Nurse Fired for Refusing Flu Shot Sues Hospital, Federal and State Governments for $100,000,000, page 12

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 04:49 PM

link

originally posted by: CardiffGiant

what are you talking about?
i have not made any false claims...for the 783rd time, i am not an expert on this matter

...

Really, so "calling hokum" research papers is not a false claim?

Such as...

J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2010;73(24):1665-77. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2010.519317.

Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002.

Gallagher CM1, Goodman MS.

Author information

Abstract

Universal hepatitis B vaccination was recommended for U.S. newborns in 1991; however, safety findings are mixed. The association between hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and parental report of autism diagnosis was determined. This cross-sectional study used weighted probability samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey 1997-2002 data sets. Vaccination status was determined from the vaccination record. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds for autism diagnosis associated with neonatal hepatitis B vaccination among boys age 3-17 years, born before 1999, adjusted for race, maternal education, and two-parent household. Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life. Non-Hispanic white boys were 64% less likely to have autism diagnosis relative to nonwhite boys. Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater risk.

PMID: 21058170 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

You can roll back and find several other similar research all which indicate that adjuvants and substances like ethylmercury can cause neurological disorders including autism as well as other health related problems.

You haven't given ONE concise, or intelligent argument why you would dismiss the plethora of evidence that refutes your beliefs in vaccinations. All you do is proclaim "that's hokum" merely on the basis of your false claims... You admit on not being an expert, but you readily dismiss any and every evidence that does not agree with you...

You are not even debating the content, you are just resorting to troll tactics...

edit on 5-10-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add link.

CardiffGiant

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 04:54 PM

link

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
[

Really, so "calling hokum" research papers is not a false claim?
not at all. 100% truth

You are not even debating the content, you are just resorting to troll tactics...
yeah, you already said that 47 times

say what you will. call me what you will.
matters not.
this thread will be here for all to read how you distort what people say...
no big.
you done responding to me still?

ElectricUniverse

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 04:58 PM

link

a reply to: CardiffGiant

So again, no intelligent argument at all to contribute as a reason for your constant hubris. Yeah I've got it, and I don't need your responses anymore unless you can provide something tangible, and intelligent instead of just claiming "hokum, hokum..."

CardiffGiant

posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 05:05 PM

link

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

i think about 5 pages back i made a post without the word hokum....
cant be sure though. hard to say

ElectricUniverse

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 01:10 AM

link

Anyway...

If we go by the safety standards used by FDA itself most vaccines which use aluminum salts are exceeding well beyond the levels of safety.

First of, there is a word that some people might not be familiar with in the following excerpt from the FDA website. That word is "parenteral".

parenteral /pa·ren·ter·al/ (pah-ren´ter-al) not through the alimentary canal, but rather by injection through some other route, as subcutaneous, intramuscular, etc.

medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

I am mentioning and showing the meaning of the above word so that members can reads in context what the FDA means when it is used in the following section of the FDA website.

I really apologize for the long excerpt but it is really important more so for parents with children.

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 21, Volume 4]
[Revised as of April 1, 2014]
[CITE: 21CFR201.323]

TITLE 21--FOOD AND DRUGS

CHAPTER I--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

SUBCHAPTER C--DRUGS: GENERAL

PART 201 -- LABELING

Subpart G--Specific Labeling Requirements for Specific Drug Products Sec. 201.323 Aluminum in large and small volume parenterals used in total parenteral nutrition.
(a) The aluminum content of large volume parenteral (LVP) drug products used in total parenteral nutrition (TPN) therapy must not exceed 25 micrograms per liter ([micro]g/L).

(b) The package insert of LVP's used in TPN therapy must state that the drug product contains no more than 25 [micro]g/L of aluminum. This information must be contained in the "Precautions" section of the labeling of all large volume parenterals used in TPN therapy.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the maximum level of aluminum present at expiry must be stated on the immediate container label of all small volume parenteral (SVP) drug products and pharmacy bulk packages (PBPs) used in the preparation of TPN solutions. The aluminum content must be stated as follows: "Contains no more than __ [micro]g/L of aluminum." The immediate container label of all SVP's and PBP's that are lyophilized powders used in the preparation of TPN solutions must contain the following statement: "When reconstituted in accordance with the package insert instructions, the concentration of aluminum will be no more than __ [micro]g/L." This maximum level of aluminum must be stated as the highest of:

(1) The highest level for the batches produced during the last 3 years;

(2) The highest level for the latest five batches, or

(3) The maximum historical level, but only until completion of production of the first five batches after July 26, 2004.

(d) If the maximum level of aluminum is 25 [micro]g/L or less, instead of stating the exact amount of aluminum as required in paragraph (c) of this section, the immediate container label may state: "Contains no more than 25 [micro]g/L of aluminum." If the SVP or PBP is a lyophilized powder, the immediate container label may state: "When reconstituted in accordance with the package insert instructions, the concentration of aluminum will be no more than 25 [micro]g/L".

(e) The package insert for all LVP's, all SVP's, and PBP's used in TPN must contain a warning statement. This warning must be contained in the "Warnings" section of the labeling. The warning must state:

WARNING: This product contains aluminum that may be toxic. Aluminum may reach toxic levels with prolonged parenteral administration if kidney function is impaired. Premature neonates are particularly at risk because their kidneys are immature, and they require large amounts of calcium and phosphate solutions, which contain aluminum.

Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5 [micro]g/kg/day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration.

(f) Applicants and manufacturers must use validated assay methods to determine the aluminum content in parenteral drug products. The assay methods must comply with current good manufacturing practice requirements. Applicants must submit to the Food and Drug Administration validation of the method used and release data for several batches. Manufacturers of parenteral drug products not subject to an approved application must make assay methodology available to FDA during inspections. Holders of pending applications must submit an amendment under 314.60 or 314.96 of this chapter.

[65 FR 4110, Jan. 26, 2000, as amended at 67 FR 70691, Nov. 26, 2002; 68 FR 32981, June 3, 2003]

www.accessdata.fda.gov...

Now, first, notice how it says that " The aluminum content of large volume parenteral (LVP) drug products used in total parenteral nutrition (TPN) therapy must not exceed 25 micrograms per liter ([micro]g/L) per day.

Patients, and more so neonates, with impaired kidney function who receive levels of aluminum greater than 4 to 5 micrograms, per kg, per day accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity.

...
So doing some math — the following are examples of weight with their corresponding maximum levels of aluminum, per the FDA:

8 pound, healthy baby: 18.16 mcg of aluminum

15 pound, healthy baby: 34.05 mcg of aluminum

30 pound, healthy toddler: 68.1 mcg of aluminum

50 pound, healthy child: 113 mcg of aluminum

150 pound adult: 340.5 mcg of aluminum

350 pound adult: 794.5 mcg of aluminum

So how much aluminum is in the vaccines that are routinely given to children?
•Hib (PedVaxHib brand only) – 225 mcg per shot
•Hepatitis B – 250 mcg
•DTaP – depending on the manufacturer, ranges from 170 to 625 mcg
•Pneumococcus – 125 mcg
•Hepatitis A – 250 mcg
•HPV – 225 mcg
•Pentacel (DTaP, HIB and Polio combo vaccine) – 330 mcg
•Pediarix (DTaP, Hep B and Polio combo vaccine) – 850 mcg

vaxtruth.org...

Here is what the "internet drug index" website itself tells us.

Meningitis vaccine.

Pedvax HIB

Liquid PedvaxHIB®
[Haemophilus b Conjugate Vaccine
(Meningococcal Protein Conjugate)]

Drug Description
...
and 225 mcg of aluminum as amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (previously referred to as aluminum hydroxide),
...

www.rxlist.com...

Hepatites B

COMVAX®
[Haemophilus b Conjugate (Meningococcal Protein Conjugate) And Hepatitis b (Recombinant) Vaccine]

Drug Description
...
approximately 225 mcg aluminum as amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate
...

www.rxlist.com...

edit on 6-10-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: correct mistakes and add comments.

ElectricUniverse

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 01:26 AM

link

In the United States (not sure in other countries) the only adjuvant that is legal to use in vaccines are aluminum salts.

Not all Hepatites B vaccines have the same amount of aluminum adjuvant. Some like Recombivax HB have "ADJV ALUMINUM HYDROXYPHOSPHATE 0.25 mg in 0.5 mL". But aluminum hydroxyphosphate in one of the most toxic forms of aluminum adjuvants. Not to mention that infants are given other vaccines as well, and if the baby is given just this vax, they already are taking the max as per the FDA. Yet many children receive several vaccines in one day.

And guess what? vaccine companies are NOT REQUIRED to give you the warning, and they don't, when the FDA itself states that they should...

Another fact to take into account is that aluminum impairs the body's ability to excrete mercury by impeding your glutathione production. So if your child is given a vaccine that has aluminum salts, and another one that has ethylmercury, not only is it worse since they are getting various substances that are toxic but the combination of aluminum salt and ethylmercury makes it even worse.

These are reasons why concerned parents should always question about the substances/ingredients, and the dose of such ingredients, that will be given to their infants/children.

edit on 6-10-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

Pardon?

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 02:03 AM

link

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: CardiffGiant

what are you talking about?
i have not made any false claims...for the 783rd time, i am not an expert on this matter

...

Really, so "calling hokum" research papers is not a false claim?

Such as...

J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2010;73(24):1665-77. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2010.519317.

Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002.

Gallagher CM1, Goodman MS.

Author information

Abstract

Universal hepatitis B vaccination was recommended for U.S. newborns in 1991; however, safety findings are mixed. The association between hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and parental report of autism diagnosis was determined. This cross-sectional study used weighted probability samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey 1997-2002 data sets. Vaccination status was determined from the vaccination record. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds for autism diagnosis associated with neonatal hepatitis B vaccination among boys age 3-17 years, born before 1999, adjusted for race, maternal education, and two-parent household. Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life. Non-Hispanic white boys were 64% less likely to have autism diagnosis relative to nonwhite boys. Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater risk.

PMID: 21058170 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

You can roll back and find several other similar research all which indicate that adjuvants and substances like ethylmercury can cause neurological disorders including autism as well as other health related problems.

You haven't given ONE concise, or intelligent argument why you would dismiss the plethora of evidence that refutes your beliefs in vaccinations. All you do is proclaim "that's hokum" merely on the basis of your false claims... You admit on not being an expert, but you readily dismiss any and every evidence that does not agree with you...

