Anti-vaxers go crazy, viciously attack pols

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/anti-v ... ailsignout

The anti-vax nutters have already forced three states to kill the idea of ending the "personal belief exemption". Bravo to California for standing up to the loonies. Can any of them explain WHY having autism is a fate worse than death? So your kid is neurologically different, so what, your kid does NOT exist to fulfill the parents' dreams, the kid is its own person.

This is what pisses me off about these people, they talk about some rare occurrence and/or some non-sense and they make it as if that's so damned common that vaccine's must be stopped.
Lady, innocent kids will die from NOT being vaccinated, that's WHY they were made to take it in the first place!
F*'ing ignorant dipsh*ts, I swear. They fail to realize that their "parental right" in this matter is going to cost them and others their kids, and the very fact that the disease had resurfaced in the first place, proves that. What are we living in? The f*'ing dark ages? Come the f*ck on!

God, I just want to smack these ignorant dumbasses.

Yeah well I'm pissed off at the fact people attack each other over this at all. It's what they want, you brainwashed idiots. Until there have been universally-accepted, properly executed longitudinal studies that prove them save, and tests available to determine the cases who shouldn't be vaccinated, then keep your nazi stupidity to yourself. If a mother is ridiculed for raising awareness of the thing that KILLED her child then what are we living in?!

Be quiet for "the good of the masses" disgusts me, whatever the subject, so keep your hate and violent thoughts to yourself. FREE SPEECH.

There's no such thing as a "universally accepted" study that proves anything, regardless of what it is, the very statement is asinine.
You sit there and talk about "hate and violent thoughts", and then you talk about free speech, yet you're the one coming on here calling people names, with wild assumptions about our character, accusing us of "nazi stupidity" because we feel it's in the children's best interest to be vaccinated by default, something that, by the way SAVES THEIR LIVES.

HOW DARE YOU come on here and react in such a manner toward those who, frankly, see the bigger picture here. And HOW DARE YOU accuse us of "hate speech" and "ridiculing a woman" for "raising awareness" (with no proof to that statement, nor from her as to what truly killed her kid, whatsoever, mind you), and then proceed to do exactly that on this thread, to us, who disagree with you. Hypocrite!

Exactly, and these parents have done research that strongly indicates *to them* that there may be unreasonable side effects for some people if they get too many vaccines too young, and they often have had bad experiences with doctors in relation to investigating their concerns so are likely and entitled to be concerned that a decision would be made by doctors who do not know their children. I believe everyone has the option to make an informed choice on their and their children's health, as long as they are not actually neglectful, abusive or violent in their lives. The so called "anti-vases" are often merely calling for official research to find whether there is an increased risk to certain individuals, genetic or medical, and are being attacked. As to the implication that someone is "crazy" for crying out to be heard when they believe their child has been injured or killed by something is, well, crazy. It doesn't matter whether you agree with their decision on the cause of the injury.

A campaign against any "personal belief exemption" of a purely medical nature sounds pretty nazi-esque to me, before the matter is even remotely closed and anti-regime beliefs may even be rising.



I'm sorry I went too far but I feel like people are met with a tide of abuse when they want to just DISCUSS the evidence or have their story told in the media. I believe the bigger picture will come when all the evidence is out and investigated, which obviously can never happen in reality. The bigger picture will get bigger. I really do think they are allowed to stand and shout in the streets if they are being suppressed and have any evidence about their child's death, no matter what will happen if people actually look into it and be able to discount/believe it after fair research. Maybe we should focus on providing accurate, un-biased and honest information as to the figures of how many children die of measles compared to other suspected causes of vaccine injury etc and trust parents to make their risk decisions. Who gave you the right to hold them down and attack them with a needle or take their freedom, for what you believe may possibly create a risk to their own and other children, (who's parents also came to that medical risk conclusion) in the future. If people are too stupid to look at the information properly then educate them in why you feel differently. That's really all you can do to them unless you'd be willing to physically restrain them yourself?

