Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Whooping Cough Outbreak Involved 90% Vaccinated Kids

page: 7
154
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Wooping cough is a bacteria.

You can't vaccinate against bacteria. You use antibacterials against bacteria.

Please stop being so ignorant.


How am I being ignorant?

I'm not the one vaccinating people against Whooping Cough.

How about you e-mail all the doctors and pharmaceutical companies pushing these vacccines and call them ignorant as they would be the ones deserving of your "wrath"


Get a grip Gorman, thank you for showcasing your ignorance, yet again...

U mad bro?




posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Explain how you can vaccinate against bacteria.

Once again, you're using one source.

Get a grip on reality, Corruption Exposed. You cannot get vaccinated against bacteria.

So I will keep my little challenge to you. Explain how you can get vaccinated from bacteria.
edit on 16-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by Amanda5
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Unfortunately the brain washed sector of society will have to watch as their Children suffer - in spite of being vaccinated. Vaccines are full of toxic elements in the adjuvant or carrier


whoa, this is a very ignorant thing to say....
the toxic elements were found in minute quantities, and in very few of the vaccines.
Saying all "vaccines are full of toxic elements" is completely false.


Well, you may be wrong in your assessment.
viruses and other pathogens in vaccines:

www.tetrahedron.org...

Mercury in vaccines:

www.tetrahedron.org...
adjuvants in vaccines:

www.whale.to...:_Squalene_
.html
edit on 16-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


ah, I see now.

Ok so I was wrong on this one. They use a synthesized element of the bacteria.


Er, well count me suspicious on this one.

You use antibacterial forces for bacteria. Not vaccines.

If you use vaccines made from parts of the bacteria, you are still dealing with bacteria. Something which does not need your cells to reproduce, and has a billion years of adaptability to work with.

Why would you get a vaccine for a bacteria when you can just use antibacterials is beyond me.

Vaccines are for viruses. Not bacteria.
edit on 16-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Explain how you can vaccinate against bacteria.

Once again, you're using one source.

Get a grip on reality, Corruption Exposed. You cannot get vaccinated against bacteria.

So I will keep my little challenge to you. Explain how you can get vaccinated from bacteria.
edit on 16-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


The Pertussis vaccine is given to all children. Pertussis is the fancy name for whooping cough. It is an infection of the respiratory system. If you have a question about it, you might ask your general practitioner.

kidshealth.org...

Tetanus is a bacterial infection of the nervous system.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
edit on 16-1-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


The question still stands.

Why are vaccines being used for bacteria. That's not what they're suppose to be used for.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


The question still stands.

Why are vaccines being used for bacteria. That's not what they're suppose to be used for.


ok I just thought you were making a challenge to the OP. This is one issue I agree with the OP on .



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


The question still stands.

Why are vaccines being used for bacteria. That's not what they're suppose to be used for.
Vaccines are used for bacterial diseases because it's better to prevent the disease than to treat it. Well, actually, it's best to do both, and both are done, but still. Using antibiotics increases resistance of bacterium to antibiotics, as any with a mutation that gives resistance to the antibiotic survive and reproduce while the others die.

Also, vaccines can be used to protect against anything your immune system protects against, any pathogen that can be identified by your immune system. This includes bacteria and viruses. Here's a definition of vaccine: "A preparation of a weakened or killed pathogen, such as a bacterium or virus, or of a portion of the pathogen's structure that upon administration stimulates antibody production or cellular immunity against the pathogen but is incapable of causing severe infection." (from www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Depending on how long it takes a disease to kill you, and the general principle that antibiotics aren't perfect either, I'd be concerned that depending entirely on antibiotics puts you quite at risk (as does depending entirely on vaccines).



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


The table from Vaxchoicevt is meaningless without statistics indicating what the total population of those who received vaccines and those who received none is. For all we know, those who got ill despite having had the vaccination may represent a very small percentage of the total vaccinated population, whereas the ten cases who came down with it without having been vaccinated may represent the entire population of those who did not get vaccinated. Why do you suppose Vaxchoicevt does not provide that information? Ninety percent of the reported cases having received the vaccination is not at all the same as ninety percent of the people who got the vaccination got ill. Is it really necessary that I explain this?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Twine
 


I see.

And I suppose the title is therefore misleading. It's not 90% of kids vaccinated get it. It's that 90% of the cases are kids with the vaccine. Which would make sense considering the young immune system.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by quedup
 


People tell me that my personal experiences are not valid and do not apply to the population as a whole, but come on people, when will we say enough is enough?


Since the birth of my twin girls in June 2011, I've been at war with my wife over vaccinations and the harm they can do to little ones still forming body, but she insists.
I explained to my wife that when I was in the service I received my first and only Flu shot. I was feeling malaise for months afterwards, and I never once had the Flu before and now am susceptible to it. It is just as you stated above, my personal experiences aren't valid. She blindly follows authority figures like a lemming and when I stand my ground, all hell breaks loose.

What a shame it is to see our population fall prey so easily to the big pharma machine.

I thank you for your diligence.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Are we saying that most doctors have no clue as to the dangers of vaccination? They are liars?

When my daughter was born her doctor, a good friend of mine, said we should get the required shots for her. He explained the risks and said there wouldn’t be much harm in deigning. We chose to get the shots for her.

She’s fine and is a normal girl at 10 yrs. now. That’s not to say there aren’t risks for certain individuals.
I’m just sayin’, to claim vaccinations are bad for everyone is silly. There are some cases where they kill or make a person sick, no doubt. They work for me and my family.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by prysmatyk
 


I guess it was better back in the days before vaccinations, huh?

Back in the good old days when a child would be considered lucky to live past the age of 5.

