For those who think it is irresponsible not to get vaccinated

page: 7
81
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweetooth

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by sweetooth
is nobody interested in my last post?! back in the late 80's i was given a 'vaccination' which was not even a vaccination. Does that concern no-one?
fine
i'm not raising any of the 'next generation' anyway so why should i care
edit on 6-10-2012 by sweetooth because: i am dyselxic


Glad you are fine. There's a lot of people on here. Be patient and someone may reply specifically to you. I think the doctors must have felt it would do you more harm in the long run to miss a vaccination than it would to be vaccinated twice. I got a tetanus shot recently although I am pretty sure I had one within the past 10 years but rather than take a chance on tetanus, which can be devastating I got shot up again. Still here.


btw, thanks for my first ever reply to a comment i put up. that was pretty cool so thanks. however, it wasn't a case 'lets just give him another one'. the test to find out if i needed one came up as me needing one despite the fact that i had already had one. so the original 'vaccination' did not work. which makes me wonder what they gave me. if i hadn't moved north to scotland later on in the year would i have come down with the black death?! probably not so what was in the thing?


First response? Well then... I am honored.

Now I did not know it was possible to "test" someone to see if they had been vaccinated at all. I am not aware of such a test. Not to say they don't have them maybe they do but I thought they pretty much have to depend on your medical records to actually know such things.




posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
My mother was a nurse in the late 60's - late 90's and even back in the 60's she was wary about vaccines. It's purely anectdotal evidence but she's seen perfectly healthy children become autistic or develop complications after vacinations. None of her 7 children had vaccinations and all are healthy. Admitedly i did catch measles, whooping cough and a few other nasty ones but thanks to good care never had any long term problems. I had a nephew get imunised and he had problems starting a few days after his injections, still has problems today.

I really feel for parents today, it's a real issue whether to get their children imunised or not. So much conflicting evidence and no real way of telling what the real story is. We're given this myth that modern medicine is some kind of fantastic high tech miracle but the reality is a bit more like a casino, sometimes ya win, other times you get thown out by angry bouncers and given a good kicking in an alley. Hardest part is figuring out the odds.


So true - I think a lot of why I'm so active in vaccine threads is because it truly disturbs me how mainstream medicine is still thought of by most people as king of the castle, so whatever they say, "Must be true!" And anyone who challenges them is an idiot. In the case of vaccinations, in my opinion, there is an overwhelming amount of negative evidence against them, and an underwhelming amount of evidence supporting them. I find it amazing that the pamphlet for the flu shot has a section that says "Myths about the flu shot." And one of the myths is that the flu shot can give you the flu ,and of course it says this is absolutely not true. But the sheer amount of times I've heard people say that they got the flu shot and came down with the flu days later is amazing. And they try to say this doesn't happen, but it DOES! And I find it amazing that so many people refuse to admit it.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Labrynth2012
reply to post by thebtheb
 


SNOPES is NOT a RELIABLE SOURCE .... SORRY !

It's like saying Wal-Mart is the ONLY Store you can shop at. That's NOT TRUE either !



True, Snopes can be untrustworthy. BUT - nothing they said in that statement wasn't something I had already figured out. There was NO mention of "mandatory" chip, etc. And it's true, that bill indeed was NOT passed. Overreaction by conspiracy nuts as far as I'm concerned.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by thebtheb
 


Why should health insurance cover the cost of treatment for a disease incurred after the vaccine for that disease was refused? Have you factored that into your decision?


For me it's not that simple. On that logic, I've heard why should they treat smokers who continue to smoke? But then of course, you could say, why treat people for colon cancer who continue to eat hydrogenated margarine? Why treat people for a heart condition when they overeat...why this, why that. Too much of a slippery slope. I know the drug companies are immune to any damage from vaccines. Why should anyone be forced to take a vaccine then? But some are. The fact is, there is no evidence supporting the safety of routine vaccination, and very sparse evidence supporting that they actually work particularly well. When you have people BEING vaccinated and still coming down with the disease, why should people be refused treatment who didn't get the vaccine? Same difference.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by dollukka
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart
 


Some people see the tree but not the forest around it, an old saying here to understand the bigger picture.

So this is the logic behind this
We have 3 persons, subject A is perfectly healthy man and so is subject B lets say they have immune level at 60% against diseases naturally, subject 3 has lower immune level cos he has underlying disease like diabetes or asthma, his immunelevel is about 20%. With vaccine you get 40% boost to your protection against disease.
Subject A dont take it his immune against disease stays at 60%
Subject B takes the vaccine and get his immune level to 100%
Subject C takes the vaccine but vaccine do not give him total protection against disease so his immunelevel rises to 60%...

Now see the bigger picture are people who refuse to take vaccines putting those who have lower immune level at the begin with in danger ?

