Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Italian court officially recognizes vaccines cause autism.

page: 9
84
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by fourthmeal
 


That is all well and good but there is far far higher risk involved with any surgery.

Therefore using the same logic, you should refuse any surgery for your child, even if needed (obviously though, i would not want you to pursue that course of action).

Check it out though. Do not take my word for it.




posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
I should add that I was once pro-vaccine (or perhaps indifferent and just "sheepling along" with everyone else), but my wakeup came in the form of the HPV vaccine for girls. I woke up when I saw vaccine companies peddling these on BOYS. WAT?!!?

Yep.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by fourthmeal
 


That is all well and good but there is far far higher risk involved with any surgery.

Therefore using the same logic, you should refuse any surgery for your child, even if needed (obviously though, i would not want you to pursue that course of action).

Check it out though. Do not take my word for it.


What the heck does surgery have to do with anything I just said?!



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by fourthmeal
 


Because it is all about the medical risk. The chances of harm befalling you from vaccination are miniscule. The chances of harm befalling you from surgery are also small but they are far higher than those for vaccination.

Therefore, if you think the risk from vaccination is sufficient not to have it, how can you possibly countenance the risk from surgery?

Yes, it deviates from the purpose of this thread but it is actually a valid consideration.

However, if your refusal to vaccinate is based on something other than potential risk then i concede this point is null and void. On the other hand, if it is based on the potential risk then it is highly hypocritical. (that is probably the wrong word, i apologise if it comes across as confrontational).



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 





This program was the source of the idea that children might take the virus home and infect unvaccinated children. When I was a child (long time ago) I remember a young girl in our street got the measles. Myself and all the other children in the street were sent to play with the girl so that we'd all catch it and develop a natural immunity, we did and have never needed to be vaccinated.. My own father who'd been healthy all his life foolishly received the flu shot when he retired. Six months later he developed Asthma (linked with the flu shot). I warned him not to get it but he said "dont believe everthing you read on the internet", he said that because he was repeating what he'd been told by the corrupt msm. He now admits I was right.


The body has a built in immune system, if we didn't keep interfering with it's natural development (like we do), it will "prime" itself. If people understood how we develop and what our body "was" designed to do naturally then they can have an intelligent discussion on this topic.

Just as you pointed out, too many people listen to crap because they do not know any better. Every argument given in college and the sources used to promote the value of vaccines, was not too difficult to discredit. I can tell you most will just take what is taught without a moment of further research, why stray into deeper analysis if it is not a requirement? The courses are designed to guide away from certain discussions and focus on less meaningful ones. The young don't even notice, this wasn't my first rodeo.

Any who...I really enjoyed when they tried to make all the nurses take the H1N1 vaccine, because just the outcry showed the hypocrisy that exists.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   


Please get the MMR. Aside for anything else, you are endangering other children that go to the same school as your children by not getting it. Put it this way, if your kids went to the same school as my kids, i would be petitioning the school for the removal of your children until they either got the vaccine or went somewhere else.
reply to post by Flavian
 


I have NEVER understood this argument. If your kid is vaccinated, and another kid isn't, then your kid is supposedly "safe" from these diseases, so why insist on removing the unvaccinated child? If these vaccines are the cure-all, and protect from the disease, then there should be no problem. Your kid is golden, and has a bubble of "protection against disease" around them, according to Big Pharma, so what is the big deal about a few kids who haven't been vaccinated?

Your logic is inherently flawed, but it is a common argument among vaccine pushers who assume they are doing the right thing by forcing parents to vaccinate their child against their better judgment.

In essence, you're saying that, although your kid and the other kids are vaccinated, they are still in danger if there is one unvaccinated child among them. LOL! This invalidates the whole vaccine theory.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 





Thanks HappyBunny, I was beginning to seriously despair on this thread. Even with your support, i am still kind of despairing about the ignorance surrounding this whole issue. It is quite worrying when you think about future trends.....


