Vaccinations Cause Autism.

a reply to: rickymouse

Are you going to address the debunking of your "81 studies that prove vaccines cause autism" claim or not?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: rickymouse

Are you going to address the debunking of your "81 studies that prove vaccines cause autism" claim or not?

Debunk the debunk site you listed? Are you nuts? Hover over the "Angry Autie" at the top of that page and click on it.

OK. Evidence based info on a specific MMR vaccine.

I am not trying to pick on a particular product, only show that the companies themselves tell us that many people may have side effects.

Look at this. www.merckvaccines.com...

It talks about people who should not take the vaccine. One such group is those intolerant to Neomycin. en.wikipedia.org... Scroll down to safety and you will see "In 2005–06, neomycin was the fifth-most-prevalent allergen in patch test results (10.0%)"

Now go to patient information. www.merck.com...

Read that, there is a lot of relevant information on that page. Remember, think about this stuff. Do you actually know if your kid is intolerant to Neomycin? Has your kid ever had a febrial seizure? Don't just assume your kid is tolerant to the vaccine, watch your kid after the vaccine is given and bring this stuff up with your doctor if there is a reaction.

The vaccine manufacturers actually highlight certain groups of people who are intolerant to their vaccines but people and sometimes healthcare workers ignore this information. They assume these vaccines are safe and discount the concerns and symptoms people report often saying they are just coincidences.

I have read many such papers provided by pharmaceutical companies, they do state complications to many medications. The fine print and wording on these little pamphlets makes people not pay attention. We have been conditioned through generations to ignore things that are actually relevant.

Most people can take this vaccine without much problem. Maybe one out of a hundred react really badly to it and these numbers would be nearly zero if people actually paid attention. Now the UP only has three hundred thousand people, the deer probably outnumber us. But that means that 3000 Yoopers may have a bad reaction. Of the three hundred thousand people only one in a thousand may have a severe reaction. That means three hundred yoopers will have or have had a severe reaction.

Now, if we identified the risk factors better, that number is way lower.

I am trying to identify risk assessment in my research. I would like to find a possible way to identify people who will act negatively to vaccines so the risk of side effects will be less and more people that actually need vaccines will take them.

If people are torn to one side or the other, this is never going to happen. The words vaxers and anti-vaxers should be thrown under the tire and we should concentrate on properly identifying risk factors some way. If we throw these people under the tire, we may get enough traction to get out of the ditch we seem to be stuck in.

It may be something like people who react to celery because it knocks out an enzyme and they get a reaction. It could be possibly that a person has exercised induced asthma or an intolerance to sulfites. It could be that people who are intolerant to sulfonamides might react badly. It could be almost anything or a combination of a couple of traits.

Getting the medical people to research this would be kind of hard because it would take a lot of comparisons, and lots of this information is not really known by anyone other than the patient.

I don't even know why I get involved in these conversations, people who are considering themselves professionals never even read stuff that is important to their profession. Stuff that is relevant to what they are doing and promoting.

a reply to: IvyNeptune

I have no real opinion about the OP, but I will say this. Anything we put into our bodies that are not from nature directly are in someway harmful. Those things that are further way from nature than others are likely that much more dangerous. We "super intelligent humans" have no idea what damage we do with chemicals and medication. We think we do...but ten years from now, many thing we ingest will be considered factually dangerous.

We are children playing in the medicine cabinet.

originally posted by: DrakeINFERNO
Are we sure its autism and not just stupid people having stupid kids?

I find your comment insensitive.

There are people that I personally know, on ATS, who have autistic children. And furthermore they are not only intelligent, but have higher IQ's than 95% of the population.

Stupid has nothing, or very little to do with autism.

a reply to: rickymouse

Do you have any specific counterpoints to the criticisms raised or not?

edit broken links

My opinion is that people who don't get their children vaccinated have some form of autism themselves. They've been switching from mercury based preservatives for a while now and people still talk about it. Molecular biologist here and I can safely say that the ignorance is astounding. Get your kids vaccinated ffs or keep them in a cage for the sake of the rest of us.

Someone can explain to me how the attenuated virus causes autism. Show me the pathway and data. Then I'll go with it. Don't send me a link to a bull# article and tell me that's enough. Show me that you understand how it works then give me the sources and I'll go from there.

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: DrakeINFERNO
Are we sure its autism and not just stupid people having stupid kids?

I find your comment insensitive.

There are people that I personally know, on ATS, who have autistic children. And furthermore they are not only intelligent, but have higher IQ's than 95% of the population.

Stupid has nothing, or very little to do with autism.

I know people who have autistic kids too. The kids are actually pretty smart, they could be trained into specialists. I also know a few people who have been diagnosed with high level autism. I think they are normal, they remind me of talking to the old Finn farmers years ago. No expression or excitement about things. I grew up thinking that was normal behavior and haven't been convinced it isn't what we should be considering normal.

