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.

 

Retired Vaccine Expert Speaks Out (Get this information out before the Internet gets Censored!)

page: 4
92
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roid_Rage27
Parent doesn't want to vaccinate OK then Plan B - use fear.


It's not fear at all, it's a realistic risk. I'm not saying your child WILL get HepB from a blood transfusion, I'm just saying it's a risk you'll run by not having them vaccinated. Do so at your own (well, your child's own) risk.


Listen, you speak of as if this vaccine or any vaccine is 100% effective and safe which they are not.


No one has ever saif they are 100% effective. Not a single doctor, scientist, FDA official...anyone. Best estimates put most vaccines at an 87% effectiveness rate, which is about where you need it to be for herd immunity to work, assuming nearly all people vaccinate.


I bet you don't even know half of the stuff that is in the vaccines you are injecting I mean we are talking about toxic metals, toxic chemicals, animal DNA that may or may not be tainted?


You can pull up full vaccine ingredient lists for every vaccine on the FDA site. There are a few things considered toxic in doses several hundred times larger than in vaccines, sure. But by that same logic, you shouldn't take a single dose of aspirin because eating a bottle of it at once is toxic. As for animal DNA...you know you ingest this at every meal, right?



Please don't act like you know how viruses are passed around and who does it, you're just a doctor not a scientist.


Actually, I was a human and viral geneticist (both by degree and profession) for 5 years prior to medical school. My main areas of expertise are mitochondrial genomics, microarray analysis, and ELISA-based viral arrays.


I'm sorry but if you think unvaccinated children are the problem then you're just a bad doctor. If this is your line of thinking you should really consider quitting your practice.


So I should allow your child to harm the others in my clinic? Why is justifying your personal narcissism more important than the health of the dozen or so kids that might catch something from your child's cough?


A critical thinker does not need "someone on the internet" to tell them vaccines are bad. All they have to do is put 2 and 2 together and know that neurotoxins and animal DNA, gee I don't know, may not be a good idea to mix directly in to our blood streams.


I've yet to see a single shred of evidence that links vaccines to any sort of issue the anti-vax community as proposed. How do "critical thinkers" come to their conclusions without evidence?




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by liveyourlife
 


I'm sure it was terribly frightening! I've only seen one case, personally, and luckily that child made a full recovery, too.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I have no fear. I don't post much in this topic even though I'm interested because I see the real conspiracy as being on the other side. All I do is upset people sold on the idea that medicine is out to get them and nobody else seems to be interested in the Alternative Medicine Confidence Game that has been with us all throughout history.

The sources are never good, often anonymous nutty stuff like this interview and no way was that person who they claim to be in my opinion.

Young people who never had to go through the childhood stuff that is preventable now have no point of reference. They've never experienced it thanks to the vaccines you are afraid of.

Polio impacted so many we knew and loved that I still remember nearly the whole town showing up for the first vaccine we were able to get. That and the guy who lived around the corner from me who was one of the last where I lived to contract Polio.

I do accept they make mistakes. I do accept that often financial concerns outweigh common sense, even to the point of criminality. I don't accept the idea that the whole industry exists to try and kill us. That is paranoid nonsense.

I'll go away.


I think that without vaccines the death from disease would be huge. However, knowing what I know about depopulation and the government, as well as the questionable credibility from these recent 'doctors coming forward' (the one who linked MMR to autism recently took back his claims) I could argue both ways for propoganda. The government could be feeding us this BS. They know we will protect our children above all else-- the question is, which is more dangerous. The disease, or the vaccine?

