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.


Flu jab gave our six-year-old son narcolepsy: Boy slept for up to 19 HOURS a day after reaction to v

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 06:00 PM

Originally posted by TheComte
reply to post by JohnJasper


Seriously, are you all denying that millions of deaths have been avoided because of the various successful vaccines that have come along in the past 60 years?

I'm certainly denying it. To believe it's true is to ignore all evidence except that provided by the industry which both profits from and rests its reputation on vaccination. The CDC itself admits that the major contribution to the demise of the major diseases was mostly down to improved sanitation and hygiene. Unfortunately, they're not able or willing to recognise the disaster that vaccines visited upon populations repeatedly over the centuries. Even as they do admit faults at one juncture or another, they always insist that the new, improved vaccines are above reproach and of course, we should put our full faith in them. Hogwash is what I say (but only because we're on such a genteel forum!)

You have no evidence of your claims besides the ramblings of conspiracy theorists and pseudo-scientists. Do you honestly go around believing everything you read on the internet except peer-reviewed medical studies?

Vacuous argument at best. I don't trust anyone who thinks that "conspiracy theorist" is a degrading term - they're either self-deluded, dishonest or just dimwitted (to be kind!) I'm increasingly of the opinion that pseudo-scientist means any scientist that doesn't agree with approved "science." I've previously expressed my opinion on the peer-review process but you're welcome to them.

I bet that you were all vaccinated against the various diseases when you were babies. How do you feel? Do you think you would feel better with polio, or smallpox, or measles? Please, get serious.

I was also baptised as an infant. As superstitious mumbo-jumbo goes, baptism is certainly the least harmful - vaccination probably one of the more dangerous. As vaccination doesn't ensure that you won't get these diseases (if you think it does then you're lost in the hype,) how I feel about not getting them is irrelevant to the discussion.

As for your links:

Dr. Suzanne Humphries is a homeopathic doctor and is called a quack by more reputable doctors. The second one a bunch of links to Prison Planet. And the third link is blocked by my antivirus as a malicious site.

As for your ad hominem attacks, of course your "reputable" doctors will call her a quack. She's (rightly) attacking their bread and butter and they cannot rely on their results to defeat her. Yes, Prison Planet is a highly suspect site but air time is air time. And finally, you should have a chat with your antivirus as there's nothing malicious about the website.

Originally posted by TheComte
Here is something to read for those of you who wish to read "the other side of the story." It has the benefit of being from what I feel is a reputable and credible source. Now some of you may not feel that the CDC is as credible as Prison Planet or, and that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Thanks but the CDC is hardly an independent source. After the CDC's leading role in hyping up the "Swine Flu pandemic," not many are likely to consider them credible.

You're obviously convinced that vaccination is all that the industry claims it to be and are welcome to your opinion. Unfortunately, the industry uses its clout to bully populations into receiving unsafe and IMO useless vaccines completely disregarding the immediate and longterm affects on health. Combined with the superstitious, fear-mongering belief that unvaccinated people are a threat to the rest of the population, this leads to an ever-growing threat against those who, like me, do not want to be drugged, medicated, or vaccinated against my will.

posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:51 PM
Hat tip to Dr. Sherri Tenpenny for pointing me back to this Cochrane Library review: Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults

The "Authors' conclusions" states:

Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.

which on the face of it seems to say that the vaccines are mildly effective and cause no harm. The authors go on to give us this warning:

WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size....

...Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines...

...The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.

The authors went on to say in the Plain Language Summary:

Authors of this review assessed all trials that compared vaccinated people with unvaccinated people. The combined results of these trials showed that under ideal conditions (vaccine completely matching circulating viral configuration) 33 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalised or working days lost but caused one case of Guillian-Barré syndrome (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis) for every one million vaccinations. Fifteen of the 36 trials were funded by vaccine companies and four had no funding declaration. Our results may be an optimistic estimate because company-sponsored influenza vaccines trials tend to produce results favorable to their products and some of the evidence comes from trials carried out in ideal viral circulation and matching conditions and because the harms evidence base is limited.

This is not what I would call unequivocal support for vaccination.

posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:54 PM
It is well known that with any vaccine, there is a chance to get a disease, or become sick.
It is well known, thus parents should make the decision knowing full well that it has the potential. I feel for the kids loss, but still, you should know before you decide to get jabbed.

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Flu jab gave our six-year-old son narcolepsy: Boy slept for up to 19 HOURS a day after reaction to vaccine

The parents of a schoolboy who was struck down with narcolepsy after receiving a flu vaccine, said the Government should have carried out more tests before issuing the drug.

Josh Hadfield, 6, lost muscle control and started sleeping for up to 19 hours every day just three weeks after getting the swine flu vaccine Pandemrix.

He would fall asleep up to every five minutes - even when he was walking, eating and swimming - and suffer sudden bouts of cataplexy (loss of muscle tone) when he laughed.
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 12-12-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: title

just to let you know a doctor has managed to reverse to a large degree the damage caused by these dangerous flu shots.if you want more info let me know.

i find that people tend to be fatalistic afterwards.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in