Since everyone is nuts in the USA now, that is the new norm and people who are normal are now autistic.

So who are you going to vote for? Hillary or Trump

a reply to: Realtruth

Im not a sensitive person, anyway that is why i said its not autism but just stupid kids. seems like a lot of stupid parents have dumb kids and use autism like a blanket blame all.

and i do believe autism is real, but i don't believe every claimed case of autism is autism

Since this thread is still going strong I'll throw in some links & quotes I ran across.
Keep in mind my children have already had the MMR. I refuse to do the flu and HPV vaccine though.

Ratajczak also looks at a factor that hasn't been widely discussed: human DNA contained in vaccines. That's right, human DNA. Ratajczak reports that about the same time vaccine makers took most thimerosal out of most vaccines (with the exception of flu shots which still widely contain thimerosal), they began making some vaccines using human tissue. Ratajczak says human tissue is currently used in 23 vaccines. She discusses the increase in autism incidences corresponding with the introduction of human DNA to MMR vaccine, and suggests the two could be linked. Ratajczak also says an additional increased spike in autism occurred in 1995 when chicken pox vaccine was grown in human fetal tissue.

quoted from here

I just thought it was interesting.

There has been more recent research into Autism - probably to get people away from thinking vaccines cause it

This is a current study

In the 1970s, Stella Chess found a high prevalence of autism in children with congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), 200 times that of the general population at the time. Many researchers quote this fact to add proof to the current theory that maternal infection with immune system activation in pregnancy leads to autism in the offspring.

PubMed link

This is a current ongoing study... it must be it's dated March 2016

Genetic research involving twins and family studies strongly supports a significant contribution of environmental factors in addition to genetic factors in ASD etiology. A comprehensive literature search has implicated several environmental factors associated with the development of ASD. These include pesticides, phthalates, polychlorinated biphenyls, solvents, air pollutants, fragrances, glyphosate and heavy metals, especially aluminum used in vaccines as adjuvant. Importantly, the majority of these toxicants are some of the most common ingredients in cosmetics and herbicides to which almost all of us are regularly exposed to in the form of fragrances, face makeup, cologne, air fresheners, food flavors, detergents, insecticides and herbicides. In this review we describe various scientific data to show the role of environmental factors in ASD.

PubMed link

ABSTRACT look it up yourselves. Yall lazy bums.

Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Oct 27. [Epub ahead of print]
Systematic Assessment of Research on Autism Spectrum Disorder and Mercury Reveals Conflicts of Interest and the Need for Transparency in Autism Research.
Kern JK1, Geier DA2, Deth RC3, Sykes LK4, Hooker BS5, Love JM6, Bjørklund G7, Chaigneau CG8, Haley BE9, Geier MR10.
Author information
Abstract
Historically, entities with a vested interest in a product that critics have suggested is harmful have consistently used research to back their claims that the product is safe. Prominent examples are: tobacco, lead, bisphenol A, and atrazine. Research literature indicates that about 80-90 % of studies with industry affiliation found no harm from the product, while only about 10-20 % of studies without industry affiliation found no harm. In parallel to other historical debates, recent studies examining a possible relationship between mercury (Hg) exposure and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) show a similar dichotomy.

The potentially causal relationship between Hg exposure and ASD differs from other toxic products since there is a broad coalition of entities for whom a conflict of interest arises.

These include influential governmental public health entities, the pharmaceutical industry, and even the coal burning industry.

This review includes a systematic literature search of original studies on the potential relationship between Hg and ASD from 1999 to date, finding that of the studies with public health and/or industry affiliation, 86 % reported no relationship between Hg and ASD.

However, among studies without public health and/or industry affiliation, only 19 % find no relationship between Hg and ASD. The discrepancy in these results suggests a bias indicative of a conflict of interest.
KEYWORDS:
Autism; Conflict of interest; Mercury; Research; Toxicants; Transparency
PMID: 26507205 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

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

and much more.

One thing for sure studies in US contradict, well swedes and arabs judging from the names. ,... in this case

All I need to do is remember back to my father telling me how 3 of his close friends contracted polio and two of them had to spend the rest of their lives in an iron lung.

We don't have those stories anymore because we've been vaccinating. Are vaccines 100% safe? Nope, but they are pretty close. Do they make you safer than not having them? Unequivocally yes.

When people choose not to vaccinate, they are stating that they don't trust science. I don't trust people that don't trust science and frankly, I hope they have some heartbreak due to their denial. It'll be a lesson for them and those around them.

originally posted by: ConnekAnchi
ABSTRACT look it up yourselves. Yall lazy bums.

Says the poster who doesn't understand basic science: your links are to three studies on 'enviromental mercury'!! They are completely different types of mercury!!!! It's like comparing apples and oranges.


