It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Interesting admission from the FDA - autism and vaccines

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
*sigh*

Why can't some people in this thread grasp and comprehend the simple idea of censorship (from Wiki):

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.


Just because the film festival is a private institution doesn't mean that canceling the showing of a movie because of its content doesn't meet the definition of "censorship." Furthermore, the Tribeca Film Festival isn't exactly the gold standard of ensuring absolutely perfect content in the movies that they screen, so to pretend that the censorship isn't censorship, and that it's because some people find the information misleading is just asking to be an action worthy of ridicule.

In fact, here is the list of all of the 300 or so films that will be shown this year at the film festival--go on and tell me that in all of those films that there is not at least one (more like quite a few) that contain controversial information or topics. The controversy and fear of this movie spreading controversial information is not the reason it was censored (yes, censored).

But to stay on-topic, I do agree that just because something is reported doesn't mean it actually has a cause-effect relationship to the vaccination.

But that said, I have my own reasons to be reserved about the amount of and true necessity of many of the vaccinations labeled as required/recommended for things like attending school (something that is required by law). The fact that we have to inject a bunch of crap into our bodies in order to do something that we are mandated to do is heavy-handed at best, and the federal government shouldn't tell us what to inject into our bodies just so that we can go to a school that is mandated we attend.

And the age at which they mandate (recommend) these mass doses of diseases, alive or not, accompanied by chemicals that our bodies don't need in order to thrive should be concerning to every parent.




posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Does that mean that all the other films on the planet that weren't shown were also "censored"?

Because you've watered down the word "censored" to mean absolutely nothing.

Hey, I censored the filmmakers of Free Willy today because I didn't air it at my performance review earlier. FREE SPEECH!

OMG the Oscars this year ALSO censored Free Willy by not airing it! THIS RUNS DEEPER THAN WE COULD HAVE EVER IMAGINED!

Brb, just censoring the entire French film industry as I'm not watching any French films tonight.
edit on 30-3-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnb
So you are saying that it is pure coincidence that as we have vaccinated more, that the rates of Autism have increased 10 fold?


Something I should have added in my previous reply to you but I forgot... Johnb please explain why countries with low autism rates have high immunization rates and viceversa. For example:

Oman- Autism rate 1.4 children per 10,000 (LINK)
Oman - Immunization coverage 99%

US - Autism rate 147 children per 10,000 (LINK)
US- Immunization coverage 91%

Immunization rates here: WHO LINK

edit on 30-3-2016 by Agartha because: Spelling



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Correlations can be found everywhere if you look hard enough.
Proving causal associations are the difficult part and are the part that anti-vaxxers consistently fail to do.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

It goes deeper!




posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

My mistake. I also read Phage's post which pointed this out. I'd like to look into that further though.

It was the other poster who said I had said it was censorship of free speech. I just said the film had been censored. Then in reply to him I suggested he was limiting my free speech by suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to question the norm/authority.

I think you know I can't produce the evidence you ask for. But I'm very motivated to research each item you mention, so for that I thank you and I will indeed research Wakefield in these areas. I'm always open to having my mind changed. It would be foolish not to be open to this. At the moment though I will be completely honest, I'm not convinced by the replies on these two threads (this is personal, I need to research more) and I am also not surprised by some of the members and their approach .... Unfortunately that makes me even more suspicious of people's motives.

However 'crazy' that makes me sound, I'm being honest.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?
I'm thinking any causation all evidence would require highly unethical study? Therefore all evidence will be weak/not evidence/just correlation.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: Pardon?

My mistake. I also read Phage's post which pointed this out. I'd like to look into that further though.

It was the other poster who said I had said it was censorship of free speech. I just said the film had been censored. Then in reply to him I suggested he was limiting my free speech by suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to question the norm/authority.

I think you know I can't produce the evidence you ask for. But I'm very motivated to research each item you mention, so for that I thank you and I will indeed research Wakefield in these areas. I'm always open to having my mind changed. It would be foolish not to be open to this. At the moment though I will be completely honest, I'm not convinced by the replies on these two threads (this is personal, I need to research more) and I am also not surprised by some of the members and their approach .... Unfortunately that makes me even more suspicious of people's motives.

However 'crazy' that makes me sound, I'm being honest.


The interesting thing will be if you really change how you think about him when you don't find evidence to refute what I posted.

If it's any consolation I''ve heard his version(s) which seems change year on year and which fails to address any of the issues adequately.

Think about it this way, you're a scientist and publish a study.
Subsequent checks show some major flaws which render the study useless.
You've got 3 options;
1. Repeat the study addressing the highlighted issues and resubmit it.
2. Accept the criticism, reakise you're wrong and move on.
3. Cry "Conspiracy!" And try to prove everyone else is wrong.

Now, the vast majority of scientists will go with options 1 or 2.
If they're absolutely certain they can prove their hypothesis they'll carry on going with no. 1.

But no scientist with any credence or conviction would go with 3.
Wakefield went with 3.
Irrespective of the details, that shows that he knew he was in the wrong and that he was caught red-handed.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: Pardon?
I'm thinking any causation all evidence would require highly unethical study? Therefore all evidence will be weak/not evidence/just correlation.