I want to let you all know I am still on the fence about this. The number one reason is that I have not done 'significant' personal research into it, because I don't have children yet... We have been suffering from infertility and losses for 3 years, so saying whether or not I would vaccinate my child would be a complete misnomer. I do believe there 'may' be legitimate concern not to vaccinate your child with the MMR until over age 1 year, and the reason I don't say not at all is because of the cases cropping up lately. Someone I know believes they may have the mumps (people who want to argue with this, have at it. I know them and even if it isn't confirmed by a doctor I am not trying to be an advocate here, consider it hearsay)

THIS IS IMPORTANT: and I invite opinion on this because I am currently torn on whether or not to get vaccinated myself! Also cases of rubella.. they are now saying rubella vaccinations should be repeated do to non-immunity. I was pregnant 6 months ago, and had routine blood tests. They revealed that I am non-immune to rubella. I was vaccinated as a child. They are now recommending a booster, at least 3 months before you get pregnant. Which for a LOT of people would be next to impossible! Apparently it causes birth defects and death in the unborn children of affected mothers. With three years of infertility behind me I could make the sacrifice of 3 months of not being able to conceive for the vaccination should it save my baby. I am not convinced yet that this is the right choice... because I haven't seen enough info out there.

I am basically new to this antivaccine thing... but I believe there is reason to doubt it. Especially given the case against Gulf War syndrome, and girlfriends or wives that contract illness based on the vaccine given to the soldier. There is so much to consider.. is there a research topic on vaccines? I am off to find out...
edit on 20-1-2011 by Whitbit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   


You can pull up full vaccine ingredient lists for every vaccine on the FDA site. There are a few things considered toxic in doses several hundred times larger than in vaccines, sure. But by that same logic, you shouldn't take a single dose of aspirin because eating a bottle of it at once is toxic. As for animal DNA...you know you ingest this at every meal, right?

Actually, I was a human and viral geneticist (both by degree and profession) for 5 years prior to medical school. My main areas of expertise are mitochondrial genomics, microarray analysis, and ELISA-based viral arrays.


Ok I'm calm now, so let's keep this a friendly debate. Being a human and viral geneticist (looks like I was right not knowing you from my uncle), how can you not understand the fundamental difference between injecting animal DNA and eating it? You are also aware that injecting a mercury derivative DIRECTLY in to the bloodstream is much different than eating it (Tuna sandwich)?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roid_Rage27

Ok I'm calm now, so let's keep this a friendly debate. Being a human and viral geneticist (looks like I was right not knowing you from my uncle), how can you not understand the fundamental difference between injecting animal DNA and eating it? You are also aware that injecting a mercury derivative DIRECTLY in to the bloodstream is much different than eating it (Tuna sandwich)?




I'm fully aware that eating versus injecting compounds is different. Eating it allows for first-pass metabolism in the liver. What I'm ALSO aware of, however, is the nature of the compounds in vaccines. The mercury that was formerly (not presently) used in vaccines was rapidly metabolized to ethylmercury. This form leaves the body quickly and has little to no potential for crossing the blood-brain barrier. The mercury most people confuse this with is methylmercury, which is NOT in vaccines, even those that contained thimerosal.

As for animal DNA, I see no risk in ingesting or injecting it. DNA, on it's own, is not a reacting chemical. It requires a very carefully orchestrated (and typically species specific) cascade of enzymes to do anything. Additionally, the human body has a protein called Dicer whose sole job is to literally dice up non-self DNA. This is how we handle viral DNA, as well as any other source of exogenous DNA/RNA.
edit on 1/20/2011 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
The reason is because hepatitis B is a life-long, chronic disease that will prematurely end your child's life. If your child is unvaccinated and is ever in the position of needing a blood transfusion (car accident, injury, etc.), they are at risk for contracting HepB, as our current techniques don't eliminate 100% of the virus from donated blood.


I do not believe it is necessary nor do I believe it is productive to vaccinate all newborns to prevent the small chance of contracting this disease (from the small chance of needing a blood transfusion due to accident, injury, etc.). Adults typically contract the disease by injecting illegal drugs into their systems (sharing needles) and having sex with many partners. A newborn whose mother does not have hepatitis B is not at risk, and by the time they reach an age to use drugs, have sex, get tattoos, they likely won't have any measurable antibodies in their systems from the vaccinations they received at birth.