Hi flavon,
I am waiting to hear happybunny's credentials, and I am interested in knowing what makes your opinion an educated one as well. Please enlighten me. Explain to me the method used to trick the brain into putting down it's defenses and allow toxins to enter the brain..Explain to me the purpose of the blood brain barrier and what you think it's purpose is. Tell me a little about a newborns brain and it's stages of development and how these vaccines might interfere or not with that development. Surely you understand how the body develops...after all we are pumping a lot of vaccines into children during their developmental stage. How about since we are well into this discussion that we get down to some facts instead of just arguing....deal?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by fourthmeal
 


Because it is all about the medical risk. The chances of harm befalling you from vaccination are miniscule. The chances of harm befalling you from surgery are also small but they are far higher than those for vaccination.

Therefore, if you think the risk from vaccination is sufficient not to have it, how can you possibly countenance the risk from surgery?

Yes, it deviates from the purpose of this thread but it is actually a valid consideration.

However, if your refusal to vaccinate is based on something other than potential risk then i concede this point is null and void. On the other hand, if it is based on the potential risk then it is highly hypocritical. (that is probably the wrong word, i apologise if it comes across as confrontational).


No, you're bordering on Strawman tactics, and that's not going to be enough to make your case.

Surgery deals with the acute, as does a disease in-progress. Vaccines MAY reduce the possibility of getting one of these diseases by, let's say 50% which would be pretty good. But good sanitation and good nutrition can reduce the risk on its own by much more than that. Further, good sanitation and nutrition have no known side effects and is considered a "good idea" all around. While vaccines, with KNOWN possible side effects (not just Autism) could possibly affect my son for life. Sorry, I'd rather have him deal with a temporary acute disease while his body actually gets stronger fighting the infection, then risk long-term damage to his immune system and possibly even brain damage.

Why trade acute disease risk for chronic?

I suspect the future will find the reason so many people have horrible allergies these days is due to vaccines and their over-tripping of the immune system. That's just a guess but the future will tell. I also suspect that many unexpected other diseases will come to bear through vaccines, as the contamination prevention used by vaccine manufacturers is not profitable, therefore not exactly at the top of the priority list.

Remember, Big Pharma wants YOU as a customer, and little else.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 


You seem to have completely ignored the fact that people that have been vaccinated still carry the disease / virus, etc. Children under a certain age will not get the vaccine (age depends on which vaccine).

Therefore whilst my toddler may be vaccinated, my baby isn't and can therefore have the virus / disease passed to them. Or other children, elderly, etc.

Why are people having a hard time understanding this? (that isn't aimed at you per say, simply that i seem to have to explain this repeatedly on this thread).



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
In essence, you're saying that, although your kid and the other kids are vaccinated, they are still in danger if there is one unvaccinated child among them. LOL! This invalidates the whole vaccine theory.


Hi fission.
Their new argument is now "Your unvaccinated child could pass a virus to a vaccinated child who might then take it home and infect a younger child not yet vaccinated"

This argument does not hold water at all.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ScatterBrain
 


Why call me Flavon? That is clearly not my screen name and is therefore intentionally disrespectful to a fellow member.

Can't be bothered if you want to go down that road.
edit on 17-7-2012 by Flavian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
In essence, you're saying that, although your kid and the other kids are vaccinated, they are still in danger if there is one unvaccinated child among them. LOL! This invalidates the whole vaccine theory.


Hi fission.
Their new argument is now "Your unvaccinated child could pass a virus to a vaccinated child who might then take it home and infect a younger child not yet vaccinated"

This argument does not hold water at all.


If you think this doesn't hold water then sorry but you clearly do not understand the process of contagion.

Facepalm of epic proportions.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The vaccine issue is a lot of "cart before the horse", I've learned.

Cause - Effect becomes Effect - cause.