You are not even debating the content, you are just resorting to troll tactics...

It was shown earlier why this study is not considered to be evidence.
Why have you re-posted it?
This piece gives more detail as to why it's not evidence.
www.harpocratesspeaks.com...

Counter the arguments within it instead of resorting to gish-gallop methods.

Pardon?

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 02:16 AM

link

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Pardon?

Naa, so far it has been you, alongside some other people, who keep trying to derail the thread. You post a blog in which some random person who is not even a doctor on ANY field, as if his responses can debunk all the research papers I linked in this thread... You then twist around what I have been saying. I never said Dr. Brogan was an expert on vaccines, but that she is a specialist in a range of medical fields and who has studied and published work on some substances that can cause toxicity in the human body. Not to mention that you, alongside some others, keep trying to dismiss research after research simply "because you don't agree with their conclusions".

Then there is the fact that you, and some other people, keep implying that only you and those who agree with you are informed, when in your latest post you link an ECONOMICS research paper as if it was proof that vaccines can't be detrimental...

Instead of ad hominem, debunk what I've posted in a scientific way.
Show us how much better you are at this than you try to make out.

One thing you're good at is dodging the question9s0.

And it's pretty obvious that I don't "deny" your "evidence".

I've given you valid reasons why it's garbage either by telling you why the research is flawed or pointing out why the person you quote is unqualified.

How many times do I have to say it to you?

Pardon?

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 02:59 AM

link

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Anyway...

If we go by the safety standards used by FDA itself most vaccines which use aluminum salts are exceeding well beyond the levels of safety.

First of, there is a word that some people might not be familiar with in the following excerpt from the FDA website. That word is "parenteral".

medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

I am mentioning and showing the meaning of the above word so that members can reads in context what the FDA means when it is used in the following section of the FDA website.

I really apologize for the long excerpt but it is really important more so for parents with children.

I'd say what you've just posted was a misrepresentation of facts.

"Some anti-vaxers claim that the HepB vaccine, for example, exceeds federal regulations of aluminum exposure. However, they cite the 25mcg/L for large volume parenteral (LVP) nutrition products (21 CFR 201.323),which are given chronically over the course of days or weeks, rather than the regulations governing adjuvants. 21 CFR 610.15 lists the maximum amount of aluminum per dose in vaccines, depending on the method of calculation. This ranges from .85mg (that’s milligrams) to 1.25 mg. HepB vaccine contains 250 mcg (that’s micrograms) per dose, or .25mg. LVPs typically come in packages of 100 mL or more and are administered intravenously (i.e., directly into the bloodstream). Total parenteral nutrition therapy (TPN), which uses LVPs, is typically indicated for nutritional supplementation for >10 days given at about 2 L/day. So, assuming a case requiring TPN for 10 days, the individual would be exposed to 500 mcg, twice the amount in the vaccine.
Further, about 71% of the aluminum is excreted from the body after about 5 days or so.

antiantivax.flurf.net...

The amount of aluminium contained within the aluminium salt adjuvants falls WAY below the levels you cite.

Disingenuous to the bitter core aren't you?

edit on 6/10/14 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)

Pardon?

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:10 AM

link

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: CardiffGiant

what are you talking about?
i have not made any false claims...for the 783rd time, i am not an expert on this matter

...

Really, so "calling hokum" research papers is not a false claim?

Such as...

J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2010;73(24):1665-77. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2010.519317.

Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002.

Gallagher CM1, Goodman MS.

Author information

Abstract

Universal hepatitis B vaccination was recommended for U.S. newborns in 1991; however, safety findings are mixed. The association between hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and parental report of autism diagnosis was determined. This cross-sectional study used weighted probability samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey 1997-2002 data sets. Vaccination status was determined from the vaccination record. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds for autism diagnosis associated with neonatal hepatitis B vaccination among boys age 3-17 years, born before 1999, adjusted for race, maternal education, and two-parent household. Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life. Non-Hispanic white boys were 64% less likely to have autism diagnosis relative to nonwhite boys. Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater risk.

PMID: 21058170 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

You can roll back and find several other similar research all which indicate that adjuvants and substances like ethylmercury can cause neurological disorders including autism as well as other health related problems.

You haven't given ONE concise, or intelligent argument why you would dismiss the plethora of evidence that refutes your beliefs in vaccinations. All you do is proclaim "that's hokum" merely on the basis of your false claims... You admit on not being an expert, but you readily dismiss any and every evidence that does not agree with you...

You are not even debating the content, you are just resorting to troll tactics...

You're not debating.
Debating usually includes answering questions asked of the other.
You constantly ignore the questions then post another flawed study.

That's called gish-gallop.

(Warning: contains profanities) www.urbandictionary.com...

edit on 6/10/14 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)

ElectricUniverse

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:11 AM

link

originally posted by: Pardon?

I'd say what you've just posted was a misrepresentation of facts.

"Some anti-vaxers claim that the HepB vaccine, for example, exceeds federal regulations of aluminum exposure. However, they cite the 25mcg/L for large volume parenteral (LVP) nutrition products (21 CFR 201.323),which are given chronically over the course of days or weeks, rather than the regulations governing adjuvants. 21 CFR 610.15 lists the maximum amount of aluminum per dose in vaccines, depending on the method of calculation.
....
The amount of aluminium contained within the aluminium salt adjuvants falls WAY below the levels you cite.

