinions. And yes, sometimes the drugs can be really bad, I'm aware of that. Stuff to do with optical isomers usually, if I'm right.
If a chemical has a chiral carbon, it can produce a mirror image isomer which rotates plane polarised light differently; and if one of the isomers is beneficial, it doesn't mean the other is. A well known case of that is thalidomine which as you pointed out created birth defects, another is Seldane which was manufactured as an antihistamine, with the other isomer thought to be 'inactive' when in fact it caused heart problems in some patients.

I wasn't commenting on the story in the OP anyway, I was just saying that the one from the UK, she had a heart condition, and was agreeing with... I'm not sure, whoever posted after me simply that yes, she had a heart condition. My next door neighbour died age 32 from a heart condition he'd had from birth that no one knew about so it can happen.

And because I've been looked after by the health service, and on medication since I was 9, I have more faith in them than some other people.

So yes. That's my opinion, if yours is different, which it clearly is, fair enough tell me that. I'll always listen and take in others opinions but I don't appreciate being launched upon. Thank you

[edit on 10/1/2010 by Ayana]

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:07 PM
I am convinced that vaccines are simply bad science, and this particular vaccine is disastrous beyond belief. We have been brainwashed into believing that vaccines are part of life-saving technology -- but when one looks at the deaths and those whose lives are destroyed by complications from the vaccines, then it is clear that vaccines are a bad idea, and we need better science to come up with a better answer to dealing with disease and disease prevention.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 12:26 AM
reply to post by Ayana

what you need to think about is this, how long would that girl of lived had she not had the jab?, how many people would allow their girls to have the jab if they admitted that the jab caused this girls death, how much would it cost the drug companys if they had to pay out to those affected and revenue lost from no sales, who wants to play roulette with their life, i am sorry if you feel like i launched into you, maybe i was a bit harsh, i must reiterate though, this is a site dedicated to free thinking, not to the automatic acceptance of official stories, once again, sorry

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 12:53 AM
Vaccines have done more to extend our life spans over the past century than any other medical intervention. Demonizing them makes no sense in this light.

Obviously, there can be side effects. It all comes down to a cost/benefit analysis.

That said...

"Dr. Diane Harper, lead researcher in the development of two human papilloma virus vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, said the controversial drugs will do little to reduce cervical cancer rates and, even though they’re being recommended for girls as young as nine, there have been no efficacy trials in children under the age of 15."


The risks associated with this intervention come with..... what benefits exactly?

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 11:15 AM
I think vaccines are considerably less dangerous than the over perscription of antibiotic drugs. Alot of folks I know are constantly whining at thier doctors , requesting something to cure thier colds and wussing out over flu. These people need to shut the hell up. The VERY best way to beat a cold, is to let your body adapt to it, and kill it. There is NO substitute for this natural and solid way of dealing with a cold.
Sure, there are folks who need additional protection from colds and the like, but they are a lot less in number than is widely known. Yet average, every day people , with no particular immune weaknesses, go to thier GPs and request dosages because " I can't work like this waaah wahh" . These people are a health hazzard. Every time an antibiotic gets used , the chances of the cold viruses mutating and changing to survive, get higher. Rather than take a day from work, these irresponsible twits risk everybodies health by being incapable or unwilling to allow the genius of thier own body to do its work and kill the illness unassisted. THAT makes me mad as hell.

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by THELONIO

I don't know.
Maybe she would have lived years. maybe she still would have died at the same time. You just don't know.
But free-thinking does also include people being able to be for and against a statement.
We're playing roulette with our lives when we do anything. And pretty much everything could kill us.
Either way though, apology accepted

TrueTruth and TrueBrit: I agree.
Especially on TrueBrit's post about the antibiotics. As all they're doing is allowing resistant mutations and stronger strains to live on. And don't help in the slightest!
Thats why when you're on them for a reason you gotta complete the full course, afterall.

[edit on 22/1/2010 by Ayana]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in