News coverage of vaccine controversies drives down support for vaccines

a reply to: Boadicea

Here is my thread

How to shut up a pro vaccine person

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: gmoneystunt

Nope, it is not. Quote your sources, I will qoute mine, then we can compete for the truth.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

Your selfish wish to "keep your body as a temple clean and pure" is pure evil against people with immunodeficit illnesses.

First, as one of those people with a compromised immune system, let me thank you for your profound concern from the bottom of my evil heart. Despite the manipulative and hateful Alinsky tactics

What are those?

you chose to employ, I will accept your concerns at face value, and assume that your hatefulness is a byproduct of that concern, and in your heart you really just hate the real or imagine "sin" and not the "sinner."

- Yes, 1 in a million might die from side-effects of vaccines.

I can only assume that's okay with you. Better them than you, eh? Life for me but not for thee? Okay. Gotcha.

People sometimes do die from medicines, it happens. It was not intended by anyone, but sometimes the human body can't cope with medicine. Do people die from chemotherapy? Yes, they sometimes do!
But for most of the people treated with chemotherapy, they survive not only the therapy, but even the cancer - which would have killed many, many more than the chemotherapy did.

It is NOT INTENDED.

Before vaccines, lots and lots of people died.

Indeed people did die before vaccines... and people are still dying after vaccines.... some because of those very vaccines, as you yourself noted. But we've already established that it's okay to kill other people if it protects you, right?

Dicto Simpliciter
Not a real argument, you just repeated your overly generalized "argument" from above, while implying that I don't care about deaths by medicine - which I obviously do, and seem to care more about them than you?

One important factor which has not been established is that Vitamin A supplementation has been shown to have at least as much to do with the decrease in morbidity as do the vaccines. Indeed, perhaps more, as measles death rates were already drastically decreasing with improved nutritional health BEFORE the introduction of the measles vaccine Even more so after we began to study, understand and implement a course of Vitamin A supplementation for measles.

Lets talk about polio. Polio was erased by vaccines. But I digress, do I?
Lets talk about measles. Measles aren't erased, and as it is a VERY VERY infectious disease, it will continue to exist for quite a long time.
The argument you are using is that you imply that a concurrency implies correlation. This is not a logical argument.

- Vaccines cause autism..... They don't.

You don't know that. You cannot know that. Especially given the lack of transparency within the industry, and in general. You cannot and do not know what you cannot and do not know. Consequently, such statement of fact is either deliberate lying or a woeful combination of ignorance and arrogance.

Even the largest organization about autism denies that vaccines link to autism: Link

May I ask you whom do you believe in this? Who does promote the idea that vaccines link to autism?
Could you quote websites which aren't all about homeopathy or esoteric?

- And vaccines do not only protect Your body, but many others, too. Your selfish wish to "keep your body as a temple clean and pure" is pure evil against people with immunodeficit illnesses. But, hey, it's your body, and they should just stay at home, right?

Pure evil is violating the laws of nature and our inalienable rights by using the color of law (and the business end of a gun) to force your will on others no matter the cost to them... but, hey, it's your body, and you can do whatever you will to mine for your benefit, right? Um, actually, no.

Uhm, what? What laws of nature are violated? What is the color of law? And yes, if it BENEFITS THE MAJORITY and, much more important, those who can't yell their opinions as loud as you can (speaking of infants, or autistic persons and such), I would like to have ANYONE vaccinated.

Hell, they did so 20 or 40 years ago - and lethality rates didn't went through the roof. Neither did the numbers of autistic people...

a reply to: watchitburn

Nah, that was McDonalds and such.

I love me some idiocracy, maybe I should watch that movie sometime again.

a reply to: GetHyped
you didn't even supply your credible evidence or scientific evidence you claimed to have? I see no point in continuing a conversation with someone that refuses to give any links to verify what they are saying. The only comments you said are things to demoralize someone. Not once did you say why you believe what you believe.

Maybe someone can explain to me why may be hard for someone to believe that Injecting things like mercury in to arm (bypassing your normal digestive system) it will go directly to your heart and then to your brain can cause things like autoimmune disease and autism?

Can we at least agree that mercury (in any amount) is bad for us? Or why vaccines like chickenpox (can actually cause the very same illness that it is meant to protect against) considered safe and effective?

a reply to: ManFromEurope
Sorry I lost you, No it is not what?