Disingenuous to the bitter core aren't you?

No, the one misrepresenting and once again making lies it's you...

AGAIN...from the FDA site...

...
(a) The aluminum content of large volume parenteral (LVP) drug products used in total parenteral nutrition (TPN) therapy must not exceed 25 micrograms per liter ([micro]g/L).
...

www.accessdata.fda.gov...

Children are given 49 doses of 14 vaccines before the age of 6, and 69 doses of 16 vaccines before the age of 18. And like I also said...

Is the Childhood Vaccine Schedule Safe?

An epidemic of chronic disease and disability is plaguing America’s children, who are the most highly vaccinated children in the world and also among the most chronically ill and disabled. Today, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states that 1 child in 6 in America suffers with learning disabilities while millions more suffer with asthma, diabetes and other chronic allergic and autoimmune diseases. The epidemic of chronic disease and disability among children has increased dramatically in the past five decades.

U.S. CHILD CHRONIC DISEASE INCREASES
1976: 1 child in 30 was learning disabled → 2013: 1 child in 6 is learning disabled.
1980: 1 child in 27 had asthma → 2013: 1 child in 9 has asthma.
1990’s: 1 child in 555 developed autism → 2013: 1 child in 50 develops autism.
2001: 1 child in 500 had diabetes → 2013: 1 child in 400 has diabetes.
THREE TIMES AS MANY VACCINATIONS FOR CHILDREN
1953: CDC recommended 16 doses of 4 vaccines (smallpox, DPT) between two months and age six.
1983: CDC recommended 23 doses of 7 vaccines (DPT, MMR, polio) between two months and age six.
2013: CDC recommended 49 doses of 14 vaccines between day of birth and age six and 69 doses of 16 vaccines between
day of birth and age 18.
...
MULTIPLE VACCINATIONS GIVEN SIMULTANEOUSLY
In 1983, the CDC directed doctors to give a child no more than 4 vaccines (DPT, polio) simultaneously. By 2013, the CDC directed that a child can receive 8 or more vaccines at once.
The Institute of Medicine published a report in 2013 stating that “key elements of the entire [child vaccine] schedule – the
number, frequency, timing, order and age of administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies.”
...

www.nvic.org...

More than 8 vaccines can be given to a child at once according to the CDC... That's several times above the safety levels that even the CDC claims that aluminum has...

So again, who is misrepresenting and lying?... Certainly not I...

edit on 6-10-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.

ElectricUniverse

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:23 AM
link

originally posted by: Pardon?

You're not debating.
Debating usually includes answering questions asked of the other.
You constantly ignore the questions then post another flawed study.

That's called gish-gallop.

No, you are not asking pertinent questions... You are just claiming that only you, and those who agree with you can say who can be counted as an expert and who can't... You are just denying anything and everything claiming that "you would only accept research from experts in vaccines" when YOU yourself posted a link about statistics made up by two researchers majoring in economics and an epidemiologist who didn't add anything substantive to the research. which is why the research was not posted in a medical journal but was posted in an "economics journal"...

Then again, not to mention that you even dismiss experts in vaccines, biochemists, neurologists, alongside any other doctor who would dare to differ from your biased and false claims...

BTW, nice attempt to insult by linking to an outside article which does nothing, and adds "nothing of value" except to deny without providing corroborating evidence...

Yeah, I guess according to you that link about "gish-gallop" proves your lies about "vaccines being safe and no vaccine having thimerasol anymore" huh?...

If you are not going to provide factual evidence don't post anything at all...

edit on 6-10-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.

Pardon?

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:58 AM
link

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Pardon?

I'd say what you've just posted was a misrepresentation of facts.

"Some anti-vaxers claim that the HepB vaccine, for example, exceeds federal regulations of aluminum exposure. However, they cite the 25mcg/L for large volume parenteral (LVP) nutrition products (21 CFR 201.323),which are given chronically over the course of days or weeks, rather than the regulations governing adjuvants. 21 CFR 610.15 lists the maximum amount of aluminum per dose in vaccines, depending on the method of calculation.
....
The amount of aluminium contained within the aluminium salt adjuvants falls WAY below the levels you cite.

Disingenuous to the bitter core aren't you?

No, the one misrepresenting and once again making lies it's you...

AGAIN...from the FDA site...

...
(a) The aluminum content of large volume parenteral (LVP) drug products used in total parenteral nutrition (TPN) therapy must not exceed 25 micrograms per liter ([micro]g/L).
...

www.accessdata.fda.gov...

Children are given 49 doses of 14 vaccines before the age of 6, and 69 doses of 16 vaccines before the age of 18. And like I also said...

Is the Childhood Vaccine Schedule Safe?

An epidemic of chronic disease and disability is plaguing America’s children, who are the most highly vaccinated children in the world and also among the most chronically ill and disabled. Today, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states that 1 child in 6 in America suffers with learning disabilities while millions more suffer with asthma, diabetes and other chronic allergic and autoimmune diseases. The epidemic of chronic disease and disability among children has increased dramatically in the past five decades.