And hepatitis B will not prematurely end someone's child's life. Only about 5% of those who contract hepatitis B go on to become chronic carriers which can lead to liver problems. Most children will never be exposed to hepatitis B unless they live under the same roof as someone infected.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Personally I think the real conspiracy is the Alternative Medicine Industry that has scared people into the insane idea that everyone involved in medicine is out to kill them so they can peddle their products and services. Not exactly a brilliant observation since the Snake Oil business has been with us since the first Confidence Man / Witch Doctor discovered he could control people with tricks and fakery. Rub a little smelly crap on them and they will give you half the Goat they just killed.


Well said. But you are probably saying it in the wrong place. Just trying to tell people that the alternative health industry (and it IS an industry) is less than whiter than white is guaranteed to get you labelled all sorts on here
.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bangin
I do not believe it is necessary nor do I believe it is productive to vaccinate all newborns to prevent the small chance of contracting this disease (from the small chance of needing a blood transfusion due to accident, injury, etc.).


You likely think that because your child (assuming you have one) has never needed hemodialysis, blodo transfusions, surgery, and so on. People tend to change their mind when faces with an actual risk, rather than a theoretical risk.


. A newborn whose mother does not have hepatitis B is not at risk


Unless she is an asymptomatic carrier, which most mothers who pass it likely are.


and by the time they reach an age to use drugs, have sex, get tattoos, they likely won't have any measurable antibodies in their systems from the vaccinations they received at birth.


Which is why we give boosters.


And hepatitis B will not prematurely end someone's child's life. Only about 5% of those who contract hepatitis B go on to become chronic carriers which can lead to liver problems.


You're ignoring those who develop acute and/or fulminant HepB. Just because a large majority don't develop any worthwhile symptoms doesn't mean that it isn't a serious or endemic disease.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   


I've yet to see a single shred of evidence that links vaccines to any sort of issue the anti-vax community as proposed. How do "critical thinkers" come to their conclusions without evidence?


Vne, cmon. I don't need a 5 year study to tell me that sticking my finger in a light socket will shock me. There is no need for evidence. Pouring gasoline on fire is not good. Slapping a male lion on the nose is not a good idea. Hitting on Mike Tyson's girlfriend in front of him will not end well.

This is very simple, metals or chemicals known to be neurotoxins injected in to the blood stream can't be good, how can they be?. The fact is Big Pharma has no clue what happens inside the body when these are injected. The priorities of doctors should be to tell parents to make sure their kids stay away from garbage (diet coke. etc.), get enough vitamin D, drink clean water, so when they get these harmless childhood diseases, a week's bed rest is all they need. Nothing beats natural lifetime immunity and tricking the immune system in an unnatural way is a flawed notion. How as a geneticist can you not know this?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


People don't realize that if this irrational anti-vaccine movement really catches on those horrible diseases that were all but wiped out could make a come back in civilized countries. You're absolutely right, people don't realize the good that vaccines have done, they've been caught up in rumors and wild speculation and now they've got their own argument from authority in this retired "expert".



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
You likely think that because your child (assuming you have one) has never needed hemodialysis, blodo transfusions, surgery, and so on. People tend to change their mind when faces with an actual risk, rather than a theoretical risk.


Again, the risk is extremely low that a child will need those procedures done, so I think it is unnecessary and foolish to vaccinate all newborns for the small chance that they will need a blood transfusion in the future. Then you have the small chance that the blood they receive would actually be contaminated with hep B.

I don't want to mess with the quote system. To address your asymptomatic comment, most pregnant women are screened for hep B if they are having their prenatal checkups.

Boosters? Most people who contract (acute) hep B recover without any symptoms and develop lifelong immunity. Children are the exception, but I feel their risk of exposure is so small that it makes no sense to vaccinate all hours-old newborns. I agree, it is a serious disease, but not rampant enough to vaccinate all newborns..right out of the womb. That's just my personal opinion. Thankfully, we can all make our own decisions when it comes to our own children.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Roid_Rage27
Vne, cmon. I don't need a 5 year study


Of course you need evidence in this case. Why wouldn't you? Vaccines have wiped out several diseases from the Western world. Why should we allow these diseases to make a resurgence based on heresay that isn't supported by science?