No, I don't see the bigger picture. The reason being what you just said isn't even factually accurate. Those numbers are made up and based completely off hypotheticals. Secondly, vaccines don't boost the 'immune system', they only supposedly protect against a specific virus, which they don't even do to begin with. Hell, there are hundreds of different flu strains and the vaccines only protect against 1 or 2. You become immune to that specific flu virus after you catch it anyways.
The problem is people who have been brainwashed by big pharma billionaires that think it is ok to intrude on the individual rights of others. I got news for you, these people don't care about you and have no interest in curing disease. The care about sales and $$$$, that's it. You can put your trust in them, fine, but leave me and others who don't want vaccines out of it, that's our right.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
my .02

if you don't want a vaccination, you should not be forced to get one

however

your children need to be homeschooled, and your insurance company is off the hook for paying any claims related to a disease that could have been prevented

all decisions have consequences, and I don't want your children exposing other children, and I don't want to pay your bills


Again, my original OP completely ignored. Vaccinated people can pass on the disease and I don't want my children exposed to yours either particularly. Same difference, which is my whole point in this thread.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I have had the Flu vaccine 3 times. Two out of three times I got sick within days of getting the vaccine. The last time was 3 years ago, and now I wont get them anymore.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


it is YOUR OWN right to decide what is injected into your body, for people to criticize that decision is not PRO rights,

those who support forced vaccinations would certainly get some perspective if and when someone wants to forcibly inject them with something they dont want, hence the point of such rights


i agree...but...and this is a BIG BUT.....if you have an infectous communicable disease, i insist that you be quarentined by the government. you can get sick and die, i don't really care, it's your decision, but if you are out in the public where you can hurt me or my family...to hell with you


Yet again, you being vaccinated has been proven to be able to do the same thing. YOU should also be quaranteened. And as others have stated - if you're vaccinated, what are you worried about? I don't get it.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by thebtheb
 


I wasn't replying to you specifically

just my view on the matter



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Why would a person, VOLUNTARILY, inject themselves with an unknown product; also considering, that vaccines are made by corporations ruling our world and making our lives miserable?

You want to keep yourself from getting sick? Eat right, exercise, and sleep properly. All the things most people don't do! Besides all that, the body has all the medicine it needs, to fight off infection. But, it can only do so much, with a WEAK IMMUNE SYSTEM; which was depleted while taking vaccines and over the counter medicines.

Stop taking cough syrups and cold medications every time you sneeze or have a cold. It's damaging your body's natural defense system! You want medicine for your body, if you catch the flu? SLEEP, SLEEP, SLEEP and drink plenty of water!!!!



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


You post would make sense, if the pharmo industry and the doctor, and the institution requiring the vaccine( school, job..etc) are on the hook for any and all side effects of getting one.

None will sign off on that though, as they know there is a high risk factor involved in some of them, and some people are just not able to get vaccinated, without terrible side effects.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Do the Doctors and Researchers who develop these vaccines know everything? No. Do they know more about it than anybody else? Yes. Are there dangers to the individual in taking a vaccine? Yes. Are there more likely dangers to the individual in not taking a vaccine? Yes unless the individual is known to be allergic to some ingredient in the vaccine. And finally, is there a danger to society, other peoples kids, if a parent doesn't vaccinate their child? Yes.

The risk to society is the key question here. Do we have a right to say that because there is any risk of harm to ourselves that we do not have to do certain things, like take a mandated vaccine? No. One of the basic functions of government is to protect its citizens from harm. The government has a obligation to do this. A second basic function is to look out for the best interests of its citizens. Its why we pay taxes to build roads, and send kids to school even if some people would rather walk or not educate their kids.

So the key to all of this is that yes there is tiny risk to the individual, but there is a much higher risk to the individual to not take the vaccine, and there is a definite risk to others by not taking the vaccine. The math makes it clear. Take your medicine.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by AntigravityField
Do the Doctors and Researchers who develop these vaccines know everything? No. Do they know more about it than anybody else? Yes. Are there dangers to the individual in taking a vaccine? Yes. Are there more likely dangers to the individual in not taking a vaccine? Yes unless the individual is known to be allergic to some ingredient in the vaccine. And finally, is there a danger to society, other peoples kids, if a parent doesn't vaccinate their child? Yes.

The risk to society is the key question here. Do we have a right to say that because there is any risk of harm to ourselves that we do not have to do certain things, like take a mandated vaccine? No. One of the basic functions of government is to protect its citizens from harm. The government has a obligation to do this. A second basic function is to look out for the best interests of its citizens. Its why we pay taxes to build roads, and send kids to school even if some people would rather walk or not educate their kids.

So the key to all of this is that yes there is tiny risk to the individual, but there is a much higher risk to the individual to not take the vaccine, and there is a definite risk to others by not taking the vaccine. The math makes it clear. Take your medicine.


