Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Study: Vaccinated Children Have 2 to 5 Times More Diseases and Disorders Than Unvaccinated Child

page: 2
33
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Humans haven't need vaccines for thousands of years.

Certainly the millions who died of smallpox might disagree with you. As would those paralyzed by polio, those whose lives were stolen by German measles or Hib, those who could never have children because of mumps, those who died choking in their beds of flu-associated pneumonia, etc. ad nauseam. They might disagree with you, and their friends and family and colleagues. But for everyone else, you're right, they didn't need vaccines.


There's no reason humans should depend on synthetic chemicals to be healthy.

You don't need synthetic chemicals to make a vaccine. The first vaccination was basically pus straight from a cow (vacca) that had cowpox. Not very sanitary, and it was a stroke of luck that cowpox protected against smallpox. The synthetic chemicals are there to prevent secondary infections and to inactivate viruses when--as is usually the case--we don't have a less dangerous analogue like cowpox.


I would rather trust in the strength of my own immune system than their flimsy vaccines.

What good is your immune system against a disease it has never seen before? Not much. That's what vaccines do, they introduce your immune system to a weakened form of a pathogen so it recognizes the real thing if it ever comes along. It doesn't matter how "strong" your immune system is if it doesn't know what's attacking it. Ask anyone who has allergies--a strong but stupid immune system is more of a curse than a blessing.




posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Astrithr
 


while the jury's out for me on vaccination's (don't like or agree with them myself) I have to agree with you. There is no real evidence presented here



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
I also have to agree that there is no real evidence presented here!

The sample sizes for the 2 studies that purport to support the study in the original post are way too small to be of any value.

The sample is biased and limited to an audience of parents who desire to show that their children are healthy without vacinations and other parents who desire to show that their children are healthy with vacinations. In any case, the participants are biased and may not be telling the truth.

Further I have a hard time figuring out how vacinations cause herpes!

Junk science at its finest!

And I would like to support the poster who reminded us all of the really scary epidemics that killed children like polio, diptheria, smallpox etc.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


I doubt it. The newest vaccination schedules start jabbing them on the first day or so of birth. I read about a nurse bragging how many minutes after birth she got the jab in. How would you know if your child was healthy or not?

Answer to OP:When we lived in California I had to sign some document that said I was rejecting the vaccinations on religious or other grounds. I think each State might be different.

Pharmabloggers can go ahead and call any name they want for not trusting the pharma(suit!)ical industry. When they've made your kid sick you grow a pretty thick skin. The worst part is I now can't keep him alive without buying their stupid meds.
edit on 12-10-2011 by ovumcranium because: 2nd



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
FYI- some interesting quotes I've seen a few other places. There is more info on the site.LINK




Tip: If you find yourself engaging a poster whose defense mainstream medicine is unusually dramatic in tone, or inexplicably vicious toward others, and if that response is an attempt to attack natural medicine, you can be sure you have stumbled upon a PR grunt whose mission is preventing a critical mass of consumer awareness about disinformation regarding matters of public health.
Unfortunately, there are more of these individuals posting to Usenet on a daily basis than almost anyone else, which is why I am posting this alert. If you find it odd that so few people on health-related usenet newsgroups are expressing an interest in natural medicine, it isn't because they aren't there, it's because they have been intimidated into silence. The pharmbloggers have over-run the various newsgroups with their industrial brand of dogma, mockery, and ridicule. Many casual posters are simply frightened away, which is, of course, the object of the game.





1. PR grunts on Usenet use intimidation, mockery, and insults to
silence those who express belief or interest in natural medicine. They
actively discourage a scientific discussion and disrupt ongoing
discussions that explore alternative treatments in healthcare.

2. PR grunts on Usenet attack those who question the effectiveness of
mainstream medicine, asserting that disease-management "healthcare" is
the only viable form of treatment. Their comments are frequently
embedded in pseudo-scientific jargon, but without supporting
scientific documentation, for reasons footnoted below.

3. PR grunts on Usenet post the majority of their responses simply to
bury the comments of others, especially when those comments are a
negative portrayal of the drug makers and their products. Another
feature of this tactic is the use of a VERTICAL focus in the
newsgroups, meaning that activity is purposedly expanded in a
particular thread in order to reduce the overall distribution of new
("horizontal") content in newer threads. Use of flaming and personal
attacks is designed to both distract from meaningful discussion and
also to discourage visitors and posters so they will leave.

4. PR grunts on Usenet are much faster at posting than casual
participants; they almost always respond first to a new thread,
question, or observation.

5. PR grunts on Usenet use a "pile on" tactic to create an aura of
the "consensus view" in an effort to isolate posters who disagree
with them. You will experience this if you express a belief in
natural medicine or holistic healing. You will also see this tactic
used more often than any other.

6. PR grunts on Usenet refute numerous quality studies published in
major medical journals showing the benefits of natural medicine
applied in naturopathic healthcare, including nutrient
supplementation, exercise, stress reduction, biofeedback,
accupuncture, accupressure, reflexology, and other approaches. You
can find the science supporting a variety of natural healing methods
at the user-friendly website, www.newstarget.com....

7. PR grunts on Usenet frequently refer readers to "quack-busting"
websites designed to attack natural medicine approaches and their
proponents. Under the guise of "consumer protection," the extreme
bias of these promoters belies their claims and reveals their ties to
industry.

