Childhood diseases return as parents refuse vaccines

page: 23
34
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by RRokkyy
 
Please learn how to quote external sources:

Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**


if you post something that is not 100% your own writing or work you must use the EX TAG, post NO MORE THAN 10% of the original (or three paragraphs, whichever is least), and GIVE A LINK TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL.... Failure to do so will get you a MANDATORY 3 DAY POST BAN on the first offense,


You broke at least two site rules, by not using the EX tags, and by quoting an excessive amount of the article. But if you ask a mod nicely they may fix your post for you, if you've exceeded the 2 hour edit _

And if I had found your source in a Google search, it wouldn't have answered my question. If you're asking other people if they can dispute your data, then you should provide the data you want to see disputed. You haven't provided any reliable data, only anecdotes. Your source simply mentions that one guy knows of one autism case. It doesn't mention any assessment done on the thousands of others he doesn't know that he seems to be assuming don't have autism.

Also, I found that it may only be true that vaccination rates are lower in Amish, not that they don't vaccinate at all:

Why are you telling me how to post? Are you a disinfo agent?You are not a mod.
LOOK DUDE: The solution to the problem is extremely simply. Simply do a survey of every child born in the last 10 or 20 years to determine if they have been vaccinated and if they have autism. THAT WILL TELL YOU IF VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM.
To my knowledge this has not been done because the vaccine companies/CDC,FDA do not
want to know the outcome of such study.
Furthermore all my reading on the subject has indicated that very old people, in the,80s,90s have
much lower levels of autism as they received fewer vaccines when young.
This is a HUGE GOVERNMENT conspiracy. Autism is now affecting 1 in 55 males and the cost of
treating this disorder is HUGE.


www.ageofautism.com...

In relation to possible biomedical causes for autism (such as vaccine injury), there is a popular way of thinking these days that goes something like this: "We don't believe it because it hasn't been proven. It hasn't been proven because we are not studying it (i.e. in peer reviewed studies published in medical journals). We are not studying it because we don't believe it. We don't believe it because it hasn't been proven..." ad infinitum. If something has to be proven before scientists will study it, how can we learn anything new? As far as I know, Dan Olmstead does not have the credentials or funding or employees to do a full scale study of the Amish. He is investigating as a reporter. He is uncovering information worthy of further study. He does not pretend to have found definitive answers regarding the Amish, at least not so far. When asked why doesn't the CDC do a comparison of health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated children, the director of the CDC said that it would be terribly difficult to find such children. When asked, "What about the Amish?" she replied that maybe there are other factors such as genes or life style that would impact the rate of autism among Amish people. If so -- as Dan has commented -- wouldn't it be interesting to study these different factors in relation to health outcomes such as autism?




posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
The amish don't do A LOT of things the rest of America does. How can you pinpoint to vaccinations?



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spencer1989
The amish don't do A LOT of things the rest of America does. How can you pinpoint to vaccinations?

Its a matter of logic and common sense.
First you need accurate data. Do the Amish not vaccinate and do they have lower autism rates?
If that is true then you need to start looking for a reason why that would be true.
Most likely answer would be vaccines cause autism.
It could be the Amish are different.
It could be other reasons.
THE FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE THIS IS A CONSPIRACY. AUTISM
NOW EFFECTS 1 MALE IN 55. THE COSTS ARE ENORMOUS.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE THE GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER DONE A STUDY ON VACCINATED
AND UNVACCINATED CHILDREN REGARDING AUTISM.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Universer
 


Excuse me, but I am not the paranoid one; far from it.


It is simple:
Step 1. Look up the known components of vaccine injections.
Step 2. Cross-reference with known toxins and carcinogens.


So you can't be bothered to list the specific chemicals that you think cause cancer so you've used to old, "Google it" trick.

I am aware of the compounds in vaccines, so please provide me with the names of the chemicals you are unsure of and I will do my best to clarify



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by Universer
 


Excuse me, but I am not the paranoid one; far from it.


It is simple:
Step 1. Look up the known components of vaccine injections.
Step 2. Cross-reference with known toxins and carcinogens.