With all due respect, I couldn't disagree with this more.

Do the doctors and researchers who develop these things know more than everyone else? My answer is NO, because most of them do NOT want to know any negative facts about what they've developed. In fact, they have shoved forth so many vaccines without truly testing them, and so many OTHER people have done testing, compiled statistics etc, and truly studied the secondary effects of the vaccines, that yes, a lot of them do know more than the developers who just keep saying "there are no secondary effects, any that seem to appear are not related to the vaccine." And after my own research, I think the overwhelming evidence that they continue to ignore makes it clear that they either don't know, or don't want to know. And this in itself makes any "obligation" by society to take these vaccinations completely null and void, especially when there are those of us who feel that overall, the vaccinations are doing the opposite of protecting our society, but are actually degrading the health of the population.

I don't expect you to agree with all that, but know that it's not just a matter of not liking the vaccines that makes me and others not want to take them, but there is logic and reasoning and disagreement here, not just obstinate "I'm not taking it" behavior.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by daryllyn
[color=dodgerblue] We no longer receive vaccinations in this house.

I cannot prove a link, but after receiving a series of several vaccinations that were required for entering the nursing program at the school I was attending at the time, my health went downhill. After three years of being jerked around by doctors who would not listen, I was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis.

Like I said, I can't prove a link, but, I was super healthy and rarely sick up to that point. I guess I will never know for sure either way. The only thing I do know for certain is that my life hasn't been the same since and my children will not be subjected to that garbage.
edit on 5-10-2012 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)


My wife was very healthy, a nurse, and had bought into the vaccination agenda. One year, after her flu shot, she got really sick. Months later, they found a lump in her breast and traces of cancer in the nearest nodes. Then later after double-mastectomy, reconstructive surgery, chemo, etc... They found lesions everywhere in her body, especially in her lungs, non cancerous lesions thankfully, but now she was diagnosed with sarcoidosis, followed by asthma and severe allergies. The latest is a benign tumor on her optic nerve that they can't operate on without causing blindness...
She has never smoked, used drugs, and has always eaten healthy foods but opted for flu vaccinations yearly.
I don't have proof of a correlation between the poor health and vaccinations, but it is the only thing outside some poor genetic luck that would make sense as to a cause.
I won't allow our kids to be vaccinated.
edit on 6-10-2012 by primus2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebtheb

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
my .02

if you don't want a vaccination, you should not be forced to get one

however

your children need to be homeschooled, and your insurance company is off the hook for paying any claims related to a disease that could have been prevented

all decisions have consequences, and I don't want your children exposing other children, and I don't want to pay your bills


Again, my original OP completely ignored. Vaccinated people can pass on the disease and I don't want my children exposed to yours either particularly. Same difference, which is my whole point in this thread.


let me just say this. You mentioned Insurance Companies. THEY are the PROBLEM when it comes the high cost of HEALTH INSURANCE. Health Insurance Companies of any kind are LEGALIZED FRAUD and should be outlawed. The price of healthcare would then come down.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Labrynth2012

Originally posted by thebtheb
All right, I have no problem with people who want to get vaccinated and choose to do it and have decided that they believe it's a wise decision. It's not my way, but the debates on here about vaccines are endless. But one thing I am tired of hearing and that needs to be corrected here and now is the often cited retort by pro-vaccine people that, "You're putting other people in danger if you don't get vaccinated. It's irresponsible."

To set the record straight, it is well known that people getting certain vaccinations, then shed that very virus they were vaccinated against. So yes, what can and does happen is that those around the newly vaccinated person may GET that disease FROM the vaccinated person. The virus may be shed by the vaccinated person from 72 hours to literally weeks after their vaccination. This shedding can occur through feces, urine, mouth/saliva and through the nose.

This is NOT a theory. It is a documented fact. The worst case scenario is the example of polio. Polio was eradicated in North America and the last case having finished by the 80s. BUT since they started vaccinating third world populations with the nasal polio vaccine, they thought it would be a good idea to introduce that vaccine to children in North America, even though there was no need. The FDA and CDC themselves have admitted that this essentially reintroduced Polio back into North America, through vaccine shedding - other people getting polio from those who were vaccinated, and I might add, those who didn't need to be vaccinated for it.

Vaccine shedding is so well known among doctors that when someone has cancer, or organ transplant surgery, they are told to stay away from the recently vaccinated. Do they tell this to the public at large? Do they tell you this in the ads urging you to get the flu shot? I think you know the answer.

Vaccine virus shedding has happened with vaccines including:measles, rubella, chicken pox, rotavirus and the common flu shot.

