It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by star in a jar
Vaccines need to be safer, basically they can't have any adjuvants added to them to stretch the supply because that is where the majority of the problems come from.
But such premium vaccines cost money and only those who are from the wealthier classes can afford to have the best vaccines for their children, the poorer children get the more dangerous (next to free) vaccines that are loaded with crapola.
This is eugenics.
Originally posted by crazydaisy
reply to post by star in a jar
May I ask what has lead you to believe that poor and wealthy children do not
receive the same vaccine?
Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by hawkiye
And the paranoid people will take any crapped spewed forth from the mouths of other paranoid people, who also have no research done.. and fail to actually properly examine any data properly.. Which is almost always here on ATS.
Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by hawkiye
And the paranoid people will take any crapped spewed forth from the mouths of other paranoid people, who also have no research done.. and fail to actually properly examine any data properly.. Which is almost always here on ATS.
Aside from the fact you didn't spell it correctly, most vaccines today don't have it, with the exception of the flu shot (There are rare versions without it but they are difficult to get). So don't get the flu shot, I don't. But most of the other shots have pretty much abandoned Thimerosal, so you can't use that excuse on the shots that don't even have it.
Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
Vaccination is not an inherently bad, I think the issue is the Thiomersal contained within vaccines and the opportunity for "false epidemic" profiting.
So you quote something that happened 100 years ago as a reason to not get vaccinated today?
Originally posted by summer5
The worst smallpox disaster occurred in the Philippines, after 10 years (1911-1920) of a compulsory U.S. program which administered 25 million vaccinations to its population of 10 million. The result: 170,000 cases and more than 75,000 deaths from smallpox.
So the disease has been around for 10,000 years, do you think the eradication of smallpox and the vaccinations were just a coincidence?
mummified body of Pharaoh Ramses V of Egypt. The disease killed an estimated 400,000 Europeans per year during the closing years of the 18th century (including five reigning monarchs), and was responsible for a third of all blindness. Of all those infected, 20–60%—and over 80% of infected children—died from the disease. Smallpox was responsible for an estimated 300–500 million deaths during the 20th century.
After vaccination campaigns throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, the WHO certified the eradication of smallpox in 1979.[13] Smallpox is one of the two infectious diseases to have been eradicated, the other being rinderpest, which was declared eradicated unofficially in 2010 and officially in 2011.
Are you going to blame those deaths on the vaccine somehow too? The smallpox example you cite seems more like an example of how vaccines work, than how they don't work.
Some estimates indicate case fatality rates of 80-90% in Native American populations during smallpox epidemics.
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by mb2591
As for the OP I have to agree that the anti-vax movement is extremely dangerous. The paranoid irrational scape-goating is unfortunately not likely to stop. Vaccines are to diseases as HAARP is to natural disasters, they are the convenient scapegoat of the frightened, gullible and superstitious.
Apparently it depends on the laws of the state:
Originally posted by Maslo
How come the parents are allowed to not vaccinate their children even with basic vaccines? This is child abuse in my book. Children should not suffer and die for the stupidity of their parents.
Parents can be charged with manslaughter for failing to give their child proper medical treatment, but if the child dies from failure to get vaccinated, can they be charged with manslaughter for that? I haven't seen that happen yet. I'm not sure I understand the distinction though. There are some loopholes in the vaccination requirements and if the doctor can certify the child is too weak or sickly to survive the vaccinations, the child can be exempted, so the parents certainly wouldn't be liable in that case. The religious exemption is another matter, however.
Dr. Todd Hoover, MD - As parents, you are ultimately the ones most affected by the consequences to either vaccinate or not vaccinate your child. You should first determine the exact state law that governs this decision where you live. If there is no provision for a religious or philosophical objection to vaccination, your decision to not vaccinate your child could be viewed as child neglect by the authorities in your state, resulting in direct oversight of the medical care of your child and forced vaccination against your wishes. If your state allows religious or philosophical objection to vaccination, then you have a somewhat difficult choice. After studying the subject in depth, I believe that vaccinations represent the only long-term, relatively effective method of preventing these very serious diseases. Some vaccines are better than others, in terms of efficacy and side effects. All vaccines are stressful for your child and are capable of producing side effects. The relative health and constitution of the child is the single most predictive factor in the likelihood of a side effect occurring. Doctors and vaccine researchers are not inherently evil or misguided, and they constantly strive to find the safest and most effective ways to prevent serious contagious diseases...
vaccine requirements and exemptions in the U.S. are state laws, as the federal government lacks authority to address vaccines for state residents (federal laws do address vaccine requirements and exemptions for immigrants and the military; they may also provide means of avoiding vaccines in the workplace). Contrary to the assertions of some, vaccines are legally required in all U.S. states and territories, but exemptions of one kind or another are also available that at least some citizens in each state and territory may exercise. One’s right to refuse immunizations in the exercise of one’s religious beliefs is a right afforded by both state and federal law (in all but two states—Mississippi and West Virginia)—primarily by way of state codes and the U.S. Constitution’s First and Fourteenth Amendments. So, right off the bat, vaccine religious exemptions necessarily involve a potentially complex mixture of state and federal law. Furthermore, on the state level, there are both statutes and regulations that address vaccine requirements and exemptions, and all of them must be factored in to determine fully one’s rights, and state constitutions may play a role as well.
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Thunder heart woman
I fail to see what's paranoid about trusting well-established medical science that has helped all but wipe out diseases that used to kill by the thousands, if not millions.