U.S. CHILD CHRONIC DISEASE INCREASES
1976: 1 child in 30 was learning disabled → 2013: 1 child in 6 is learning disabled.
1980: 1 child in 27 had asthma → 2013: 1 child in 9 has asthma.
1990’s: 1 child in 555 developed autism → 2013: 1 child in 50 develops autism.
2001: 1 child in 500 had diabetes → 2013: 1 child in 400 has diabetes.
THREE TIMES AS MANY VACCINATIONS FOR CHILDREN
1953: CDC recommended 16 doses of 4 vaccines (smallpox, DPT) between two months and age six.
1983: CDC recommended 23 doses of 7 vaccines (DPT, MMR, polio) between two months and age six.
2013: CDC recommended 49 doses of 14 vaccines between day of birth and age six and 69 doses of 16 vaccines between
day of birth and age 18.
...
MULTIPLE VACCINATIONS GIVEN SIMULTANEOUSLY
In 1983, the CDC directed doctors to give a child no more than 4 vaccines (DPT, polio) simultaneously. By 2013, the CDC directed that a child can receive 8 or more vaccines at once.
The Institute of Medicine published a report in 2013 stating that “key elements of the entire [child vaccine] schedule – the
number, frequency, timing, order and age of administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies.”
...

www.nvic.org...

More than 8 vaccines can be given to a child at once according to the CDC... That's several times above the safety levels that even the CDC claims that aluminum has...

So again, who is misrepresenting and lying?... Certainly not I...

Nope.
Wrong again.
You are misrepresenting as you're providing the safety levels for a completely different aspect.
Comparing apples with spaceships again.

Here's the link to the safety levels concerning vaccines.
www.accessdata.fda.gov...
See how far off the mark you are?

Pardon?

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 04:03 AM
link

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Pardon?

You're not debating.
Debating usually includes answering questions asked of the other.
You constantly ignore the questions then post another flawed study.

That's called gish-gallop.

No, you are not asking pertinent questions... You are just claiming that only you, and those who agree with you can say who can be counted as an expert and who can't... You are just denying anything and everything claiming that "you would only accept research from experts in vaccines" when YOU yourself posted a link about statistics made up by two researchers majoring in economics and an epidemiologist who didn't add anything substantive to the research. which is why the research was not posted in a medical journal but was posted in an "economics journal"...

Then again, not to mention that you even dismiss experts in vaccines, biochemists, neurologists, alongside any other doctor who would dare to differ from your biased and false claims...

BTW, nice attempt to insult by linking to an outside article which does nothing, and adds "nothing of value" except to deny without providing corroborating evidence...

Yeah, I guess according to you that link about "gish-gallop" proves your lies about "vaccines being safe and no vaccine having thimerasol anymore" huh?...

If you are not going to provide factual evidence don't post anything at all...

I've asked you why you believe who you do and not the overwhelming evidence.
You haven't answered that one. All you have done is post (and re-post) studies which show nothing or are out of context.

I've asked you to respond in a scientific manner by showing why I've said your links aren't evidence and you haven't.
You just go on a rant then post more worthless links.

Posting a link once which is misinformation can be excused.
Repeatedly posting links that are misinformation even after it's been shown why they are is ignorant at best and malicious at worst.
Par for the course for an anti-vaxxer.

And then you repeat your trope about me.

Gish-gallop.

ElectricUniverse

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 04:57 AM
link

a reply to: Pardon?

Really?.. you just posted a link to a website that doesn't even work...

...
Page Not Found

Our apologies. The link or location you used does not exist or was moved.

www.accessdata.fda.gov...

Here, let me help you because I see you are either very confused, or trying to confuse people on purpose and by lying...

...
Simultaneous administration (that is, administration on the same day) of the most widely used live and inactivated vaccines does not result in decreased antibody responses or increased rates of adverse reaction. Simultaneous administration of all vaccines for which a child is eligible is very important in childhood vaccination programs because it increases the probability that a child will be fully immunized at the appropriate age. A study during a measles outbreak in the early 1990s showed that about one-third of measles cases in unvaccinated but vaccine-eligible preschool children could have been prevented if MMR had been administered at the same visit when another vaccine was
given.

All indicated vaccines should be administered at the same visit. There is one exception to this rule. In children with
functional or anatomic asplenia pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) and Menactra brand meningococcal conjugate
vaccine should not be administered at the same visit, and should be separated by at least 4 weeks. This is because
children with functional or anatomic asplenia are at very high risk of pneumococcal invasive disease and Menactra
is thought to interfere with the antibody response to PCV.
Individual vaccines should not be mixed in the same syringe unless they are licensed for mixing by the Food and
Drug Administration. Only the sanofi-pasteur DTaP-IPV/Hib (Pentacel) vaccine is licensed for mixing in the same syringe. See Appendix D for additional guidelines for vaccine administration.
...

www.cdc.gov...

Did you read the part where the CDC states "SIMULTANEOUS administration of all vaccines for which a child is eligible is very important in childhood vaccination programs because it increases the probability that a child will be fully immunized at the appropriate age.

There are intervals of doses "of the same vaccine"... But different vaccines can be administered to a child at once according to the CDC...

Here is a link with charts to show you how the CDC states vaccines should be given to infants, and children.

wwwnc.cdc.gov...

First part. of vaccinations schedules.
wwwnc.cdc.gov...

Second part of vaccination schedules for children 7years old to 18 years old.

wwwnc.cdc.gov...