Really I feel like that article was so biased and didn't really tell a proper account of both sides so I can't take much from it, but you're right I shouldn't have called you names. That was childish. I want to just urge you to look closely at some specific cases (especially the ones where the children died very soon after) and try to think about how they've come to THEIR decision based on what THEY have seen/heard/experienced. I think it's reasonable in many cases that they would feel strongly about not inoculating their other children. By all means try to inform them but don't attack vulnerable people when their bodily choices are being violated and they're fighting against their worst fears coming true (another of their children dying).

Nobody has the right to an opinion and have it respected, simply because they believe it. You only have the right to an informed opinion. Decades of research have disproven their beliefs but they cling to their assertion like zealots. Here is the evidence for no links based on 1.25 million cases. That is definitive enough for anybody, if they can't accept it after that they don't deserve my time or consideration.

"A new Australian study has found no evidence whatsoever of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism development in children. It also found no evidence of a link between thiomersal, a mercury compound used in very small quantities as a preservative in some vaccines, and autism development. (Thiomersal is no longer found in any of the vaccines used in the UK routine childhood schedule.)

Fears that the MMR vaccine might be linked to autism development led to a fall in MMR vaccination rates in previous years. As a result, there have been many more cases of measles worldwide. As well as the outbreaks in Wales in 2012, the US saw 17 measles outbreaks in 2011.

Researchers at the University of Sydney carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 studies, all of which had independently examined the question of whether there might be a link between autism development and the MMR vaccine or thiomersal in vaccines. A meta-analysis combines data from several original studies, and the results can often be more powerful and informative than the results of each individual study. In total, over 1.25 million children from four different countries were included in this analysis. The size of the study is important, because it enabled the researchers to identify if there might be any rare effects linked to the vaccine that might only show up in a very few people.

The study found no relationship between:
•vaccination and autism
•vaccination and ASD (autism spectrum disorder)
•autism/ASD and MMR
•autism/ASD and thiomersal
•autism/ASD and mercury in vaccines


Overall, this strongly suggests that vaccinations are not associated with the development of autism or autism spectrum disorder. The results are in line with the findings of a systematic Cochrane review in 2012, which looked at over 60 smaller studies and found no qualitative evidence for a link between the MMR vaccination and autism.

Read the abstract of the Australian study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0X14006367"

You don't have to give them "time or consideration", just don't put extra time into viciously talking about these bereaved parents as if they are crazy for seeing a link and passionately talking about it. Honestly, what would you be doing if you gave your child a jab then they instantly started to react badly then died? You would probably think it was the jab too! Just leave them alone for wanting to discuss their child's death. Tbh, no one study is definitive at all, especially one taken from skewed results. There have been other studies which showed a strong link between ill-health of children who have been innoculated compared to those who haven't. Any kind of causal-relationship investigations are soooooo easily skewed to fit their OBVIOUS agenda. If there is no link at all, why have the pharmaceutical companies paid out to vaccine-injured people before? Because there are still cases they can't be denied or swept under the carpet like they could with these type of statistical studies. They are admitting there are rare cases, (apparently not appearing in this big study?), but doing nothing to prevent them and actively trying to discourage those affected from seeking answers or compensation.

In my opinion, you'd have to be crazy to think the amount of extra viruses/metals we put into TINY kids and pregnant women will have ZERO effect, even if you don't believe it's causing autism specifically. We also don't know what it's doing to our gene expression, future generations' immunal responses, or our fertility as a species. We could even be creating new, more dangerous strains of diseases by giving them a home in so many intermingling bodies. We might be wiping everyone out slowly, but we can't do a study about that yet, can we? There is no way of knowing until at least a few generations down the line, and that is why I feel it is completely irresponsible to physically force it onto those who have different views on the whole thing. So what if there were a few measles outbreaks? Is that not expected anyway, when the vaccine isn't 100% effective? Why didn't we spend all the vaccine money on working out how to treat it, so no-one dies of it when they do contract it? Oh yeah, because that would lose the pharmaceutical industry an unimaginable amount of money! The level of vaccination is still very high and it's enough in my opinion. We live in a society where we can separate and quarantine and have very high hygiene standards and although I wish these dangerous viruses didn't exist, they do. And we all have to live with the fear of ANY virus wiping us all out. It's not likely to be measles and for all we know, it could be that new strain of angry-to-be-vaccine-suppressed measles that does it! We will never be rid of viruses and the battle with them has to be about balance.

