How Anti-Vaxxers Shame Autistic Kids.

Page 9 of 12 [ 185 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

31 Jul 2019, 7:12 am

We should do research on the preservatives used in vaccines, yes.

No doubt.

There should be ongoing inquiry.

But the efficacy of vaccines themselves has been proven beyond question.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

31 Jul 2019, 7:13 am

Thorough research has been done on vaccines and their side effects for years.



jngyslate
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 24 Jul 2019
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 98
Location: Pasadena, TX, United States

31 Jul 2019, 7:16 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
Thorough research has been done on vaccines and their side effects for years.


Without the consideration that we are injecting it into babies. babies where everything inside of them is still growing, and they have vulnerable immune systems. All of the factors are not being looked at here.



jngyslate
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 24 Jul 2019
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 98
Location: Pasadena, TX, United States

31 Jul 2019, 7:17 am

what is "safe" for an adult may not be safe for a newborn. Ask any doctor and they will tell you that flatout.



Amity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,714
Location: Meandering

31 Jul 2019, 7:23 am

Fnord wrote:
Why is it that some people will take a conditional phrase like "there may be an extremely small possibility" and perceive its meaning as "it is absolutely certain"?

This is a rhetorical question, as there may be no logical answer for such unreasonable behavior.

They have a narrative in mind...

Living in airy fairy land, expecting others to facilitate lifestyle choices that harm everyone else through their actions! :lol:



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

31 Jul 2019, 7:27 am

Vaccines aren’t given to newborns. Most are given after a baby is about 4-6 months old.

After about 4 months of age, babies lose the immunity given to them from their mothers. That’s when they start getting colds and fevers.



jngyslate
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 24 Jul 2019
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 98
Location: Pasadena, TX, United States

31 Jul 2019, 7:30 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
Vaccines aren’t given to newborns. Most are given after a baby is about 4-6 months old.

After about 4 months of age, babies lose the immunity given to them from their mothers. That’s when they start getting colds and fevers.


Babies build up their immunities over a LIFETIME. This is why children get sick more often then adults. These sicknesses are what build up their immunities into what it is when they become adults. Not to mention that their brains and organs are still developing.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

31 Jul 2019, 7:34 am

Babies are the subjects of the research. And they have been for years.

Older children and adults born after the 70s get primarily booster shots.

Most vaccines are given before a person is 2 years of age—for excellent reasons.



jngyslate
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 24 Jul 2019
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 98
Location: Pasadena, TX, United States

31 Jul 2019, 7:46 am

You cannot effectively research a baby because you cannot use babies as test subjects. So what you are hearing from scientists that say that we test these things on babies is "we THINK that this is how it will affect a baby". The actual testing that we are doing is by simply giving the kids the vaccines. And we will know if the vaccines have negative effects when it ends up hurting one of our children. is that REALLY how we want to test these vaccines?



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

31 Jul 2019, 7:51 am

The incidence of very harmful effects of vaccines on babies is well known. About 1 in a million. And it’s been that way for years.

Much better than an unvaccinated baby acquiring a disease, or passing the disease on to others.



jngyslate
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 24 Jul 2019
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 98
Location: Pasadena, TX, United States

31 Jul 2019, 7:53 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
The incidence of very harmful effects of vaccines on babies is well known. About 1 in a million. And it’s been that way for years.

Much better than an unvaccinated baby acquiring a disease, or passing the disease on to others.

Theres no way that it is well known! Because babies are not allowed to be tested upon like rats in a lab! Do you understand what I am telling you? If a scientists has told you that "we have tested this sh!t on babies", they are straight up lying to you! And this is well known! Everyone knows that babies are not kept in cages and fed various objects to see how it affects them. Thats how you test things.



jngyslate
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 24 Jul 2019
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 98
Location: Pasadena, TX, United States

31 Jul 2019, 7:54 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
Babies are the subjects of the research. And they have been for years.

Older children and adults born after the 70s get primarily booster shots.

Most vaccines are given before a person is 2 years of age—for excellent reasons.


Here, this is the post of yours that I meant to quote.

Theres no way that it is well known! Because babies are not allowed to be tested upon like rats in a lab! Do you understand what I am telling you? If a scientists has told you that "we have tested this sh!t on babies", they are straight up lying to you! And this is well known! Everyone knows that babies are not kept in cages and fed various objects to see how it affects them. Thats how you test things.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

31 Jul 2019, 7:59 am

They determine incidence through hospital admissions of children who have had adverse reactions to vaccines.

I’ve seen babies getting shots. It’s not a nice experience for them. I was afraid shots until I was around 10 years old.

I wish they didn’t have to go through that. I wished that, too—trust me!



jngyslate
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 24 Jul 2019
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 98
Location: Pasadena, TX, United States

31 Jul 2019, 8:00 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
They determine incidence through hospital admissions of children who have had adverse reactions to vaccines.

I’ve seen babies getting shots. It’s not a nice experience for them. I was afraid shots until I was around 10 years old.

I wish they didn’t have to go through that. I wished that, too—trust me!


But babe, thats EXACTLY what I just told you. We are TESTING the kids by seeing who gets sick from the vaccines. That is morbid and disgusting. People are carefully watching who gets sick, and meanwhile telling everyone, "we know for a fact taht the chances that your kid will get sick from this vaccine is about one in a million". So thats a LIE. They should tell peopl "we dont know. We are watching to see which kids get sick." Which is what you JUST told me.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

31 Jul 2019, 8:02 am

So you propose we wait until 3 years of age?

That would not work. Kids under 3 pass along and acquire diseases at a rabid rate.

It would defeat the purpose of vaccination.



Last edited by kraftiekortie on 31 Jul 2019, 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

jngyslate
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 24 Jul 2019
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 98
Location: Pasadena, TX, United States

31 Jul 2019, 8:03 am

So to clarify, since there is no actual way to "test" these kids without giving them the vaccines, we are just giving them the vaccines, and then seeing which ones get sick, and praying to god that nothing happens.