Here another chart showing some of the "errors" made by manufacturing companies, including mislabeling what is in their vaccine. Now remember that this is a voluntary program from vaccine manufacturers. Yes, even with their manipulated data there have been many errors. People and children have been given the wrong vaccine or wrong dose because the labels was misrepresenting what ingredients were made for the vaccine

edit on 6-10-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.

ElectricUniverse

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:02 AM
link

Conclusions
• VERP is a useful tool for tracking VAEs to identify common problems and potential solutions, but providers need to be aware of the system and willing to self-report.
• As noted in other studies and reports, similarities in vaccine names, labeling and packaging can lead to VAEs.
• Vaccine manufacturers should be educated about the relationship between labeling and packaging and VAEs.
• Evaluation of current methods of vaccine administration training is warranted; vaccinators may need more training.
• Clearly defined variables, instructions for filing reports and website directional tools such as a data dictionary and reminder pop-ups would improve the quality of data.
• Public and private partnerships are an effective way to address knowledge gaps and implement timely solutions.
...

eziz.org...

As I have said before there are cases when the errors were human errors, but many manufacturing companies(including Merck) have been found themselves in some lawsuits that even virologists who have worked for them have come forward as whistleblowers because they saw falsification of data on ingredients found in the vaccines and the CLAIMED efficacy that was never true.

INl'RODUC'I'ION
1. This case is about Merck's dTorts f(jf more than a decade tu defraud the United
States through Merck's ongoing scheme to sell the government it mumps vaccine tllat IS
mislabeled, misbranded. adulterated and falsely certified as having an efficacy ralc that is
significantly higher than it actu(lUy is.
2. Spc\;lfically, in an ctlort to mainwin it" e)(clusive license to selllhc Vllccme and
its monopoly of the U.S. market for mumps vaccine, Merck has fraudulently represented and
cont.inues to falsely represent in its labeling and that its mumps vaccine has nn
efficacy rate of95 percent or higher. nus is the efficacy rate on whieh Merck's original
govemmi;'.nt approval for rhe vacdne was based mure than forty yt·.ars ago, In trutb. \1erck
knows and has taken affirmative to conceal - such as by llsing improper testing tochniqucs,
falsifying test data in a clinical trial, and Violating multiple duties of government disclosure 􀀀 􀀀
that the efficacy rate of Merck's mumps vaccine is, and has been since at least 1999. significantly
lower than thls 95 pt..'TCCtit rate.
3_ Relators Krahiing and Wlochowski were empJoyed a" vlfologists in the Merck lab
that perfonncd this fraudulent efficacy testing. They witnessed fIrsthand the improper testing
and data (J;I>'!ificatiQll in which Merck c:ngnged 10 cunceal \Vhai Merck knew about the vaccine's
diminished efficacy In fact, their Merck superiors and senior 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 ffianagenwnt pressured
them to parricipate in the traud and subsequent 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 􀀀 when Relators objected to and tried to
stop it.
4. As, a result of Merdc's frnudulcnt schemtl, the United States has over Ihe last
decade paid Merck hundred::> of miIJions of dullars for It vaccine that does not provide the
efficacy Merck claims it provides and does nol pmvide the public \vith adequafe immunization.
Had Merck complied with its multiple duties of disclosure and reported what it knew of the
vaccine's efficacy rather than engage in fraud l'Ind concealment -- that information
would have affex:tcd (or surely had the potential to affect, which t5 all the law requires) the
government'" decision 10 purchase the vaccine. However, since the governmtmt was not fully
informed, it did not have the 0PPoI1unity to con::>ider irs option);>, including nol purchasing the
vaccine frolll MelX'k, paying less, H;!lluiring a labeling change, reqUiring additional testmg, Of
prioritizing development and approval ofa new v.!lc-cine from Merck or another manufacturer.
...

www.rescuepost.com...

That's one of the laters controversies.

So again I proved you WRONG...

ElectricUniverse

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link

originally posted by: Pardon?

I've asked you why you believe who you do and not the overwhelming evidence.
You haven't answered that one. All you have done is post (and re-post) studies which show nothing or are out of context.

No, you have claimed time and again, that every excerpt and link I gave about research into vaccines which shows that they are not safe, and all you do is deny, deny, and deny. You proclaim that only you, and the pro-vaccine crowd are the only ones who can say who can be counted as an expert. Even though most of your links are about a BLOGGER who is not even a doctor, an economist research posted in a journal in economics, and a couple of out of context research papers which do not take into consideration that "vaccine companies change ingredients" so not all vaccine batches, even made by the same company will not have the same ingredients used, and this skews the results. But hey, I am sure these research were not manipulated at all either... right?...

You have gone as far as dismissing biochemical engineers, neurololists, virologists, and other specialist doctor who disagree from your views. As proof you gave a link to a blog by some random person WHO IS NOT A DOCTOR, and you proclaim that that person refutes the plethora of evidence that state the contrary that you want to claim... You have "claimed" that "I will only accept the word of experts in vaccines" despite the fact that you gave us a paper on economy and statistics on vaccines and the paper was not done on medical findings, but rather statistics. You don't want to put yourself, and the very few links you have given to the same standards you demand of those of us who disagree with you...