This is very simple, metals or chemicals known to be neurotoxins injected in to the blood stream can't be good, how can they be?


Are you going to stop drinking water, too?


so when they get these harmless childhood diseases


Stop right there.

Rotavirus accounts for 5% of global child deaths

Diptheria has 20% death rate in children

Hib and pneumococcus are two of the most common causes of encephalitis in unvaccinated infants

I suppose if you consider death or permanent brain injury "harmless"....


Nothing beats natural lifetime immunity and tricking the immune system in an unnatural way is a flawed notion. How as a geneticist can you not know this?


It's not unnatural. You are exposing the natural immune system to antigen and allowing it to create an immune response in a natural way. We vaccinate for certain diseases because those bacteria/viruses have evolved means of evading the immune system. Without vaccination, there would be little to no immunity to certain diseases in the population as a whole.
edit on 1/20/2011 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


People don't realize that if this irrational anti-vaccine movement really catches on those horrible diseases that were all but wiped out could make a come back in civilized countries. You're absolutely right, people don't realize the good that vaccines have done, they've been caught up in rumors and wild speculation and now they've got their own argument from authority in this retired "expert".



This is why I remain on the fence. I totally agree with you.. these things could make a come back. Some of them are more worrying than others, which is the great thing about being able to choose what you vaccinate for. In the end, I think I will more than likely vaccinate my children. I am fine, everyone I know in my family is fine, my husband's family is fne and everyone they know. It is not the norm to see someone legitimately harmed. There are way too many factors coming in to play to legitimize things like autism. No one knows anything about it to put it bluntly. I would be inclined to point toward a genetic standpoint. Are ALL autistic children vaccinated? Here is where the research comes into play, and if anyone wants to sticky this and/or make a research thread I am game. When I research based on my own agenda I don't typically compile/save, I rely on memory.

I also have the other view to think of: depopulation. There is a lot of evidence leaning toward it..I don't know about you, but I have never EVER had a flu shot. I refuse to get one because a lot of people I have known ended up getting the flu anyway. I happen to be one of the lucky few that very rarely get sick, and can't even remember the last time I got the flu. You can also say the reoccurance of these viruses/diseases is due to non-vaccination. What I say to you is: WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!! You KNOW better!!! What a lie. At the risk of sounding like a die hard conspiracy advocate: the government is probably planting the disease! Think about it. It has to come from SOMEWHERE!

BTW, I agreee about the Hep B shot. Total junk. I got it when it came out in like, 7th grade. BS! Why would I force it on my kid? Method of transmission is clearly evidence enough to act upon itself when the child is an adult. Based on the values and truths I raise my kid with, they probably won't want it in their veins.
edit on 20-1-2011 by Whitbit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Regarding your above post, asking from the POV of a skeptic/on thefence, would you recommend vaccinating for some things but not others?

I want THE most important, would you take a risk to save a life, vaccines. I would want to go all natural if I had a child, but in your ALL's opinion, is there one you would make an exception for? Based on DISEASE



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bangin
Again, the risk is extremely low that a child will need those procedures done, so I think it is unnecessary and foolish to vaccinate all newborns for the small chance that they will need a blood transfusion in the future. Then you have the small chance that the blood they receive would actually be contaminated with hep B.


Actually, the rates of children needing blood are pretty high when you consider the rates in general populations.

Link

About 5% of kids will end up needing a transfusion while hospitalized. Using the 2009 census data, there are roughly 83,420,691 children (aged birth to 18) in the country. That means an estimated 4,171,034 of these children would have received blood transfusions. The actual risk for contracting HepB from transfusion is based on the number of units given, so it would obviously vary patient to patient. In vaccinated patients, the risk tends to be about 1/66,000 transfusions, or about 65 kids per year. To me, that is already an unacceptable number. Now imagine if there were NO vaccination program in place. We could see that number spike very quickly. Do you really want to risk hundreds, if not thousands, of children developing what could be a very dangerous disease, all because you bought into an internet-based scam?


To address your asymptomatic comment, most pregnant women are screened for hep B if they are having their prenatal checkups.


