Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

For those who think it is irresponsible not to get vaccinated

page: 9
81
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Its true, the vaccine is a poison that destroys the immune system. 16 years without the common cold or any other sickness for that matter. I would come down with a cold every few months or some type of flu causing me to become hospitalized.




posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Onewhoknowsjesus
what would jesus do?



jesus would probably have got the jab because he would have mistakenly believed that the jab would ward off the flu and he wouldnt have wanted to have the flu whilst up there on his cross. no way of blowing his nose...



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skada
It is a damn shame that I cannot take any vaccines because of the thimerosal.


Most vaccines contain no thimerosal.

Now you can slag the FDA who publish this all you like - but you can also prove them wrong by purchasing any of the ones listed with 0 and finding there is some in it !

In which case you stand to make millions with a court case and incontroversial proof.

And so does anyone else - so if they are ltying about it go get 'em!!



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

I found out about Mercury in Vaccines when a doctor started shaking a multidose vial of vaccine before injecting it into my wife's shoulder a year ago . I was told of the Mercury in it then , with the explanation that you have to mix it because mercury is heavy and settles . So , if they neglect to shake it you will get a large dose of mercury and it is accumulative with all the other sources you have been exposed to . It would be easy to forget to shake it up when you get busy .
Mercury causes some major neurological disorders , and hormonal problems causing miscarriages from what I have read . There is no good Mercury to put into your body .



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 

you and others with concerns about thimerosal might find this listing of interest ...
www.vaccinesafety.edu...
it was last updated in May 2012, so if you are going to take a vaccine, look for something more recent


from what i've seen, GSK frequently still uses it IN the vaccine itself, not just residual.
even if you are utilizing a single dose, double-check the manufacturer.

even in the list linked above, all of them are FDA approved as 0% ... however, this is one occasion where 0% is NOT EQUAL to none, zip, zilch, nada, zero, no-thing, nothing.

in each of those listed, there is residual amounts (capable of build-up in the body) not totalling (or less than) 1%.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Skada
It is a damn shame that I cannot take any vaccines because of the thimerosal.


Most vaccines contain no thimerosal.

Now you can slag the FDA who publish this all you like - but you can also prove them wrong by purchasing any of the ones listed with 0 and finding there is some in it !

In which case you stand to make millions with a court case and incontroversial proof.

And so does anyone else - so if they are ltying about it go get 'em!!



That's trace levels in childhood vaccinations under 6, excluding the flu vaccine. It doesn't speak to adult vaccinations, and it doesn't speak to almost all general flu vaccinations.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I have been around for a while and I have seen the JFK and R Kennedy things . Then I remember the 1st Swine Flu and Legionaries thing where the vaccine was readily available and everybody should line up and get it . Most people didn't fall for it then . .
The funny thing is that I have read that the Rockefeller's who are Eugenicist are involved with big pharma knows that Ethyl Mercury besides being used in vaccines as a perservative had the effect disrupting hormonal balance causing miscarriages as well as neurological disorders . reply to post by thebtheb
 



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebtheb

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Skada
It is a damn shame that I cannot take any vaccines because of the thimerosal.


Most vaccines contain no thimerosal.



That's trace levels in childhood vaccinations under 6, excluding the flu vaccine. It doesn't speak to adult vaccinations, and it doesn't speak to almost all general flu vaccinations.


Table 1 is child vaccinations, table 2 is preservatives used in US vaccines, Table 3 is all vaccinations manufactured in the USA regardless of intended age of patient and includes 9 Flu vaccines of which 3 contain thimerosal.

Sorry to be the bearer of factual information!



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


and includes 9 Flu vaccines of which 3 contain thimerosal.
didn't you mean to say ... 3 indicate an amount greater than 1% ??
because that would have been a true statement.
what you said simply isn't true.

my friend, it is you who needs to look harder.

here are the two links previously presented
fda - www.fda.gov...
vaccine ingredients - www.healthscents4u.com...

in the fda link, each of the following appears on the chart as Thimerosal "Free"
the chart even states ... "never contained Thimerosal"
... and to that i say ... Really
???

i would suggest you double check the ingredients against the second link provided.
in it you are more likely to find the truth.

Afluria (single dose) - CSL {Thimerosal & Mercury}
Fluzone (single dose) - Sanofi Pasteur {Thimerosal, Formaldehyde & Latex}
Fluarix (single dose) - GSK {Thimerosal, Formaldehyde & Latex}

FluMist - Medimmune {no Thimerosal but plenty of MSG instead}

so, that's a total of 6 out of 9 (for starters) that include Thimerosal even though the FDA says there is none. since i already know the FDA lies, this is not surprising to me.

you however, seem to imply the FDA would never lie about such a thing and i'd have to ask, are you sure ???
edit on 10-10-2012 by Honor93 because: format



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

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 the same reasons treatment for the plethora of "symptoms" resulting from said vaccines are covered and paid for by those same people who refused the vaccines.

have you factored into your dissertation that without the vaccine "symptomology", health care costs might plummet ??


Why would healthcare costs "plummet" without vaccines?



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Honor93

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 the same reasons treatment for the plethora of "symptoms" resulting from said vaccines are covered and paid for by those same people who refused the vaccines.

have you factored into your dissertation that without the vaccine "symptomology", health care costs might plummet ??


Why would healthcare costs "plummet" without vaccines?

that is a question deserving its own thread ... feel free to start one

(it's not something i have time to do)

in short and to not derail this thread, reactive symptoms cost $$, more $$ than the vaccines themselves.
for each vaccinated person who exhibits treatable symptoms, there are likely dozens who that single vaccinated person shed upon generating more treatable symptoms, even in those who were vaccinated.