So you can't be bothered to list the specific chemicals that you think cause cancer so you've used to old, "Google it" trick.

I am aware of the compounds in vaccines, so please provide me with the names of the chemicals you are unsure of and I will do my best to clarify


Here is a list of whats in vaccines... www.alternamoms.com...
As far as the cancer part.... the polio shot caused it as one admitted example... should we wait to find more?



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by scoobdude
 


Don't forget about the monkey crap and bird embreyo crap also included in some of these things too



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by scoobdude
 


*Opens link*
*Ohh crap, I'm blind*

All jokes aside:

Formaldehyde is used to sterilise the vaccine, to kill any unwanted microbes that may be present. Formaldehyde may sound scary because of its use in embalming, but you have to realise that formaldehyde occurs naturally in the body as a by-product of digestion and metabolism. The amount of formaldehyde in a vaccine will be far less than the amount present in your body. Formaldehyde is a simple molecule and is easily broken down and excreted.

Aluminium is used as an adjuvant, it acts as a sort of catalyst to make your immune system react stronger than it normally would. Yes, aluminium is a neurotoxin, but only at levels far greater than those found in vaccines. It's the third most abundant element on earth, the average person consumes ~8mg per day. The amount contained in vaccines is ~0.85mg

Thiomersal was removed in 2001

Phenoxyethanol is a bactericide. The last thing you would want would be to have bacteria in the vaccine as well as the virus. Phenoxyethanol is also used in perfumes and skin creams, which obviously have to be dermatologically tested to be approved for sale. Yet again, at high levels, this could possibly be toxic (don't quote me on that one). But at high levels water is very toxic



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by scoobdude
 

Thiomersal was removed in 2001


No, it wasn't.
Thiomersal was used in the swine-flu vaccine Pandemrix by GlaxoSmithKlein.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Koyaanisqatsi
 


Oh, my bad. It was removed from most vaccines in 2001. No childhood vaccines contain it any more iirc



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
Formaldehyde is used to sterilise the vaccine, to kill any unwanted microbes that may be present. Formaldehyde may sound scary because of its use in embalming, but you have to realise that formaldehyde occurs naturally in the body as a by-product of digestion and metabolism. The amount of formaldehyde in a vaccine will be far less than the amount present in your body. Formaldehyde is a simple molecule and is easily broken down and excreted.


Is also a known carcinogen.....


Originally posted by Griffo
Aluminium is used as an adjuvant, it acts as a sort of catalyst to make your immune system react stronger than it normally would. Yes, aluminium is a neurotoxin, but only at levels far greater than those found in vaccines. It's the third most abundant element on earth, the average person consumes ~8mg per day. The amount contained in vaccines is ~0.85mg


Ingesting still goes though the body's defense systems.... injection bypasses almost all of them


Originally posted by Griffo
Thiomersal was removed in 2001


Really? www.fda.gov...


Originally posted by Griffo
Phenoxyethanol is a bactericide. The last thing you would want would be to have bacteria in the vaccine as well as the virus. Phenoxyethanol is also used in perfumes and skin creams, which obviously have to be dermatologically tested to be approved for sale. Yet again, at high levels, this could possibly be toxic (don't quote me on that one). But at high levels water is very toxic


Good for you huh? www.fda.gov...

Look just cause something is naturally forming does not make it good. Cancer is naturally formed in our body, yet it hurts us (based on some theories, others say its the bodies way of coping etc). You don't have to believe us, you can do as you wish...just please stop trying to make people succumb to your will (i.e. pass laws etc)

In simple truth i do not trust large organizations. That does not mean they are all bad. Google for instance, I have a gmail account... does not mean i trust em with that mail.

edit on 8-9-2011 by scoobdude because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Children born with autism is higher than its ever been in humanity history.

The only thing we have changed is the vaccines given to the children when they are born.

Children with autism was extremely rare not even 50 years ago to the point that people would travel across the world just to see a child with autism.

Are we as a people really too stupid to put 2 and 2 together?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by scoobdude
 



Is also a known carcinogen.....