To let you know my stance, I think autism is probably mainly genetic, with input from pregnancy/early childhood experience. I do think that having so many vaccines can be injurious to certain humans (immune problems etc) which can exasserbate the outward signs of autism (pain, self injurious behaviour, gut problems, learning difficulties etc). And we should at least be seriously looking into how some people should be tested to be exempt. For example, I have a history of immunity problems but In YOUR preferred system I would automatically be forced to be injected with heavy metals I'm proven to be allergic to, and therefore there is an increased risk of injury. I doubt any of my doctors would think twice about signing me off as fit for vaccines. I've been given many medications which contain ingredients THEY diagnosed me as being allergic to, even after asking them to double-check. They really couldn't give a sh*t sometimes. A surgeon, soon to cut open my stomach, got angry when I told him about a latex allergy, and was even more annoyed when he found it wasn't a self-diagnosed allergy, because he couldn't just ignore it. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that we can't trust doctors to make our health decisions unquestioned, because we know ourselves better than they do, and we have more to lose than them. Thankfully, I still have the final word on what goes into my body so I haven't been killed off yet.

The other thing I would consider as a theory is that certain batches of vaccines can be contaminated. There was a case recently where premature babies were given contaminated feed and died because of the irresponsible preparation by the pharmaceutical company, so they are in no way above speculation about their cleanliness and carefulness when preparing drugs... and that was with the most precious of products, for the most vulnerable people in society. It's really quite amazing the doctors managed to make a link and call back the batch- if the babies had only been injured rather than died, no-one may ever have noticed the contamination (how do you prove the link after the batch has all gone?) and hundreds may have been injured in various degrees, with no link ever being made to the company. I can't imagine the companies are more careful than prem baby food, when preparing the masses of vaccines to ship off quick for the big £$, especially knowing the reaction people get if they do suspect vaccine injury.



Yeah but there is going to be an initial spike. When suddenly everyone thought "oh, it's safer not to, just in case", because they lost trust in all the information and started to see the government/money bias involved. Most people would still vaccinate if they thought they were given balanced, honest information by the medical community to base their decision on. There will always be societal pressure to have them, to take the risk for the good of the people, and most people will still get vaccinated. I don't really mind that if its a fair debate. What I do mind is the government thinking it has ultimate control over our bodies and choices. If someone wants to not vaccinate even when they admit no medical grounds, then that is their choice and their choice only and nothing to do with you. Do you think you are God or something? Where do you want this to end? A Schedule of hundreds of the things for each baby before birth, unquestioned through fear of imprisonment, because each individual drug has apparently been tested (by the manufacturers themselves), even when we see big increases in child ill-health and behaviour which correlates? Where would your line be? Their line is when it stops being commercially profitable. I don't see what harm these people are doing by pointing out a potential systemic problem, asking for more safety tests and asserting their right to make their own medical decisions.



They have a massive vested interest in choosing the studies which showed no links, because that's what this study is commissioned to do- to convince, not to investigate. If you take results from many previous studies, how on earth can you guarantee no bias has taken place? Apart from the fact you choose which studies to include, after you can see their results, you can not rigorously investigate each possible variant, especially when the info is second-hand. Humans are way too complicated to get causal relationships in this way. Remember that the kids who are used as controls are the ones who did not receive the vaccines- kids who mostly already have medical conditions or genetic/financial/lifestyle reasons for not being vaccinated. Therefore the control group starts off as "disadvantaged" with health conditions and therefore I can't see how you can compare these groups on a mass scale?