READ FOR YOURSELF

So, if you want to get vaccinated, and I don't, please don't tell me I'm being irresponsible. Unless everyone got vaccinated on the same day at the same time, your getting vaccinated could make someone else ill.
edit on 4-10-2012 by thebtheb because: (no reason given)


Here is a YouTube Presentation on ObamaCare now forcing MASS RFID CHIP implantation by March 23, 2013.
I would watch it folks and look around for more information elsewhere. Its out there.

ObamaCare RFID CHIP Implantation
edit on 10/5/2012 by Labrynth2012 because: (no reason given)


OK, this is not what you think it is. They are talking about rfid's in implanted devices. I used to work in surgery and did many hip and knee replacements. Each implant has a serial number. In surgery I'd remove the serial number sticker and affix it to my charting. What they are talking about is putting a chip in the hip or knee device to track that serial number. They are not talking about tracking everyone with a chip.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by thebtheb
 


You make a very good point. I work for an immunization clinic and a customer came up to me and asked me about the mercury in immunizations and how bad of an idea it is to get immunized for anything. I told him that I respect his knowledge on the matter. I also said that even though I give immunizations for a living, I always encourage people to gather knowledge for themselves before they choose to get immunized. I strongly disagree with anyone that says your putting others in danger... thats just a ludicrous scare tactic for the gullible and uninformed. What you put in your body is up to you, the individual. This country was founded on individual rights and I will stand up for them for as long as I am alive and aware. Thanks for posting this, it rings true



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebtheb

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by thebtheb
 


Why should health insurance cover the cost of treatment for a disease incurred after the vaccine for that disease was refused? Have you factored that into your decision?


For me it's not that simple. On that logic, I've heard why should they treat smokers who continue to smoke? But then of course, you could say, why treat people for colon cancer who continue to eat hydrogenated margarine? Why treat people for a heart condition when they overeat...why this, why that. Too much of a slippery slope. I know the drug companies are immune to any damage from vaccines. Why should anyone be forced to take a vaccine then? But some are. The fact is, there is no evidence supporting the safety of routine vaccination, and very sparse evidence supporting that they actually work particularly well. When you have people BEING vaccinated and still coming down with the disease, why should people be refused treatment who didn't get the vaccine? Same difference.


I think unless the health insurance company can prove that the specific strain of say, the flu, was the one that you refused, then they really have no leg to stand on. There are many different strains of viruses that cause the same type of disease. That is why there is a new flu shot every year because new strains keep coming out. To answer your question though theb, It is because the individual can weigh the risks and benefits of getting immunized and should not be penalized for refusing something that they believe is bad for them anyway. That would not be fair, and I would drop coverage from any insurance company that practices this policy. In a truly free market not run by the government, they would be forced to change their policy or lose customers. With Obamacare however... thats a different topic. No need to derail here...



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebtheb

Originally posted by Labrynth2012
reply to post by thebtheb
 


SNOPES is NOT a RELIABLE SOURCE .... SORRY !

It's like saying Wal-Mart is the ONLY Store you can shop at. That's NOT TRUE either !



True, Snopes can be untrustworthy. BUT - nothing they said in that statement wasn't something I had already figured out. There was NO mention of "mandatory" chip, etc. And it's true, that bill indeed was NOT passed. Overreaction by conspiracy nuts as far as I'm concerned.


You obviously have a limited context vocabulary. Implantable Medical Device or RFID CHIP ???? Ring a bell ???
Its in the bill as passed and in the one proposed. I've read elsewhere on the internet that there is a planned MANDATORY MASS INNOCULATION program about to go into full swing in the UsA. It would fit in with this information. Not something I would scoff at. The wheels have been in motion for a while on this one.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetooth
i am new here so i could not start a new thread but i found this one about vaccinations and it will have to do. many years ago i was at school in England and i got vaccinated (BCG) Later on that year i moved to Scotland where they gave out the BCG vaccinations later on in the year. i tried telling them that i had already had the '5 needle' test, it had come up as me needing the vaccination and i had had it. understandably they did not believe me so they gave me the 'five-needle' test again and bizarrely it came up as me needing to be vaccinated. how is this bizarre you may wonder? well, i think it is wierd that the first 'vaccination' did not work. has anyone else encountered anything similar to this? i would really like to know what they had in that first needle.
edit on 6-10-2012 by sweetooth because: (no reason given)


Are you talking about the ring of needles that they use to test with? and if you fail you need the shot?
If so let me tell you what happened to me.
I had the test and it was negative, I didn't need the jab. But that wasn't good enough for them, I had to go to hospital to have a chest exray TWICE!! to confirm I was immune.
About a year later a load of moles appeared across my chest and my back. I am certain it was caused by the exrays as I dont have them anywhere else.
It seems they're gonna get us whether or not we have the jabs.

I think your own case kinda proves the shot was useless.





new topics
top topics
 
81
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join