Yes, in concentrations far higher than you would normally receive in a vaccine. X-rays are also carcinogenic, but they are ok if you only have one occasionally.


Ingesting still goes though the body's defense systems.... injection bypasses almost all of them


Yeah, except for the part where it would enter through your lungs. Do you happen to have an exact name for the compound containing aluminium? Or is it elemental aluminium that they add? It didn't say in the link


Really?


Yes, from childhood ones at least


FDA has been actively addressing the issue of thimerosal as a preservative in vaccines. Under the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997, the FDA conducted a comprehensive review of the use of thimerosal in childhood vaccines. Conducted in 1999, this review found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative, other than local hypersensitivity reactions (Ball et al. 2001).


From the link you provided


Look just cause something is naturally forming does not make it good.


I never said it was good, I said it wasn't harmful

I find it slightly ironic the way you don't trust large organisations, but cite the FDA's website



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by e11888
 



Are we as a people really too stupid to put 2 and 2 together?


Well that depends on whether the answer you get is four, or if it is five. Remember correlation does not imply causation

Associations such as these do not establish causation as the two occurring together may be only coincidental in nature. Also, genetic disorders that have no environmental triggers such as Rett syndrome and Huntington's disease nevertheless have specific ages when they begin to show symptoms, suggesting specific ages of onset of symptoms does not necessarily require an environmental cause.


Children with autism was extremely rare not even 50 years ago to the point that people would travel across the world just to see a child with autism.


New disease and conditions are found out all the time; HIV/AIDS wasn't discovered until the 80s. Does that make it any less credible?
edit on 9/9/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Yes, in concentrations far higher than you would normally receive in a vaccine. X-rays are also carcinogenic, but they are ok if you only have one occasionally.


Are they? I have read reports saying it is the x-rays for breast cancer that is now causing it. Let me know if you would like a link on this. In addition to that the FDA just raised the "safe dose" of radiation... carcinogen or not.. I would like to limit my exposure to none if possible on both.



Yeah, except for the part where it would enter through your lungs. Do you happen to have an exact name for the compound containing aluminium? Or is it elemental aluminium that they add? It didn't say in the link


Found this for you. It has info on adjuvents which is what contains the aluminum salts and lists 3 of them. I also want to point out that "alum" is one and is used in deodorants and to clear up nics in shaving.
Adjuvents




Yes, from childhood ones at least


In this article it talks about the vaccines still mandated for 18 months after and even states there are other alternatives to thimerasol available. And while i can't seem to find the article I am pretty sure I read that they were allowed to use up all remaining surplus of the mercury containing vaccines even after the law was passed.






From the link you provided

Thanks for actually reading it




I never said it was good, I said it wasn't harmful

harmful is still an opinionated word... i guess we can agree to disagree on this one


I find it slightly ironic the way you don't trust large organisations, but cite the FDA's website


as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day
But I do see your point... liars telling the truth for a change.. how ironic


On a side note, guardisil which is also a childhood vaccine, before promoted you could go to the cancer society's website and look up HPV, and it said to prevent to cervical cancer all you needed to do was get a yearly pap smear. Now i can't find that info on their site. But according to this 2003 article


The American Cancer Society estimates that 12,200 cases will occur to American women this year, resulting in 4,100 deaths


So you do the math... merk also has just lost a whole bunch of law suits over the purple pill and just in texas this vaccine would have been injected into millions of girls 12 and older. Add to the fact you need 3...and i believe they were 125 a piece. Lawsuit would seem like a small loss based on this profit


Similar stats are evident among several if not all vaccines. So we should ask ourselves which risk we want to take. But no one should be punished for choosing their course of action as none of them are going to yield 100% results. I hope we can agree on such a term.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by scoobdude
 



Are they? I have read reports saying it is the x-rays for breast cancer that is now causing it. Let me know if you would like a link on this. In addition to that the FDA just raised the "safe dose" of radiation... carcinogen or not.. I would like to limit my exposure to none if possible on both.


