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.

 

Childhood diseases return as parents refuse vaccines

page: 20
34
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Also, there's a difference between organic and inorganic mercury. Inorganic mercury isn't bioaccumulative, which means it doesn't build up in the blood, bones, or tissues. That is what's in thimerasol.

PS--I don't mean to come off so harshly, but this is one subject that really gets my hackles up.
That's not correct, according to the national institutes of health website here: www.nlm.nih.gov...

Which says:
"Organic mercury can be found in:...
* Thimerosal...
* Fish that have eaten a form of organic mercury called methylmercury"

So according to that, Thimerosal is an organic form of mercury, which means your claim that Thimerosal is an inorganic form of mercury is incorrect, right?

As organic ethylmercury, it is chemically different from the organic methylmercury which bioaccumulates in fish, and hopefully bioaccumulates less than methylmercury does, but it's still organic.




posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Every year, someone makes a post about people refusing vaccines and higher disease sickness rates....
Well the child in question was living in squalor not to mention heavy economic troubles in the US. H191 was the big thing, with very few causalities just big pharma making a buck i expect every 5 years another major vaccination campaign.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes that's correct, all compounds that contain carbon (apart from CO2 and CO) are organic compounds



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
We don't need a study, it's there for all to see, it's so obvious as the evidence is all around us, so many parents telling the same story. It's a joke that some people believe Autism is meant to appear at exactly the same date as their child is due to have the MMR vaccine due to a coincidence that both lengths of time are the same, but enough people do seem to fall for that one. It's no coincidence!

Do you really believe Big Pharma are going to publish a study proving that Autism comes from vaccines? Of course you don't; if you have some basic understanding of business. It would be like McDonalds announcing that their foods caused heart disease. We have to stop believing that Big Pharma are working for us free of charge, as if they are vocational people.

It's great that your post has made it to the front page, as it's actually ended up getting out the opposite message as was it's original intention. ATS members have woken up to the reality of vaccines. ATS must be high on the Big Pharma hit list!


Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by jameshawkings
 


The study that 'proved' the link between vaccines and autism was discredited by every major health organisation in the world and retracted soon after. It was found to be fraudulent, as Andrew Wakefield was receiving payments off other people to skew his results. That combined with the fact that the study was performed on only 12 people, 4 of which had pre existing mental health conditions



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


Last paragraph of link will find better link when I'm home have it on favourites list but this blames the mercury I've always know Aluminium does this being in the trade working with metals this link between aluminium and alzheimers has been around for a fair while.

www.naturalnews.com...

www.ageofautism.com...
edit on 20-6-2011 by vkturbo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Good links there vkturbo


Inheritance is seen as a big problem by those at the top of our current system i.e. some people won't have the same incentive to work (and be taxed) once they receive their parents life savings/assets.

Ideally they want us all to have to start from scratch. This is where the so-called "Old People's Flu Jab" comes in. It's actually an attempt to push the elderly towards Alzheimers/Dementia so as they can no longer stay at home, once in care their savings/assets start to get quickly hoovered up by the system.

It is well known that vaccines are pointless in the elderly as their immune systems don't respond in the same way anymore. The internationally renowned Cochrane Collaboration have tried to point this out, but the flu jabs for the elderly still continue. The flu jabs for the elderly will continue as the agenda is not to protect these people from flu, it is to redistribute their wealth back into the system while preventing their sons and daughters from getting too comfortable.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Originally posted by vkturbo
reply to post by Griffo
 


Last paragraph of link will find better link when I'm home have it on favourites list but this blames the mercury I've always know Aluminium does this being in the trade working with metals this link between aluminium and alzheimers has been around for a fair while.

www.naturalnews.com...

www.ageofautism.com...
edit on 20-6-2011 by vkturbo because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2011 by jameshawkings because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jameshawkings
 


No, it isn't there for all to see. If you had read into this debacle in any detail, as I have clearly explained in my previous post, you would know that he was bribed to skew the results

We do studies and we have them peer reviewed because they are unbiased by their very nature. This study was quickly peer reviewed because it makes such a strong claim, it was subsequently rejected by all major world health organisations because it was bogus

'Big pharma' does not partake in these studies, the vast majority of the time they are performed by independent research groups



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I would recommend looking into the other side of the story too, but it is harder to come by as you won't find it on mainstream TV, in Newspapers or in popular Science Magazines. The people behind Big Pharma are some of the most powerful people in the world; people don't like to upset them (it's not good for your pocket or career).

It is the Big Pharma controlled studies that claim there is no link between Autism and Vaccination, even the studies that initially appear to be independent turn out not to be, they are actually what is known as cheque-book research i.e. the researcher producers the results and conclusion that they were paid to prove.