8. PR grunts on Usenet rely on junk science references to support
their attacks on natural healing methods. They decline to provide
meaningful scientific references in support of their defense of most
conventional treatments. Since most conventional medicines are either
marginally effective, unproven, or dangerous, it is not suprising that
purely anecdotal or observational studies (usually sponsored by the
drug makers) are the only "science" available to them.

9. PR grunts on Usenet assert that conventional medicine is "evidence
based," however the lack of corroborating science disproves that
claim. Chemotherapy drugs, for instance, are unproven in the majority
of cancers, yet FDA permits these drugs to remain in use as
"experimental trial" medications, as has been the case for more than
thirty years. For most cancer patients, there is no proven benefit in
the use of these expensive and toxic chemicals.

10. PR grunts on Usenet ignore iatrogenic studies that show the
dangerous side effects of prescription drugs (ie., at least 100,000
deaths annually), as well as a 20% recall for all previously approved
drugs. They also ignore hundreds of studies showing a disease
relationship to use of such drugs and other unsafe medical
treatments.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   
My uncle is a doctor and told me years ago that super super rich people get completely different vaccines to the normal public ... that was enough info to raise red flags for me.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by King Loki
My uncle is a doctor and told me years ago that super super rich people get completely different vaccines to the normal public ... that was enough info to raise red flags for me.



Could you please elaborate more? Maybe giving us indications about those "special" vaccines or asking to your uncle more informations. Thanks in advance.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


1/3rd of the population of uerope would disagree- if they hadnt died from the black death



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Actually the 45 million or so people who died of the created Spanish Flu in 1918 would agree.
edit on 12/10/2011 by stevcolx because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
The thing is, this study seems to only exist on this anti-vacciation website. I looked around but nope. I clicked the link to for the source of this study and linked right back to the same anti-vax website expect now it was in germany. So far as I know they pulled this out of someones ass.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see how many of these vaccinated children had diseases prior to being vaccinated???

It would make sense that the parents of children that already have a compromised system, due to asthma, diabetes, etc., would be more likely to vaccinate their children in order to avoid a compilation of illnesses in the future. Someone with diabetes that gets measles, Polio, can have a much more severe reaction so vaccination would be viewed as more of a necessity.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
I firmly believe that the rise in auto-immune diseases and allergies has a correlation to the rise in vaccinations. Though much of the evidence is anecdotal, it doesn't make the correlation incorrect (just unproven). The human body is an amazing machine, and who knows what injecting all of this into our very young babies is actually doing? I don't have confidence that most doctors even think about it...they were taught one thing in medical school, and they don't question it. Those that DO question what they are taught are ridiculed.

Think of how often scientists have all "known" something and then those they ridiculed have been proven to be right. 150 years ago, doctors didn't wash their hands before surgery, and they ridiculed the ones who suggested that they could prevent diseases from doing so. Now we all know they were correct.

I respect the idea that we don't know everything, and we should constantly question. Also, just because something is taught, does not make it true.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Astrithr
 


Evidence this pal. Amish children dont have autism. Guess what else Amish children dont have.
VACCINATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!

next.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Humans haven't needed vaccines for thousands of years.

There's no reason humans should depend on synthetic chemicals to be healthy.

I would rather trust in the strength of my own immune system than their flimsy vaccines.
edit on 12-10-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


Yes because obviously just relying on our own immune system without modern medicine and vaccines seemed to do such a great job in the past!


1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1997
LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH
TOTAL 49.2 51.5 56.4 59.2 63.6 68.1 69.9 70.8 73.9 75.4 76.5
MEN 47.9 49.9 55.5 57.7 61.6 65.5 66.8 67.0 70.1 71.8 73.6
WOMEN 50.7 53.2 57.4 60.9 65.9 71.0 73.2 74.6 77.6 78.8 79.4

Source www.efmoody.com...

EDIT [yeah the graph isn't perfectly straight...sorry about that...still I think you can all figure it out


edit on 12-10-2011 by bhornbuckle75 because: trying to get the graph straight
edit on 12-10-2011 by bhornbuckle75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


I hardly consider a Google survey as evidence.

I also hardly consider a survey of 8000 children in another country as evidence.

Also, lets say hypothetically that this survey is correct, what are these diseases? Are we talking the common cold or the plague?

Does this study report non contagious diseases that can result from the vaccinations from the vaxed crowd?

What is the fail rate of vaccines in the vaxed children?

What is the percentage of the diseased children?

Are we talking an additional flu in a lifetime? or a massive increase of 50%?

Just what diseases are these kids catching?

What are their life spans? Do they live longer with more diseases then the vaxed study?


Critical thinking people.
edit on 12-10-2011 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-10-2011 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Vaccines - another corporate money maker.

As if flourides not enough to make us stupid, lets inject mercury, aluminum witches brew into our unsuspecting blind loving future fascists and damage their DNA while were at it.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaesaRodney
reply to post by Astrithr
 


Evidence this pal. Amish children dont have autism. Guess what else Amish children dont have.
VACCINATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!

next.


Actually the Amish do vaccinate.
autism.about.com...
I have also seen the local Amish getting flu shots around here. The Amish also have members who display autistic behavior. Can we stop perpetuating a myth?



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


There are no amish in Narnia. YSB !! I said Amish , not Hamadees.

next.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


Im sure your website reveals the consistent rise in mercury levels over last ten years, now overlay that graph with the corresponding rise in autism. Any questions now?

next.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by CaesaRodney
 


Ok, revel in your intellectual laziness then, but the fact remains-You are wrong. They do vaccinate.

You can go to their local store in the town I live in. One of the kids is obviously autistic.





new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join