{keep in mind that these "symptoms" are most likely overactive histamine responses, however, they are still medically treatable and that's a revenue generator that substantially increases the cost of healthcare.}

less vaccines equal less treatable reactive symptoms or less $$.
(as the vaccine manufacturers are exempt from liability, profit becomes the ultimate goal)

less virus/vaccine shedding also equals less reactive/active symptoms in those who are not vaccinated. less treatable symptoms always = less $$$

besides, as the vaccines are meant/delivered as a preventative, they should be charged with false advertising because they are far from preventatives.
see the current chickenpox outbreak in FL and the vaccinated child who is equally infected.

ETA - just in case that's a bit vague, let's use the current FL chickenpox as an example.
no one can say specifically how the outbreak originated.
(some claim vaccine shedding amongst others, some claim the unvaccinated spread it around
)
in this case, i lean much farther toward the shedding concept as an unvaccinated, yet infected child, wouldn't be in school to share.

in some instances, those who are vaccinated, don't even leave school these days, they go straight back to class. (we did in the 80s when the new TB came out)
some return the same day and some do not.

those who are vaccinated are capable of spreading the virus around for weeks after they've received the vaccine - this is proven medically, it's not an exaggeration.
so, who is more likely to infect others, those carrying and shedding the vaccine/virus or those who have had -0- contact with it ??

funny thing though ... ALL of them will likely need some form of medical intervention to alleviate their symptoms, which of course = more $$$$$$ ... or increased costs of healthcare
edit on 11-10-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Some people can take vaccines with no problems, some even need them. People who have a strong immune system and those with certain autoimmune diseases should monitor how they feel after the shots. Some people who get severe reactions shouldn't get flue shots.

Childhood vaccines I don't know enough of because I have not studied the necessary scientific data to make an opinion about them. Some of them I feel are a good thing to get, but I don't know about the flue shots. We need to build up some immunities ourselves while others it is necessary to get vaccinated for. I, and my one daughter and her kids, can't get the flue shot because of severe flu-like symptoms that we get from them. I also know quite a few other people who have had bad reactions and will never take them again. If one parent can take the flu shots and the other can't, the children can be either way, half can take them and half can't. There is really no way to know unless a person tries. I personally feel we should build up real flu immunity, it is much better. I am no doctor though and say people should have the right to say they don't or do want them.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dollukka
reply to post by thebtheb
 


Why are you afraid of vaccine shedding if you are healthy ? Im sure you realize how stupid it is to compare your scare of vaccine shedding if you are healthy to those who has cancer and have been told not to be around just vaccinated people.

Can you provide real data that vaccine shedding is inteed endangering your health? Not the hear sayings. WHO did take caution few years ago against influenza vaccine shedding and it was not invasive vaccine the one which was in focus was intranasal influenza vaccine.

The most absurd thing is when these fears gets totally out of context, if you are healthy do not compare yourself to those who have underlying diseases and low immunity against viruses




He's being absurd because he doesn't want to get sick?

wow




Nice job OP. This is an under reported sidebar on the issue of vaccination. S&F



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

I found out about Mercury in Vaccines when a doctor started shaking a multidose vial of vaccine before injecting it into my wife's shoulder a year ago . I was told of the Mercury in it then , with the explanation that you have to mix it because mercury is heavy and settles . So , if they neglect to shake it you will get a large dose of mercury and it is accumulative with all the other sources you have been exposed to . It would be easy to forget to shake it up when you get busy .
Mercury causes some major neurological disorders , and hormonal problems causing miscarriages from what I have read . There is no good Mercury to put into your body .



EXCELLENT INFO!

So if you have suspicions about mercury being in a vaccine and/or your doctor says there isn't, then starts shaking up your cocktail = BUSTED



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
OP, I knew a woman named Marie on the PP forum.
Her adult daughter gave birth to a baby girl.
The girl got the MMR.
Mom changed a diaper and contracted Measles and is now in a wheelchair, paralyzed.
The doctor thinks mycoplasma is eating her nerves up, or some antibody is stripping the myelin.

I wonder if anyone on ATS knows why myelin stripping is a side effect of vaccine adverse reaction.
I wonder if they know what mycoplasma is, and that it was suspected to contribute to GWS (Gulf War Syndrome), spread by the anthrax vaccine.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
You all have a great day!

I'm off to the drugstore now to buy a large bottle of vitamin D.

Have to initiate my fall/winter vitamin regimen in order to fight off all those viral shedders who took the flu shot because it's "flu season"




posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by HIWATT
 


If you take vitamin D supplements, make sure you get some sunlight everyday or they can become a problem. I know someone who wound up with problems from taking supplements but she was not getting enough sunlight.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
"For those who think it is irresponsible not to get vaccinated"... the propaganda has worked. You be certain to punish those who do not adhere to the will of the CORPORATION.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Anecdotal analyses do not prove anything. Vaccines and their drawbacks are preferable to pandemics. Note that polio victims of the late 40s still require medical treatment while those who had the vaccine and remained polio free do not require treatment related to polio.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

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


im sure this is probably already posted somewhere in this thread but im gonna say it anyways.

im military. i am sworn to obey the lawful orders of the officers appointed above me. i, and many others, are ordered to be vaccinated. yearly flu shots, Tdap (no idea what it is), Typhoid, ViCPs, yellow fever, anthrax, SMALL POX. my kids to go to school are required to receive vaccinations. it is a well known fact amongst us in the military everyone gets a little sick during and right after the flu shots come around (its now a flu mist, sprays in both nostrils).

i dont believe vaccinations are going anywhere, and who knows, maybe it will no longer be an option to NOT be vaccinated for civilians...





new topics

top topics



 
81
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join