You clearly have never worked in urban-center medicine. The idea that most women get prenatal care, let alone disease screening, is laughable.


I agree, it is a serious disease, but not rampant enough to vaccinate all newborns


Of course it isn't rampant...BECAUSE WE HAVE VACCINATION PROGRAMS.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whitbit
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Regarding your above post, asking from the POV of a skeptic/on thefence, would you recommend vaccinating for some things but not others?


In my opinion, they are all worth getting, but to answer your question, if you had to go "bare minimum" for some reason, you would want to have your child vaccinated with the MMR, DTaP, rotavirus, flu, and Hib vaccines. These comprise, by and large, the biggest killers of infants (Hib, flu, DTaP, rota) and the diseases with the worst complications (MMR).



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


People don't realize that if this irrational anti-vaccine movement really catches on those horrible diseases that were all but wiped out could make a come back in civilized countries. You're absolutely right, people don't realize the good that vaccines have done, they've been caught up in rumors and wild speculation and now they've got their own argument from authority in this retired "expert".



Titen-Sxull (Cool name, bro!), the anti-vaccine movement is not irrational. Many board certified physicians have come out and said that vaccines do more harm than good. The truth is diseases have been on the decline even before mass vaccinations. This is the CDC's own numbers, so I'm not getting that from some "quack on the interweb". In fact mass vaccinations are what keeping these diseases in circulation.

Look at what Dr. Russell Blaylock has to say on the subject. The guy's background in neurology is quite extensive. Many doctors were also more concerned about the swine flu shot than the actual swine flu during that whole debacle. They tried to scare everyone through the media in to getting the swine flu shot and thank god they failed miserably and people didn't buy in to their fear mongering.

Japanese researchers found that Vitamin D was more effective in preventing the flu than the flu shot was. Which is why peak season is between December and March, when the days are short and there's less sun. In other words DERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

So you see, there is no reason to jump down someone's throat when they are against vaccines as they have VERY good reason to be. There is nothing wrong with a healthy debate to get both sides talking, but let's not kid ourselves, vaccines reap huge profits, and it's always been about money. No study will ever be funded to see if vaccines really work and what they are doing to the population, because they already know what the results will be. With Big Pharma lobbyists and FDA corruption, this will never change.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Look at what Dr. Russell Blaylock has to say on the subject.


You mean the same Dr. Russell Blaylock who, conveniently, started marketing a miracle cure for the ailments he claims are caused by vaccines?

How ironic. Almost as if all his statements are part of some sort of marketing scam...



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Of course you need evidence in this case. Why wouldn't you? Vaccines have wiped out several diseases from the Western world. Why should we allow these diseases to make a resurgence based on heresay that isn't supported by science?


Vaccines have not wiped out diseases. Better nutrition and cleaner living are the reasons. Check the CDC numbers, the diseases were on the decline before mass vaccinations.


Are you going to stop drinking water, too?


Cmon...water filters?




Stop right there.

Rotavirus accounts for 5% of global child deaths

Diptheria has 20% death rate in children

Hib and pneumococcus are two of the most common causes of encephalitis in unvaccinated infants

I suppose if you consider death or permanent brain injury "harmless"....


I will not stop there. 5% of global deaths? I bet you anything most of those are from developing countries and the kids did not have clean water or proper nutrition. Again you work on the premise that vaccines are actually effective. You honestly believe that the drug companies that do their own studies with their own vaccines are unbiased and factual? Cmon don't be naive. To say that vaccines have wiped out disease is analogous to saying my father has smoked for 50 years and he doesn't have Alzheimer's, therefore smoking prevents Alzheimer's.



It's not unnatural. You are exposing the natural immune system to antigen and allowing it to create an immune response in a natural way. We vaccinate for certain diseases because those bacteria/viruses have evolved means of evading the immune system. Without vaccination, there would be little to no immunity to certain diseases in the population as a whole.
edit on 1/20/2011 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)


Injecting a virus/bacteria directly in to the blood stream, bypassing the mucus membranes is natural? Cmon you are losing credibility here.



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join