Please show me how those studies are relevant to vaccines.
Also specify the dose of mercury needed to do any damage and the dose in vaccines.
Seeing as you are not a 'lazy bum', I am sure you'll have no trouble replying to this.

originally posted by: rickymouse
The vaccine manufacturers actually highlight certain groups of people who are intolerant to their vaccines but people and sometimes healthcare workers ignore this information. They assume these vaccines are safe and discount the concerns and symptoms people report often saying they are just coincidences.

I don't even know why I get involved in these conversations, people who are considering themselves professionals never even read stuff that is important to their profession.

Registered nurses have to do an extra course on immunisation before they are allowed to administer vaccines, where they also learn about the vaccines composition and contraindications!!! Nurses read the patients' medical history before administering a vaccine and they look for allergies too, such as allergy to gelatine, for example. And if they don't have the info they need in the records, they will ask patients. Always.

You keep on posting and posting about how you know so much more than medical professionals whithout having a clue at what they really do. I would suggest you spend two months working alongside a doctor or nurse and then you'll see what we do and you will also see how much extra training we also have every year after getting our degrees.

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Pardon?

And I support your choice to believe what you wish.

What you claim as evidence I claim to be manipulated data.

This figure you quote, 99.99% seems to be worth touching upon.

What say you about SV40 aka Simian Virus 40? You see it is a little known virus that spread through the polio vaccine. To be accurate it is at least the 40th virus created in that vaccine and that is not getting into how many others there were.

Funny thing about SV40, it causes cancer! It is also trans-generational! Really this is fascinating stuff, I do hope you go over the material.

Foundation created by a family who lost their child to this virus in the 90's, they knew about it in the 60's and still sold vaccines with SV40 in it for 30 years.

The choice to continue using vaccines with these disease's in them is something that makes me believe I have not only found anything but nonsense, I have found an adequate amount of information to question everything in regards to vaccines, especially the "Safe and Effective" rhetoric.

Leaving this disease in the vaccines for over 30's years while spouting off your success of "conquering" polio, is exactly how I would expect the Church of Eugenicists Science to operate. In fact it is from this lens alone that it makes any sense.

You've done your research. The polio vaccine causing cancer was covered in this music video, along with a bunch of other things like poisons in the air, etc.:

Block McCloud & Vinnie Paz - True Lies/End of Days [Official Music Video]:

Warning, there is a small amount of language in the video if you have kids


I agree with what you said about letting the immune system develop on its own! Right after those vaccines, I got Type 1 Diabetes which I've had ever since at the young age of about 3 years old! Specifically, it was within a week after the MMR shot that I started getting sick.

I have even ended up in the hospital for over 2 months from almost dying when I got a HUGE round of vaccines at the age of 12. It was then that my parents figured out that vaccines weren't helping me at all.

To each their own choice. That's what real freedom is. No child should ever be forced to have an experimental injection, against the parents' wishes.

I cannot be 100% sure that if I never had that vaccine or THAT particular vaccine injection that I would not have gotten diabetes. I just know that I 100% believe that the vaccine was a SIGNIFICANT contributing factor, if not the cause altogether.

I still have the disease that I've had since I was little, but I've never gotten sick like I did when I got the shots.

TPTB have been preaching at us for years that it's: "YOUR GENES that cause YOUR DISEASE". I don't have any proof, but who is to say that they cannot inject synthetic genes into vaccines???

This thing of how TPTB always say that it's "YOUR CORRUPTED GENES" etc., etc., has bothered me for MANY years of my life. I think that every human was made perfectly, and this Church of Science experimentation (life-wrecking for many) should retire before they corrupt the entire human race's genes. Wait....maybe that's the point! EUREKAHHH!!!

a reply to: Agartha

How many people know or can comprehend they are allergic to gelatin. I only know I am not because I have spent time researching the symptoms of gelatin allergy, how many patients have done that. The only way you will know what is causing an allergy for sure is to go into allergy testing. My mother was allergic to sulfa drugs and would always tell the doctors yet they had her on two sulfa drugs, one was a water pill and one a treatment for diabetes. Now she was always having symptoms of a sulfa allergy yet the doctors blew away what she said, smiling when she would tell them.

In my and my children's genetics, it shows that sulfa is definitely a no no. Doctors also say that sulfa allergy is not the same as a sulfite allergy yet sulfa drugs raise natural sulfite levels in the body, that is the way they actually work. They target a couple of pterins but also destroy the molybdopterins which cause elevated sulfite levels. This can be accomplished with consuming garlic. Sulfa drugs also stimulate a condition that destroys red blood cells by causing a raise in sulfites in the body. The sulfites are actually what kill the infection, it is the design of the drug. The destruction of the other two ptens helps to keep the body from going cykotine.

I understand people well, I know they do not usually know what they are intolerant to.