It's not uncommon for someone to be sick after getting a vaccine, I mean, it's literally the larval form of the virus. The facts remain as the following: Don't give them the shot, they absolutely will get sick and possibly spread Measles, Mumps, or Rubella (and probably some other that it covers), and these are fatal diseases, that's why a vaccine was developed in the first place. So the choice is vaccinate your kid and take the rare chance that they develop complications from it (which is why doctors wait before giving kids these vaccines), or don't vaccinate your kid and take the now very likely chance that they contract one of these diseases anyway, and spread it further before they even get symptoms (which has been known to happen, more often than not).

Research the cause of these kids' death, absolutely, but don't put other kids at risk based on an unproven hypothesis. How would you like it if someone else could've prevented your kid from being exposed to a deadly virus, and they ignored that and caused it to happen because of their ignorance or fear?

Straight from conspiracy land.




Pain, self injurious behaviour, gut problems, learning difficulties etc are NOT accurate depictions of Autism!

There have been many studies, that have tested over 20 million children combined, and there was no link to Autism. Either you accept this fact, or subscribe to science denial.

Vaccines are not viruses or metal! A vaccine contains deactivated viruses in their ingredients. A baby's immune system is well and truly strong enough to handle vaccine.




Spreading diseases and killing as many people as possible is the new freedom.

This is exactly why anti-vaxers belong in jail. They'll never understand, they'll always reject science and opt to be human disease carriers, they'll always be a danger to society.

Your misunderstanding and disrespect for the Constitution for the United States of America is apparent. You don't have to be an “anti-vax nutter” to recognize and defend the exercise of their rights including:

--the First Amendment prohibition of government “prohibiting the free exercise” of “religion” (insofar as individuals who believe that laws which provide for forcible vaccination would violate their religious beliefs)

--the First Amendment prohibition of government “abridging the freedom of speech” (insofar as individuals who believe that laws which restrict criticism of forcible vaccination would violate their free speech)

--the First Amendment “right[s] of the people peaceably to assemble [associate], and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (insofar as individuals who believe that laws which restrict organized criticism of forcible vaccination would violate their rights of association and lobbying)

--the First, Fourth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments derived right to privacy (insofar as individuals who believe that laws which provide for forcible vaccination would violate their right of privacy)

--the Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be secure in their persons [...] against unreasonable searches and seizures” (insofar as individuals who believe that laws which provide for forcible vaccination would violate their right against unreasonable searches and seizures)

--the Fifth Amendment prohibition of being “deprived of life [or] liberty [...] without due process of law” (insofar as individuals who believe that laws which provide for forcible vaccination would violate their right of due process)

--the Seventh Amendment “right of trial by jury” (insofar as the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Office of Special Masters “vaccine court” provides no jury)

--the Ninth Amendment prohibition of government denying or disparaging “other [non-enumerated rights] retained by the people” (insofar as individuals who choose to protect themselves in court controversies from federal mandates of forcible vaccination)

--the Tenth Amendment protection of “powers” “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (insofar as states which choose to defend their citizens from federal mandates of forcible vaccination)

--the Fourteenth Amendment prohibition that “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (insofar as individuals who believe that laws which provide for forcible vaccination would violate their right of due process)

So, there is already a chilling effect among these rights in the conflation of existing laws, pending laws, proposed laws, desired laws, regulations, rules and policies. Is that chilling effect okay with you? It shouldn’t be, because it might be your rights that are restricted next.

Moreover, this is a long list of constitutional hurdles that must be overcome if the idea of forcible vaccinations will be allowed to exist in law. Aside from a vaccine-related declared state or federal disaster or emergency, the current desire by some to force vaccinations is dead in the legal waters.

You can spin just about anything to be perceived as unconstitutional, but that aside, there are already laws in place that force vaccinations at certain points, regardless of personal beliefs on the matter, and frankly speaking, that's a hell of a lot better than a new epidemic that would infect millions, potentially.

What was the most recent "new epidemic that would infect millions" and how did it play out legally?

I'm talking about a scenario that would happen if people don't start vaccinating. The recent measles outbreaks being the proof.