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: GetHyped
you didn't even supply your credible evidence or scientific evidence you claimed to have?

Pick a vaccine and topic:

a) Safety
b) Efficacy
c) Causal link to autism

Can we at least agree that mercury (in any amount) is bad for us? Or why vaccines like chickenpox (can actually cause the very same illness that it is meant to protect against) considered safe and effective?

THis says all I need to know about your level of understanding.

1) ETHYLmercury is not METHYLmercury, any more than salt is sodium (explosive in water) and chlorine (highly toxic at low dosages)
2) ETHYLmercury isn't even in childhood vaccines
3) And NO, mercury "in any amounts" is NOT automatically bad for you. Toxicity without dosage is utterly meaningless:

The dose makes the poison" is an adage first expressed by Paracelsus intended to indicate a basic principle of toxicology. It means that a substance can produce the harmful effect associated with its toxic properties only if it reaches a susceptible biological system within the body in a high enough concentration (i.e., dose).[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: PizzaAnyday505

You mean that thread where you quoted a statistic about diagnoses of autism without supplying any evidence of a causal link to vaccinations, even after members repeatedly asked you so? THat one where your source mentioned absolutely nothing about vaccines and, when this was pointed out to you, you refused to acknowledge it or substantiate your claim?

Yeah, a real slam dunk that was, honey.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

Snipped per previous mod instructions.

...Vitamin A supplementation....The argument you are using is that you imply that a concurrency implies correlation. This is not a logical argument.

I am not implying anything. Both the CDC and WHO (and others) have done the homework to establish and document Vitamin A supplementation as amazingly effective in reducing the severe complications of measles, including drastic reductions in morbidity rates. Both vaccines and vitamin A have played a major role in reducing both cases and deaths from measles.

Even the largest organization about autism denies that vaccines link to autism: Link

May I ask you whom do you believe in this?

I don't believe anyone who claims to know definitively either way. First and foremost, it's virtually impossible to prove a negative, so it's virtually impossible to prove vaccines do not cause autism. The best one could do is state that there is no known evidence for vaccines causing autism; but lack of evidence does not mean lack of a connection. Second, not enough study has been done to form a truly educated opinion, much less come to conclusions. And, unfortunately, that won't happen as long as it's in the best interests of some to make sure it is never proven. Third, the data can be hidden, misrepresented, misunderstood, misinterpreted, manipulated, etc., either through human ignorance/incompetence, or knowingly and deliberately to skew the results by those with a vested interest to do so. For example, Merck is facing a class action suit right now as a result of a Whistleblower from the CDC, who has been under gag order, but now admits his part in a break in protocol in analyzing data regarding an increased incidence of autism in African American boys. Fourth, as the criteria for clinical diagnosis of autism continues to change, and as the autism spectrum is quite wide and inclusive, and as it continues to be misdiagnosed, it is again virtually impossible to rule anything out at this point.

The available information, and therefore the science, does not support a conclusion either way.

What laws of nature are violated? What is the color of law? And yes, if it BENEFITS THE MAJORITY... I would like to have ANYONE vaccinated.

The laws of nature, and of nature's God, which are endowed by our Creator, as established and affirmed in our Declaration of Independence, beginning with the right to life, as well as the right to be secure in my person, and free to nurture, protect and defend it accordingly. So, for example, as long as even one death is possible with vaccinations, then that person's natural absolute inalienable right to life is violated by mandated vaccination programs. Therefore, no legitimate law demanding such can be established; such a law would be "under color of law."

And it is exactly to protect and guarantee these absolute inalienable rights for each and every individual that we have a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy in which the majority can inflict their will on the minority... even a minority of one.

edit on 19-2-2015 by Boadicea because: formatting

ETA: I cannot get this to format right with your quotes, and I don't have time now to figure it out, so I hope this makes sense to you. I'm sorry

edit on 19-2-2015 by Boadicea because: (no reason given)

a reply to: GetHyped
I see ETHYLmercury is not METHYLmercury

Since the 1930s, vaccines have contained thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that breaks down to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate in the body
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
This study does not take those compounds off the hook, of course, but does show that Thimerosal is significantly more toxic than even methylmercury
www.naturalnews.com...
One very common vaccine is the Flu shot, mutidose contain Thimerosal, formaldehyde.
www.cdc.gov...
Thimerosal contains 49.6 percent mercury by weight and is metabolized or degraded into ethylmercury and thiosalicylate. The Department of Defense classifies mercury as a hazardous material that could cause death if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin.
www.naturalnews.com...
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services openly admits that formaldehyde causes cancer
www.naturalnews.com...
If you're pregnant, a flu shot is your best protection against serious flu illness. A flu shot can protect pregnant women, their unborn babies, and even the baby after birth.
www.cdc.gov...

a reply to: gmoneystunt

ETHYLmercury is safely passed through the body in a matter of days. METHYLmercury is not.