How many doctors know how sulfa drugs work? I research a lot on how pharmaceuticals work in the body. I still have a lot of research to do but know a lot more specifics on some of these meds than most medical professionals do.

a reply to: rickymouse

So, seeing as you consider yourself to have more knowledge than health professionals who have studied for years and keep on learning as they work and they are continuously tested:

What do you suggest doctors do then?
What would you do if you were a doctor?

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: rickymouse

So, seeing as you consider yourself to have more knowledge than health professionals who have studied for years and keep on learning as they work and they are continuously tested:

What do you suggest doctors do then?
What would you do if you were a doctor?

If doctors had more time to check out this stuff it would be good. But they work long hours and do want to have a life too. They are trained to administer pharmaceuticals and treat most common diseases. There are specialists and they do know a lot, but their treatment most often is decided by those who create medicines and they also do not have a lot of time to do research. Doctors are also not allowed to do things that are not approved by the Medical profession. They sometimes will inform their patients of other possible ways to help them be healthy, as long as it is approved by the governing health body.

How can you fix this? Competition between doctors offices makes it difficult to discuss stuff with their peers. It may be better in Socialized medicine, but even there there is problems with doctors beliefs. The computer programs that have been developed to standardize treatment are flawed, the doctor inputs only what the program asks for, sometimes there can be many symptoms to diagnose a disease and those programs do not account for that.


Competition has to be taken out of medicine. But doctors have to compete here because they have nurses to support with their practice. It is a business, and unless you have money coming in a business will not survive.

Also, what is normal for a patient is often misinterpreted in an appointment. The doctor asks how is your BM. Now I would say normal if it was normal. My normal is what most would call constipated. I never realized that most people consider a BM I have as being constipated, I have been this way all my life. How would a person know to tell this to a doctor.

My heart rate is between a hundred ten and a hundred twenty normally at rest, it goes up to around one sixty to one eighty when I work. This is normal to me. My blood pressure was never less than one forty over eighty, even when I was in excellent shape. This is normal for me. Now when I donated blood, I went to sleep for a day and a half straight the first time and two days the second time. Thirty six hours once and forty eight hours the second time. The third time I was going to donate the guy taking my blood was chuckling as he looked at the charts saying it was a coincidence. His face turned pale and he started to shake as he took my needle out and said I should never ever give blood again and do not let anyone talk me into it. This is all related, I am hypovolemic by nature. Doctors induce a coma by pulling out blood, I went into a mild coma till my blood got restored. I'm alive yet, no harm done, but it took researching thousands of articles for me to identify the relationship and actually now that I am not in as good a shape it is easy to identify, drastic changes in my BP depending on if I am standing or sitting or laying down.

I don't blame the doctors, I blame myself for not studying this stuff earlier so I could talk to the doctor on his own level and explain things. My new doctor I just got asked me what I had wrong and took my bp in two positions and he wrote down I have a problem with this. I was told by my first doctor that diagnosed my tachychardia, he also treated my uncle and dad, that I should not tell anyone or I would not get a job. I told him that they will know my heart is beating fast and he told me they won't he said the nurses will think they made a mistake in their multiplying, thinking they actually went did it for more seconds than they did. They used to take it for fifteen seconds and multiply it by four. I was calm, most people do not have a heart rate of one ten and remain calm. I told this to a couple of doctors who denied I had tachychardia because the nurse had wrote down the wrong number. The doctor took it and it was way higher and one doctor mentioned it nicely to the nurse and told her to not correct for what she thought was a mistake on her part.

But beta blockers do not work well when you have low blood volume. I learned to correct my diet over the years. Think of all the problems with tests that can occur if you have less blood volume. Older people usually get lower blood volume. Now more sugar would need to be in the blood to be normal if you have less blood, also more insulin would need to be present. What about electrolyte levels?

What can I suggest? I don't know, I am not in that field. You say your in that field, maybe you can discuss this stuff with coworkers and doctors to try to figure out something. Someone who knows the particulars needs to bring this up, not a person who used to build houses. I am only studying this stuff so I can possibly help others who help others, not to cause conflicts. Open your mind, you probably know a lot of things you do in your field that don't seem quite right. This can be fixed. Knowing how to interpret Epigenetics might help someday but it is only a tool and it will take many years to get things figured out.

I do not like to judge unless cornered. I would like to see what I am finding from my research and understanding help to fix things that are not completely correct. I am a perfectionist, completely OCD with making sure I do things the best I can. I have many more years of studying to go.

Also I research mostly legitimate research but will take something that is mostly correct and in laymans terms and show someone elses conclusion even though the source may not be considered acceptable. I also look at unlegitamate research to find out if there is any truth to it. Often there is some truth but much of the time the way they arrived at the conclusion is wrong. This happens in peer reviewed articles a lot.