The Disneyland measles “outbreak” was a frat-boy pissing contest, not an epidemic. In 2009, just two U.S. citizens died from measles; same thing in 2010. In fact, for the last decade, an average of just one U.S. citizen a year has died from measles. It is a non-event. It is statistically meaningless. That the Disneyland victims were treated quickly and isolated to prevent others from infection is a testament to the fact that it wasn’t an epidemic. By the way, several of the Disneyland victims were vaccinated themselves, belying the notion that their vaccines were “safe and effective.”

I was talking about the continuing HIV/AIDS epidemic. Its first several years saw outrageous unconstitutional attacks and hateful BS against those who had HIV/AIDS (or were simply perceived to have had it because they were LGBT). Strangely, while the LGBT community acted immediately to warn, prepare, educate and treat each other, our federal government and most state governments didn’t. Now, who is to blame there? Who exacerbated the epidemic? The oft-argued idea that the first HIV/AIDS patients were known to be involved in the national Hepatitis B trials only months or years earlier continues to inform the opinion of many that the government was as culpable with the spread of HIV as it was in the secretive and intentional spread of syphilis in Tuskegee, Ala., between 1932 to 1972 and Guatemala between 1946 to 1948.

During the HIV/AIDS epidemic, most of our state and federal governments acted unconstitutionally, illegally and worthlessly against many, many of their citizens. We had to go to court after court after court to re-affirm, and regain, our basic constitutional rights and strike down their idiotic laws which restricted those rights; so, please don’t suggest that anyone “...can spin just about anything to be perceived as unconstitutional[.]” In my life, unconstitutional government acts were real, and still are. I trust that you will forgive me for being a little wary of them.

Being arrested and charged criminally just because an individual might have HIV/AIDS was not unheard of. Businesses fired suspected “carriers” routinely. Public accommodations refused them. Schools expelled students with HIV, churches forbade and denigrated them, and families shunned them. Our governments then could have acted appropriately and constitutionally. Instead, they chose to fan the flames of hate and hysteria. They blamed us while doing abjectly nothing themselves.

I see the same popular hysteria mounting against those of us who oppose forcible vaccinations today absent any state or federal declared disaster or emergency. Our governments now still have the chance to act appropriately and constitutionally. But, I amn’t hopeful. I have seen what, when left to their own accord, our governments are (in)capable of. I am seeing history repeat itself. The only difference is that yesteryear’s HIV/AIDS activists are now today’s opponents of forcible vaccinations. In both cases, however, governments tagged us with the name “enemy of the state.”

You are, of course, free to believe what you will. I and others like me won’t denigrate others, even if others denigrate us.

1. I wasn't claiming that it was an epidemic, and I plainly stated that it was an outbreak, trying to change the meaning behind my words will not make them any less true.

2. Only because of the amounts of people that are still vaccinated, how is that so hard for you people to understand?

3. Once again, I didn't claim it was an epidemic, only an outbreak (and it was an outbreak), and that's not the only one that has occurred in the past year, mind you.

4. A) If you knew even the slightest thing about vaccines you would know that they wear off over time, which is why people have to continually vaccinate (and most people don't, by the way, because until now, there was no need to continue vaccination on a regular basis, due to herd immunity, which is now out the window). B) If you knew even the slightest thing about vaccines, you'd know they don't work 100% of the time, there is always a chance to contract the disease they're meant to prevent. This also applies to the flu shot, which is also a vaccine.

5. You and others like you, present ideas that go against medical science, and you think that you're being criticized unfairly?
Given your comments thus far, I would honestly recommend that you study up on medical science, particularly in the area of how vaccines work, what they do, and why.

Looking at the OP, as well as looking at how this is in a forum specifically related to autism, it appears this thread is about the supposed, but unsupported by science, connection between vaccines and autism.

Talking about specific epidemics seems to get away from the topic of the forum this thread is posted in.

There is the Wakefield study, which was made unreproducible because it did not explain how its participants were selected. Just about all other studies, however, show no connection at all, whatsoever.