The Department of Defense classifies mercury as a hazardous material that could cause death if swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin.

Now you're quoting naturalnews?? Says it all. This is referring to METHYLmercury. M-E-T-H-Y-L. You've also yet again left out the important part: dose. Youre either still not understanding this concept or are being deceitful.

Well done for conveniently side-stepping everything else I said in my post, though.

a reply to: GetHyped
natural news quoted the department of defense. So your saying its irrelevant? Is what the Department of defense says not good enough for you either.
It is referring to mercury in general. ETHYLmercury (thimerosal) has Mercury in it. Mercury does not come out of the body in days.
I am not trying to side step everything in your post. I just don't see the point of spending a lot of time on posts if your just you don't approve of my sources. I understand you say dosage matters. That may be true if ETHYLmercury didn't contain mercury but it does. Mercury should never be put into a human body at any dosage

Wheres your link for ETHYLmercury (mercury) is safely passed through the body in a matter of days?

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: GetHyped
natural news quoted the department of defense. So your saying its irrelevant? Is what the Department of defense says not good enough for you either.

Then post up the ORIGINAL DoD source, then.

It is referring to mercury in general.

ETHYLmercury and METHYLmercury are COMPLETELY different substances.

ETHYLmercury is half Mercury.

And salt is half chlorine. WHat's your point?

Mercury does not come out of the body in days.

ETHYLmercury does. E-T-H-Y-L. Jeez!

I am not trying to side step everything in your post. I just don't see the point of spending a lot of time on posts if your just you don't approve of my sources.

You have posted third hand sources from questionable websites about a COMPLETELY different substance. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

I understand you say dosage matters.

No you don't, because...

That may be true if ETHYLmercury didn't contain mercury but it does. Mercury should never be put into a human body at any dosage

...here you managed to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of both chemistry and toxicity. Well done!

You are also side stepping. Wheres your link for ETHYLmercury (mercury) is safely passed through the body in a matter of days?

Ethylmercury clears from blood with a half-life of about 18 days in adults

en.wikipedia.org...

I love the way you put mercury in brackets as if to inply that ethyl and methly are synonymous. At this point I have to conclude that you are either an incredibly slow or incredibly deceitful person.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Pardon?
If you believe what msm tells you. There are stories behind both those issues that you might want to look into.
Look outside the US for facts you may not have been told by US media.

I don't live in the US.

Then you should find some studies done in Germany in the mid-to-late 1950s and the publicity surrounding that issue along with the denials by the manufacturer that their product could cause birth defects.

a reply to: GetHyped

Your refutation noted the use of questionable sources, but then you proceed to use Wikipedia as a source. Nice.

a reply to: GetHyped

My vaccine thread received many stars and flags

Yours didn't

So you still think your viewpoints won

a reply to: GetHyped

Could you please explain the difference between ethylmercury and methylmercury to me? It's a sincere question. I've seen this mentioned in my research, so I know it's important, but I don't quite understand the difference.

Is it like the difference between water (H2O) and peroxide (H2O2)? Or am I totally off here?

a reply to: gmoneystunt

I said that vaccines don't cause autism.

You said "thats debatable".

I would like to see your sources/influential websites/etc. to make up my own mind using their arguments.


See, I am quite sure that I could debunk, say, any 3 websites or studies you might present.
And if I, as a layman in medical purposes, should be able to point out, lets say, huge statistical problems (like the study being based on a minimal number of patients) or using data which does not correlate but would be just a coincidence, well, that should be a clue to the overall problem of "studies against vaccination", right?

a reply to: alphaether

Follow the citations. I have you a layman resource to read. Notice how it is neutral, not some scaremonger site that's trying to sell you something.

a reply to: Boadicea

One bioaccumulates, the other doesn't.