Yeah, I thought this was common knowledge


X-rays are used to determine whether a person has a broken bone, or has lung damage (amongst other things). They are radioactive, and as a result, can cause DNA damage with prolonged exposure. You would have to have many x-rays or CT scans before you would get cancer though


Found this for you. It has info on adjuvents which is what contains the aluminum salts and lists 3 of them. I also want to point out that "alum" is one and is used in deodorants and to clear up nics in shaving.


Cheers. Aluminium hydoxide is classified as a mild skin irritant (as are the other 2 on the website). It is used as an antacid for people who suffer from heartburn. Its purpose is to stabilise vaccines by preventing the proteins in the vaccine from sticking to the walls of the container during storage.

The adverse effects of aluminium hydroxide have so far not been proven, although you should watch this space for any updates.

Aluminium phosphate is a compound used in baking powders and cake mixes.

Potassium aluminium sulphate is, like you said, used in deodorant as well as water purification. It is an antiseptic, which is why it is used in deodorants - it kills the bacteria responsible for BO

Aluminium is remarkably nontoxic, aluminium sulphate for example, has an LD50 of 6207 mg/kg. This equates to ingesting 500g for an 80 kg human. It is neurotoxic in high doses though


So you do the math... merk also has just lost a whole bunch of law suits over the purple pill and just in texas this vaccine would have been injected into millions of girls 12 and older.


Purple pill?


Add to the fact you need 3...and i believe they were 125 a piece. Lawsuit would seem like a small loss based on this profit


I take it you mean $125? We don't have to pay for vaccines in the UK, courtesy of the NHS, so my opinion on this may be incorrect. But I think that this is mainly a healthcare/government issue and the pharmaceutical companies have unfortunately found out and used the sad state of the US healthcare system to their advantage.


Similar stats are evident among several if not all vaccines. So we should ask ourselves which risk we want to take. But no one should be punished for choosing their course of action as none of them are going to yield 100% results. I hope we can agree on such a term.


Yeah, vaccines are not 100% effective - more like 99%. But, if a lot of people are vaccinated then they provide a phenomenon known as herd immunity to the people in society who are unable to get vaccinated (i.e. immunocompromised people)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
Yeah, I thought this was common knowledge


X-rays are used to determine whether a person has a broken bone, or has lung damage (amongst other things). They are radioactive, and as a result, can cause DNA damage with prolonged exposure. You would have to have many x-rays or CT scans before you would get cancer though


according to most studies yes. I think we are in agreeance here on not wanting to overdo the bad stuff


Originally posted by Griffo
Cheers. Aluminium hydoxide is classified as a mild skin irritant (as are the other 2 on the website). It is used as an antacid for people who suffer from heartburn. Its purpose is to stabilise vaccines by preventing the proteins in the vaccine from sticking to the walls of the container during storage.

The adverse effects of aluminium hydroxide have so far not been proven, although you should watch this space for any updates.

Aluminium phosphate is a compound used in baking powders and cake mixes.

Potassium aluminium sulphate is, like you said, used in deodorant as well as water purification. It is an antiseptic, which is why it is used in deodorants - it kills the bacteria responsible for BO

Aluminium is remarkably nontoxic, aluminium sulphate for example, has an LD50 of 6207 mg/kg. This equates to ingesting 500g for an 80 kg human. It is neurotoxic in high doses though


Thanks for further educating me on this. Much appreciated. Your last sentence still concerns me however. Do you have a dosage estimate that would cause that? Also the side effects you posted were topical and ingested, injected bypasses these to a much greater extent which is still concerning to me.


Originally posted by Griffo
Purple pill?


Vioxx, here is a link on the lawsuits Vioxx


Originally posted by Griffo
I take it you mean $125? We don't have to pay for vaccines in the UK, courtesy of the NHS, so my opinion on this may be incorrect. But I think that this is mainly a healthcare/government issue and the pharmaceutical companies have unfortunately found out and used the sad state of the US healthcare system to their advantage.


Latest i heard they want o give it to boys now as well and any new naturalized citizen. again forced inoculation is not a choice which is my main argument.