No.
You have to define why you need to perform specific tests and submit this to a committee to gain ethics approval. If they say no then you can't do them, end of.
In Wakefield's case he had no ethics committee approval to perform invasive testing on children (as he probably knew it wouldn't be approved) and that and that alone was enough to debar him.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Does that mean that all the other films on the planet that weren't shown were also "censored"?

Because you've watered down the word "censored" to mean absolutely nothing.

Hey, I censored the filmmakers of Free Willy today because I didn't air it at my performance review earlier. FREE SPEECH!

OMG the Oscars this year ALSO censored Free Willy by not airing it! THIS RUNS DEEPER THAN WE COULD HAVE EVER IMAGINED!

Brb, just censoring the entire French film industry as I'm not watching any French films tonight.


Are you truly that dense, or is this a parody of a real response.

Serious question--once I know that, I'll respond accordingly.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
However 'crazy' that makes me sound, I'm being honest.


That makes you sound sane.

Sane people want both (or all) sides of a topic, then want to look at the evidence and form their own conclusion. That's what I did with vaccinations (and still continue to do). I'm not certain that they "cause" autism, per se, but whether or not they exacerbate the severity of it or even kick-start a dormant issue already existent in the brain is unknown.

We don't know the root cause of Autism, so to say that this or that definitively is not the cause of it in this or that individual is scientifically unfounded, IMO. Please not that I said "definitively."

I mean, hell, for the first time ever (at least in modern times), a direct link between the brain and the immune system was discovered last year. So, tell me definitively that dicking around with our immune systems (and at such young ages and in such massive amounts of diseases) can't possibly have an effect on an issue that originates in the wiring of the brain, and I'll just call you an outright liar.

The bottom line is that WE DON'T KNOW how artificially screwing with our immune system directly affects the brain, but a year ago we finally discovered that there is a direct link between the two.

I think it's safe to say that studies that people cite right now may mean jack dick in 10 years.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Not dense enough to think that a private film festival's pulling of a film from their lineup amounts to censorship.

Let me ask you: if a local film festival pulled Free Willy from their viewing schedule, would that amount to censorship?
edit on 30-3-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: and14263
However 'crazy' that makes me sound, I'm being honest.


That makes you sound sane.

Sane people want both (or all) sides of a topic, then want to look at the evidence and form their own conclusion. That's what I did with vaccinations (and still continue to do). I'm not certain that they "cause" autism, per se, but whether or not they exacerbate the severity of it or even kick-start a dormant issue already existent in the brain is unknown.

We don't know the root cause of Autism, so to say that this or that definitively is not the cause of it in this or that individual is scientifically unfounded, IMO. Please not that I said "definitively."

I mean, hell, for the first time ever (at least in modern times), a direct link between the brain and the immune system was discovered last year. So, tell me definitively that dicking around with our immune systems (and at such young ages and in such massive amounts of diseases) can't possibly have an effect on an issue that originates in the wiring of the brain, and I'll just call you an outright liar.

The bottom line is that WE DON'T KNOW how artificially screwing with our immune system directly affects the brain, but a year ago we finally discovered that there is a direct link between the two.

I think it's safe to say that studies that people cite right now may mean jack dick in 10 years.


However when there have been several studies which show pretty conclusively that there isn't even an association with vaccines and autism the chance of finding that there is a link has diminished to around zero.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

What's with you and worrying about if we can all watch freed willies on the big screen?

But I digress...It's not just that the film was approved and then excluded, it's the WHY behind it.

I had assumed all could understand that notable difference. Silly me.

So, what part of the definition of censorship do you not get? It's pretty straight-forward and easy to understand. I'll quote it for you once more, then spell out the similarities for you:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

So, DeNiro has chosen to remove (suppress) the film (a form of speech, public communication, AND information) because after he claims to have met and spoken with some authorities or groups of "experts" about it, decided that he considers said information in the film to be objectionable or harmful or politically incorrect or inconvenient.

So, not that your opinion as to what "censorship" really is matters to the OP's meat of this thread, but what about this isn't censorship again?

And I really was hoping that had been a parody of a response from you...

Did you also know that a parent can censor what their child watches on the TV by not allowing certain shows to be played in the house? That is also censorship. It has many forms, not just governmental censorship.

I hope that helps. There will be a quiz on Friday.



posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

So they've "censored" a film that's readily available, freely accessible and openly discussed without consequence.

Just like how my local cinema "censored" Star Wars Episode VII by stopping its run a week early.

Riiiiiight.

So as I originally stated, you've watered the word down as to be utterly devoid of any meaning.



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: SlapMonkey

So they've "censored" a film that's readily available, freely accessible and openly discussed without consequence.

Just like how my local cinema "censored" Star Wars Episode VII by stopping its run a week early.

Riiiiiight.

So as I originally stated, you've watered the word down as to be utterly devoid of any meaning.


I didn't water down anything--I provided a pretty specific definition, and then specifically pointed out how it was an appropriate term for what happened in this situation. No more, no less. The point is that the film was censored from those at the film festival.

That's like saying North Korea's censorship of the internet really isn't censorship because the internet is widely available everywhere else.

But you've apparently missed my point about noting the "why" behind something--I'm sure your local theater stopped the run early because it wasn't making any money off of it. Big difference.

Either way, though, this discussion is useless. Best Regards.




top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join