I have already told you that THERE IS MORE EVIDENCE AGAINST the claim that "vaccines are safe" than evidence that is in favor... Then there are the virologists whistleblowers working for vaccine manufacturers that have come forward stating that vaccine manufacturers encouraged them, and even told them to falsify data, leave out facts, and in general to manipulate data from the CDC to claim that "vaccines are safe"...

I have shown you evidence that even the FDA and CDC themselves cannot corroborate that vaccine manufacturers had indeed purified their vaccines of ethylmercury, or aluminum... I have shown you cases, that are in court, of lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers because they have intentionally falsified data, mislabeled the ingredients they have used for vaccines, and in some cases they have been caught lying about the efficacy of vaccines. We know this information from whistleblowers who worked as virologists for the CDC. For example:

There has been an update about one of the cases I presented in the thread.

Antitrust, FCA Claims On Merck Mumps Vaccine To Advance

By Dan Packel

Law360, Philadelphia (September 05, 2014, 6:12 PM ET) -- Two lawsuits accusing Merck & Co. Inc. of lying about the efficacy of its mumps inoculation in order to keep competitors from bringing their own versions of the vaccine to market will move forward, after a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled in favor of whistleblowers and direct purchasers Thursday.
U.S. District Judge C. Darnell Jones II ruled that the whistleblowers had sufficiently pled that Merck might have provided false statements to the government and that the direct purchasers had shown enough evidence to establish that these falsehoods could have helped the company gain a monopoly. The judge did ax breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against the pharmaceutical giant.
[size]
“We are pleased that the court has upheld our federal antitrust claim in this important case. While Merck has enjoyed an exclusive monopoly on the sale of mumps vaccine in the United States, mumps outbreaks continue to occur because, as we allege in our lawsuit, Merck has misled the public about the vaccine’s efficacy,” Kellie Lerner of Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, representing the direct purchasers, said in a statement. “This decision brings us one step closer to shining a light on Merck’s deceptive business practices so that new and more effective vaccines will ultimately be developed in the future.”

Since 1967, Merck has been the sole pharmaceutical company in the U.S. licensed to produce mumps vaccine, and the company has long represented that the vaccine is 95 percent effective in preventing the disease.

The whistleblowers, two individuals who worked as virologists in a Merck lab performing efficacy tests, claimed that after the company’s tests showed the vaccines slipping below the 95 percent threshold, it changed its methodology and falsified results but kept reporting to the Food and Drug Administration that the drug was 95 percent effective.

They claimed in their lawsuit, unsealed in June 2012, that Merck violated the False Claims Act by billing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the vaccine while they were aware of its diminished efficacy and by falsifying and manipulating data that should have been shared with the government. They claimed that, as a result, the government had spent hundreds of millions of dollars on ineffective medicine.

The whistleblower suit was promptly followed by the putative class action, in which Chatom Primary Care PC alleged that Merck’s behavior resulted in artificially high vaccine prices by effectively barring competitors from manufacturing their own vaccines.

“As with the market for any product, a potential competitor’s decision to enter a market hinges on whether its product can compete with those products already being sold in the market,” the complaint said. “If an existing vaccine is represented as safe and at least 95 percent effective, as Merck has falsely represented its vaccine to be, it would be economically irrational for a potential competitor to bring a new Mumps vaccine to the relevant market.”

The case has been slow to move forward, with oral arguments on the whistleblowers' claim taking place in the summer of 2013 and briefing having been completed even earlier.

“We’re really happy with the decision and excited to move forward with the case,” said Gordon Schnell, a partner with Constantine Cannon LLP who represents the whistleblowers.

Merck did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.

The whistleblowers are represented by Gordon Schnell of Constantine Cannon LLP, Joel Meredith of Meredith & Narine LLC and Jeffrey Keller of Keller Grover LLP.

Chatom Primary Care PC is represented by Kellie Lerner, Elizabeth Friedman, Hollis Salzman and Bernard Persky of Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP; Richard Golomb and Steven Resnick of Golomb & Honik PC; and Stephen Dampier of Dampier Law Firm PC

Merck is represented by Eric Sitarchuk and Lisa Dykstra of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP and Dino Sangiamo and Sally Bryan of Venable LLP.

The cases are USA et al. v. Merck & Co., case number 2:10-cv-04374, and Chatom Primary Care PC v. Merck & Co. Inc., case number 2:12-cv-03555, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
...

www.law360.com...

But of course like always, you are going to claim all of the above is misinformation. Which is the only tactic you can use...

edit on 6-10-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add link and comment.

boymonkey74

posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link

Vaccines have saved millions of people.
The facts are that you get more mercury from a can of tuna then a jab.
Same goes with aluminium you get it in your food from car fumes as well.
People who refuse to vaccinate their kids cause outbreaks....look what happened in Wales last year.

Pardon?

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 01:10 AM
link

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Pardon?

Really?.. you just posted a link to a website that doesn't even work...

...
Page Not Found

Our apologies. The link or location you used does not exist or was moved.

www.accessdata.fda.gov...

Here, let me help you because I see you are either very confused, or trying to confuse people on purpose and by lying...

Not sure why the link doesn't work although you can access it through the link I quoted from showing you you were using recommendations for chronic, long-term administration of compounds containing Al rather than vaccines.
I.e. you were using misinformation.
Here's the full test of it anyway.