Originally posted by Griffo
Yeah, vaccines are not 100% effective - more like 99%. But, if a lot of people are vaccinated then they provide a phenomenon known as herd immunity to the people in society who are unable to get vaccinated (i.e. immunocompromised people)


I am familiar with the herd effect, but in all fairness a healthy immune system will fair much better than a compromised one for when a bug does hit. And the question still begs to be answered, what happened before vaccines (if you look at the mortality rate please also look at age of mortality as babies dying affects this number as well as our average age)? Here is a sample topic as i can not find the one i am looking for infant mortality rate


p.s. I appreciate your civility on this subject. It has so far been a pleasure to actually have a discussion instead of an argument.
edit on 15-9-2011 by scoobdude because: to give thanks



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
In actual fact with the whole aluminium side of things there seems to be a thing going on that the breast cancer rates from France where they are more natural compared to Australian ans American women get it more often and it is coming down to the crap that is in a deoderant that everyone uses and it goes straight to the lymphnodes. So you can think metals don't cause anything or look at the data of whats occuring and come to a conclusion or deny what's coming. There is a study into Autism and vaccinations starting soon with results by the end of the year. If there was no way it could happen why are they doing a study.

Also how are these vaccinations tested are they tested along side placebos to see if they actually work? no you get the word from the pharmaceutical companies. Why do doctors keep saying they are fine maybe with the dollars they get from every shot they give might be a great reason why wonder if they would still reccommend them if they weren't getting paid to administer them.

Vaccinations are a joke it is better for you to get the disease and let your body fight it because your body grows with the strength of things not get covered over because as we know these vaccinations don't help the body the same way as the body helps itself



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   


New disease and conditions are found out all the time; HIV/AIDS wasn't discovered until the 80s. Does that make it any less credible?


Just because HIV wasnt discovered until the 80s doesnt mean it didnt exist. You cant really say that about an autistic child. You know something is wrong immediately. The fact is, you simply dont have such a rise in children with autism as we've had without there being a cause. People have been giving birth on this planet with little to no problem up until only the last 50 years when all these new vaccines really started to come out. I dont believe in coincidence. If anything there should be more study into what exactly injecting a 6 lb baby with 20 vaccines actually does (if common sense wasnt good enough already).

The problem is these drug companies dont care about you or your children. They only care about profit. If their vaccine causes autism, and they can get away with it, they will and they have been. Do I believe we need vaccines? Of course we do, but the problem is the companies making these vaccines need to be constantly kept under a white light so we know exactly what they are doing at all times. Profit needs to be taken out of the equation when you're dealing with something that can potentially ruin the entire life of a child. This isnt like selling a damn ice cream cone.

So dont blame the people when they start to refuse to give their children vaccines because they're deadly. Blame the corrupt company that makes the vaccines and the system that allows them to profit by destroying lives. Blame the politians like Rick Perry that take bribes to mandate vaccines that have been proven to be deadly. Blame the doctors that are ignorant on the subject and continue to push these vaccines. Thats where the problem is but nobody wants to talk about that.
edit on 16-9-2011 by e11888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


I made the mistake of vacinating my 2 older children and will NOT make that mistake again. as far as health is concerned my youngest who is almost 2 yrs old has been the healthiest of my children only becoming sick one time and the cold was very short lived. My older 2 have had many issues ranging from ear infections to asthma and tons of allergies. Until you can prove that there are NO side affects not only in the short term as well as prove that vaccinations will 100% prevent the disease I will continue to disagree with parents like you. Oh, can you please also list off what exactly are in these vaccines as well as the side affects they can cause if any? Can you also explain why the CDC would compensate families with trillions of dollars due to supposed effects from these vaccines... I look forward to your response, thank you!



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   
The accumulative effect of multiple vaccines should also be considered. The immune system and body in general could probably handle a few vaccines, but when you give a baby 20 vaccines within 5 years, then all those toxins accumulate.

Not all the viruses used in vaccines are 100% dead either.

Another thing - I worked in a pharmaceutical lab once and the chemicals added to vaccines are bought in bottle/ containers with huge warning signs, toxicity signs and instructions to wear gloves when working with them. I most certainly wouldn't inject any of this stuff into me, regardless of quantity.





new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join