I do find it interesting that the truth is finally,... FINALLY starting to come out. It won't hit mainstream until pharm companies stop advertising ON the mainstream channels, which might be a while.

But that won't stop it from becoming the truth. Because the truth is the truth.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Flavion, one simple question. Do you think that every man woman and child on this planet should be vaccinated?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
In essence, you're saying that, although your kid and the other kids are vaccinated, they are still in danger if there is one unvaccinated child among them. LOL! This invalidates the whole vaccine theory.


Hi fission.
Their new argument is now "Your unvaccinated child could pass a virus to a vaccinated child who might then take it home and infect a younger child not yet vaccinated"

This argument does not hold water at all.


If you think this doesn't hold water then sorry but you clearly do not understand the process of contagion.

Facepalm of epic proportions.



Think about it.

Unvaccinated child = possibly has the disease
Vaccinated child = possibly has the disease

No difference.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Depends what for. I admit that, in my opinion, many vaccinations are pointless and a cash cow for big Pharma. For example, seasonal flu shots. Flu vaccinations should be saved for serious outbreaks with new strains, such as the Spanish Flu outbreak at the end of World War 1.

However, vaccinations for things such as smallpox, MMR, etc serve a very useful purpose.

What is most clear to me though is that we will never agree on this issue.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Again though, why get my name wrong?

You are just coming across now as an argumentative tool to be honest. If you can't show respect to a fellow member, why should i show you any?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Physically what is the difference between MMR and, say, the superfluous vaccines?

I recommend researching this before coming back to the topic, as I had to as well and learned there is almost NO difference. A few small ingredient changes, and voila, here we go. Yet all the nasty stuff you didn't want in the superfluous one is still in the "important" one.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Picking me up for a typo is weak. Flavian Feel better now?

You avoided my question too. I'll refine it for you.
MMR Should every child on the planet receive it?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


I don't have a hard time understanding it at all. You, however, seem to have a hard time with invalidating your own arguments.

So vaccinated individuals are "carriers" and can infect a baby. Tell me again, what is the purpose of the vaccines again?

As a child, I had measles, mumps and chicken pox. My own daughter (now age 20) got the MMR as a toddler and become violently ill with the measles, more so than I ever got when I came down with it naturally at age 12. It seems to me that there is a great deal of hypocrisy when it comes to vaccines, and those who keep pushing them will keep coming up with the same, tired old reasons why they are of vital importance, lest our children die of childhood diseases that I and other kids my age went through with no problem.

You also failed to address why a whole herd of vaccinated kids would be in danger from a singular child who is not vaccinated. After all, if the vaccinated kids are carriers of disease, your own vaccinated kid is a bigger danger to your baby than the unvaccinated kid at school.

I appreciate your attempt at politeness, but underneath it, there is a smug "I know the science and you don't understand any of it" which is quite off-putting, not to mention interesting, because your continuous posting on this subject makes me suspect you may be getting paid for it. If you're not, you might as well be, because you are a mouthpiece for Big Pharma.

I worked with mentally retarded and autistic kids for years. I did intake, so I was privy to all of their medical records. The most severely autistic children ALWAYS came down with their symptoms AFTER their toddler vaccinations. The diagnosing physician always put this in her report. The parents always reported their physician denying any link.

You can crow about the "solid science" all you like, but until you stop being a pharma shill and start actually coming up with the science that shows that the onslaught and overuse of vaccines against young, growing brains does not at times cause autism, narcolepsy and other nasty, incurable neurological side-effects, there is no way I'm going to agree with you. I've seen too many victims, and spoke too many times with the doctor, to believe you.

Vaccinations are rife with dangers. Why is there a VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) in the US? Why does it say on there that adverse reactions from vaccines are likely to be underreported? Explain to me how adjuvants and thimerosol are harmless to a growing brain!

Finally, explain to me why you believe so strongly in forcing an entire population to take vaccines, even though they are not 100% safe, or reliable, and create a whole bunch of new "carriers".





new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join