I know where you're coming from, I understand why you believe what you do, if we misplace our trust (as I once did) then we can be mislead. One of the most important things before reading on this topic is to research the people/companies/bodies involved and decide if you should believe what you're being told. It took many years of research for me to realize just how corrupt Big Pharma is and the hidden agenda behind some of the major vaccination programs. What I would recommend to you is to stop reading vaccine and autism studies and start learning about the the companies involved, the types of people who we are dealing with. Before we listen to someone and believe them, we have to first know if they are trustworthy.

Here's one small example from the thousands out there...




Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by jameshawkings
 


No, it isn't there for all to see. If you had read into this debacle in any detail, as I have clearly explained in my previous post, you would know that he was bribed to skew the results

We do studies and we have them peer reviewed because they are unbiased by their very nature. This study was quickly peer reviewed because it makes such a strong claim, it was subsequently rejected by all major world health organisations because it was bogus

'Big pharma' does not partake in these studies, the vast majority of the time they are performed by independent research groups

edit on 20-6-2011 by jameshawkings because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Why do people always say unvaccinated kids pose a threat to everyone else. If they are vaccinated then how can my kids give the disease to them. Do the vaccines work or not????



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by hanyak69
Why do people always say unvaccinated kids pose a threat to everyone else. If they are vaccinated then how can my kids give the disease to them. Do the vaccines work or not????


The problem with having unvaccinated kids around is that people can work out that they are perfectly healthy (no autism, no auto-immune diseases, less illnesses etc) i.e. we have a control in the study, whereas if all kids are vaccinated it's a lot more difficult for people to prove that vaccines are what's causing the damage



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by hanyak69
 


If everybody in a population is vaccinated, the chances of contracting the disease is near zero. But the more people in a population who do not get vaccinated, the more the whole population is jeopardized.

Imagine a robust individual who is not vaccinated and gets mumps. Before his parents keep him home from school he infects half his classmates, some have been vaccinated and are not affected. Some have not been vaccinated and they get the mumps. Most recover. Maybe one of the non-vaccinated dies.

There may also be a child who was vaccinated but who is not very robust and she gets infected by several people, some of whom have been vaccinated and some who have not. Both can be carriers of the virus. The weak but vaccinated girl dies.

Does this mean the vaccine doesn't work? No. It means that if some people don't get vaccinated they can jeopardize those who do. On the other hand, if most people have been vaccinated, those in the population who haven't been vaccinated benefit from the actions of the others and get protection against the disease without being vaccinated. If too many people take this free-ride approach, the group suffers.

This concept is known as herd immunity

A related link:

If vaccines work, why does an unvaccinated child pose a risk to a vaccinated one?
edit on 20/6/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 

They aren't even hiding the facts and nobody gets it.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


And the verified fact of experimentation?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


Is that due to the fact that diseases started dropping due to living standards rising and vaccines coming in around the same time they are taking the credit for it. You can keep getting jabbed but I won't and also everyone else I know that gets a flu jab gets sick I don't and end up not having it so I'll take my chances.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jameshawkings

Originally posted by hanyak69
Why do people always say unvaccinated kids pose a threat to everyone else. If they are vaccinated then how can my kids give the disease to them. Do the vaccines work or not????


The problem with having unvaccinated kids around is that people can work out that they are perfectly healthy (no autism, no auto-immune diseases, less illnesses etc) i.e. we have a control in the study, whereas if all kids are vaccinated it's a lot more difficult for people to prove that vaccines are what's causing the damage
Both post and answer are dead on.....thats as plain as it gets



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by vkturbo
 


Yes, the disease rate will have been lowered due to increase in hygiene and nutrition, but they will not have been eradicated on their own. Vaccines were responsible for complete eradication of smallpox.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Slow Kill Vaccines = Useless contaminated toxic vaccines - HIV, Polio, Bird, Swine, H1N1, Influenza, MMR, DPT, Hepatitis, Gardasil, Tetanus, etc., that kill you slowly (progressive organ damage a.k.a "side effects") and give you much worse than what you were afraid of catching in the first place! = Brain Swelling, Autism, Narcolepsy, Seizures, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Shaken Baby Syndrome, Tumors, SV40 Cancers, Sterility, Infertility, Birth Defects, Neurological, Immunological and Chronic Diseases.

-----
(snip)
-----

edit on Tue 21 Jun 2011 by Hellmutt because: T&C § 19) Advertising



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SmokeAndMirror
 


I don't suppose you would have any evidence to back up your claims? Or is this just more biased gibberish?



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by SmokeAndMirror
 


I don't suppose you would have any evidence to back up your claims? Or is this just more biased gibberish?
No...he is correct... www.drtenpenny.com
edit on 6/21/2011 by Homedawg because: clarity and accuracy



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


Here is one reason why vaccines shouldn't be administered www.perthnow.com.au...

Then you bring up the vaccine for small pox have you got results of who survived and what percentage of those actually had the vaccine?

Also if it worked for small pox supposedly why is it people say they know others who had the vaccine died and others that didn't survived when spanish flu was around?




top topics



 
34
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join