Why is it that infant mortality has gone from over 160 deaths per 1000 down to less than 5 per 1000?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Long time lurker here. First post.. I felt compelled to say something

Im doing a PhD in Immunology/Vaccinology. It really boggles my mind reading some of these 'arguments' against vaccines.

Please watch the youtube video posted by Waterbottle. If you cant understand this, I don't think you should be having kids anyway.

www.youtube.com...

Oh and btw, I am really sick and tired of hearing people say "my kid is prefect/valedictorian/dux of my school, and my kid is a super sports star and this is because my kid in unvaccinated". Success as most people know is because of nature/nurture, hard work, determination and discipline.

If you have any specific questions about vaccine research, ill do my best to answer them.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by prysmatyk
 




The problem is, you are likely going to run into a snag when you try to enroll the children into daycare or public schools, and even private schools. They will likely make you vaccinate them for enrollment. Schools even did this for the Hep B vaccine for 7th graders. But good luck if you go that route and you can get vouchers to exempt from the vaxx.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Explain how you can vaccinate against bacteria.

Once again, you're using one source.

Get a grip on reality, Corruption Exposed. You cannot get vaccinated against bacteria.

So I will keep my little challenge to you. Explain how you can get vaccinated from bacteria.
edit on 16-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


Take off your tin foil hat for a moment. We have been using the BCG vaccine since the early 20s for primarily vaccination for tuberculosis. Tuberculosis can be caused by the bacteria mycobacterium tuberculosis. This is one example how you can vaccinate against bacteria.

This is a nice little article explaining how a single vaccine can vaccinate for a number of disease (pathogens) at a time
edit on 16-1-2013 by coruja because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
When vaccinations originated, they didn't have the 'other' poisons mixed in with them that they now have, like Thimerosal. I think it's great that polio and the mumps are no longer killers and disablers. But the government is vaccinating for more and more diseases with vaccines that also contain other poisons which cause their own share of death and disease.




Approximately 12 out of the 18 vaccine doses the average American child receives before the age of two contain Thimerosal. Cumulatively, that's more than 200 micrograms of mercury, which would fit on the head of a pin.

According to the EPA, dropping that pin-head of mercury into 23 gallons of water would make it unsafe for human consumption. "Think about the idea of injecting your own child with levels of mercury that are thirty to forty times what's considered safe for an adult," Dallas attorney Andy Waters said. "And, I think if any human being thinks about that very long, they recognize that this is something that never should have happened."

Waters represents the Counters, as well as other families in the lawsuits. News 8 took some of his firm's research on Thimerosal to several top experts for their opinions.

Dr. Boyd Haley is the Chairman of the Chemistry Department at the University of Kentucky. He's one of the nation's leading experts on mercury poisoning and has studied Thimerosal in vaccines. Thimerosal "is one of the most toxic compounds I know of," Haley said. "I can't think of anything that I know of is more lethal."
*SNIP*

But just two years ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did conduct a study, which showed that three-month-old babies exposed to just 63 micrograms of mercury - less than half of the aforementioned pin top - were two-and-a-half times more likely to develop autism.

The study is stamped "Confidential" and "Do Not Copy or Release." Siegel says it was never made public because it was just a draft.

"Until they're final, and are ready for publication, they're always considered a draft, not to be widely distributed," Siegel said. "This preliminary information could be distributed, and that could do harm." So why was it marked 'Confidential, Do Not Release', rather than a simple 'Draft'?



read more at www.tetrahedron.org...
edit on 16-1-2013 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Not at all sir. Just saying that our current state of affairs makes it very difficult to believe in those mega-corporations and three letter bureaucracies which decide to make their bottom line more important than our health. There is a definitive conflict of interest within the medical community which exposes us all to certain unscrupulous possibilities.
i.e.
Dr. Julie Gerberding was head of the CDC until 2009, but now is heading up Merck's vaccine division. From public health to corporate department head.
Many doctors make multiple bonuses each year from the HMO's they work for provided they keep the vaccination numbers high enough and are reprimanded if they fall below a certain percentage.

Furthermore, there are the plethora of ingredients which I would prefer not to put into anyone's body, let alone a child's developing one.
Aluminum,
Animal cells from monkeys, dog kidneys, chickens, cows, and humans, ( what cells exactly )
Formaldehyde (embalming fluid), a known carcinogen,
Gelatin, from pigs and cows, known to cause Ana-phylactic reactions, is found in large quantities in the MMR, chickenpox and shing les vaccines.

There are more reasons why I feel the way I do, yet know that the choice is one for each individual... my family however, is a whole different story. I deeply desire to protect my children from any kind of pain or illness which could be prevented. I believe any parent of sound mind would feel the same.

Knowing what I know about vaccinations, (some of them) I believe that my wife should be a bit more open minded in this area considering the possible repercussions to our children's future health.

On a side note, when someone goes into the doctor today for an illness or ailment, they describe the symptom to the P.A., the doctor comes in and checks over the person, then usually prescribes a pill of some sort. End of visit. The pill, more often than not, relieves the symptom, but not the underlying cause of the ailment or illness.

When I was younger, doctors I went to, would not treat the symptom, instead they would DIAGNOSE the illness or ailment, then treat the cause. Why has that changed? Insurance companies? Big Pharma? Government regulation? or simply because doctors know what is best for us all?

I believe it is in our best interest to educate ourselves about all aspects of life, for we are the ones living it. Skepticism is paramount in a world run by those hiding the truth.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I'd love to see better sources than a site that has a page for Apocalypse Prevention Project...



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


The ignorance is strong with this one.





new topics

top topics



 
154
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join