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21
Print Share E-mail
FDA HomeMedical DevicesDatabases
-
New Search
Help | More About 21CFR
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 21, Volume 7]
[Revised as of April 1, 2014]
[CITE: 21CFR610.15]

TITLE 21--FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER I--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SUBCHAPTER F--BIOLOGICS
PART 610 -- GENERAL BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS STANDARDS

Subpart B--General Provisions

Sec. 610.15 Constituent materials.
(a) Ingredients, preservatives, diluents, adjuvants. All ingredients used in a licensed product, and any diluent provided as an aid in the administration of the product, shall meet generally accepted standards of purity and quality. Any preservative used shall be sufficiently nontoxic so that the amount present in the recommended dose of the product will not be toxic to the recipient, and in the combination used it shall not denature the specific substances in the product to result in a decrease below the minimum acceptable potency within the dating period when stored at the recommended temperature. Products in multiple-dose containers shall contain a preservative, except that a preservative need not be added to Yellow Fever Vaccine; Poliovirus Vaccine Live Oral; viral vaccines labeled for use with the jet injector; dried vaccines when the accompanying diluent contains a preservative; or to an Allergenic Product in 50 percent or more volume in volume (v/v) glycerin. An adjuvant shall not be introduced into a product unless there is satisfactory evidence that it does not affect adversely the safety or potency of the product. The amount of aluminum in the recommended individual dose of a biological product shall not exceed:

(1) 0.85 milligrams if determined by assay;

(2) 1.14 milligrams if determined by calculation on the basis of the amount of aluminum compound added; or

(3) 1.25 milligrams determined by assay provided that data demonstrating that the amount of aluminum used is safe and necessary to produce the intended effect are submitted to and approved by the Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research or the Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (see mailing addresses in 600.2 of this chapter).

(b) Extraneous protein; cell culture produced vaccines. Extraneous protein known to be capable of producing allergenic effects in human subjects shall not be added to a final virus medium of cell culture produced vaccines intended for injection. If serum is used at any stage, its calculated concentration in the final medium shall not exceed 1:1,000,000.

(c) Antibiotics. A minimum concentration of antibiotics, other than penicillin, may be added to the production substrate of viral vaccines.

(d) The Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research or the Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research may approve an exception or alternative to any requirement in this section. Requests for such exceptions or alternatives must be in writing.

[38 FR 32056, Nov. 20, 1973, as amended at 46 FR 51903, Oct. 23, 1981; 48 FR 13025, Mar. 29, 1983; 48 FR 37023, Aug. 16, 1983; 49 FR 23834, June 8, 1984; 50 FR 4134, Jan. 29, 1985; 51 FR 15607, Apr. 25, 1986; 55 FR 11013, Mar. 26, 1990; 70 FR 14985, Mar. 24, 2005; 76 FR 20518, Apr. 13, 2011]

Pardon?

posted on Oct, 7 2014 @ 01:40 AM
link

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Pardon?

Really?.. you just posted a link to a website that doesn't even work...

...
Page Not Found

Our apologies. The link or location you used does not exist or was moved.

www.accessdata.fda.gov...

Here, let me help you because I see you are either very confused, or trying to confuse people on purpose and by lying...

...
Simultaneous administration (that is, administration on the same day) of the most widely used live and inactivated vaccines does not result in decreased antibody responses or increased rates of adverse reaction. Simultaneous administration of all vaccines for which a child is eligible is very important in childhood vaccination programs because it increases the probability that a child will be fully immunized at the appropriate age. A study during a measles outbreak in the early 1990s showed that about one-third of measles cases in unvaccinated but vaccine-eligible preschool children could have been prevented if MMR had been administered at the same visit when another vaccine was
given.

All indicated vaccines should be administered at the same visit. There is one exception to this rule. In children with
functional or anatomic asplenia pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) and Menactra brand meningococcal conjugate
vaccine should not be administered at the same visit, and should be separated by at least 4 weeks. This is because
children with functional or anatomic asplenia are at very high risk of pneumococcal invasive disease and Menactra
is thought to interfere with the antibody response to PCV.
Individual vaccines should not be mixed in the same syringe unless they are licensed for mixing by the Food and
Drug Administration. Only the sanofi-pasteur DTaP-IPV/Hib (Pentacel) vaccine is licensed for mixing in the same syringe. See Appendix D for additional guidelines for vaccine administration.
...

www.cdc.gov...

Did you read the part where the CDC states "SIMULTANEOUS administration of all vaccines for which a child is eligible is very important in childhood vaccination programs because it increases the probability that a child will be fully immunized at the appropriate age.

There are intervals of doses "of the same vaccine"... But different vaccines can be administered to a child at once according to the CDC...

Here is a link with charts to show you how the CDC states vaccines should be given to infants, and children.

wwwnc.cdc.gov...

First part. of vaccinations schedules.
wwwnc.cdc.gov...

Second part of vaccination schedules for children 7years old to 18 years old.

wwwnc.cdc.gov...

Here another chart showing some of the "errors" made by manufacturing companies, including mislabeling what is in their vaccine. Now remember that this is a voluntary program from vaccine manufacturers. Yes, even with their manipulated data there have been many errors. People and children have been given the wrong vaccine or wrong dose because the labels was misrepresenting what ingredients were made for the vaccine

Yes I did.
And did you read what I linked to showing the real safe levels and not the ones you dishonestly linked to?