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.

 

Cleveland Clinic Doctor Fuels Vaccine Debate — Again

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: mrthumpy
Interesting thread on Metabunk about this Dr looking specifically at the too many too soon claim

www.metabunk.org...


each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time


Let's load up a bunch of dead or dying foreign soldiers into a military base and just see what happens.

While the body is busy discovering all 10,000 variations of the enemy, the Foot clan jumps in, replaces the officer of each department, and makes off with all the televisions and chow while the Ninja Turtles are busy eating pizza and taking turns making snarky jokes about how all the enemies look weird.

Medicine is war in the body. It requires strategy and tactics to win. That theory is absurd.

Edit to add:. In the event it escapes anyone, I approach medicine the same way that Leonard McCoy approaches life.
edit on 1/10/2017 by TarzanBeta because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

You're right. The vaccines won't produce the same problems as the virus itself. They'll produce NEW ones.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

let me start by saying im not a chemist so i cannot tell you whether the amount of formaldehyde in a vaccine is dangerous or not. And by the way, me being anti vaxx and posting the blog in the OP doesnt mean i have to agree with everything the doc says, does it? So lets leave the broad brush painting to others.


I found this explanation of how formaldehyde works and WHY its classed by our own EPA as a carcinogen. Its not a short or easy read, but im sure youre smart enough to understand it, i did and im not that smart.

drholly.typepad.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: ignorant_ape

let me start by saying im not a chemist so i cannot tell you whether the amount of formaldehyde in a vaccine is dangerous or not. And by the way, me being anti vaxx and posting the blog in the OP doesnt mean i have to agree with everything the doc says, does it? So lets leave the broad brush painting to others.


I found this explanation of how formaldehyde works and WHY its classed by our own EPA as a carcinogen. Its not a short or easy read, but im sure youre smart enough to understand it, i did and im not that smart.

drholly.typepad.com...


I'm a physiologist and can tell you that the amount of formaldehyde in a vaccine isn't dangerous in the slightest.
If it was, we'd have died out as a species after eating fruit from trees.

This is pretty straight forward.
www.harpocratesspeaks.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: Agartha

You're right. The vaccines won't produce the same problems as the virus itself. They'll produce NEW ones.


Care to elaborate McCoy?
(Some citations would be useful too)



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
Ahhhhh... thank you. Got it! I think. Do you know if that's why the dead or inactive viruses are used?

I figured someone who knew better than me had already considered this... I've just never seen it addressed and decided to finally ask about it instead of wondering!


They use dead or inactive viruses because they are safer than the whole virus but enough to get a reaction from the immune system.




originally posted by: Pardon?
Care to elaborate McCoy?
(Some citations would be useful too)


I was just about to ask the same question.


I'm eager to read the list of new problems vaccines cause (according to Tarzanbeta).



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: Agartha

You're right. The vaccines won't produce the same problems as the virus itself. They'll produce NEW ones.


Care to elaborate McCoy?
(Some citations would be useful too)


Makes me wonder if you have kids who have been vaccinated.

My middle child had a horrible fever and started acting out for weeks. It took months to get him back on track with his behavior.

My youngest, who was severely premature, went from completely peaceful and observant to mad hatter less than two hours.

My oldest started being immediately rebellious and threw fits when he got what he asked for. When he got what he wanted!

I don't need an article to tell me what I witnessed.

The oldest is perfectly reasonable and among the smartest and most social in his class. The middle is very smart and social, but has an amazing penchant for selective hearing, as well as having an issue wherein he talks like Yoda learning pig Latin... And believes he sounds completely reasonable when he doesn't. I tend to believe that is somewhat his personality though.

The youngest is a master of time and space, and he's an excellent mimic. But his desire for constant stimulation is beyond the normal scope.

I'm not a lame duck parent, so I didn't let the symptoms turn into a kind of learned autism. But I, not really believing the stories, ended up seeing them first hand.

I think parents should hold children responsible for their actions, regardless.

But it has been hell getting every single one back on track. I believe the typical childhood vaccines, as they are, greatly affect the brain, or atleast overburden the body so that the brain is not heeded well.

I know for a fact that they caused each of my kids to take on destructive behavior and regress by 6 months to a year in development.

Is the benefit worth the consequences? My oldest might prove that to be true. Still waiting on the other two to get to the point where that can be determined.

The speech of an intelligent parent should factor into your pool of knowledge in some way, unless you want your research to be found incomplete.

Before they were vaccinated, by the way, they never got sick. After, they've been sick every three months, each on a rotating schedule it seems almost. The middle child, with him I waited for 3 years before getting the first set started. Before that time, he was not a sick zoo animal. We got home and had a rabid orangutan.

I seen it with my own two eyes.

I purposefully held off with him to let him develop more than the oldest to see if I wasn't imagining things with the oldest.

Turns out I wasn't. My kids aren't lab rats, but since medicine wants to treat them as such for them to be granted an education (ugly trend, by the way), I figure why not take advantage of their treachery and see for myself.

Most parents don't have the guts to be so objective. And I learned that parents against vaccines were not lying about their child's behavior. Wicked to behold.

But I also was determined to prove that the behavior problems also had a lot to do with lame parenting. I proved that, too.

So far, evidence suggests that the side effects stink, but they can be overcome, up to this point, at least.
edit on 1/10/2017 by TarzanBeta because: Teachery, treachery, they're like, the same, right?



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Anecdotal evidence is unreliable because I could contradict yours immediately: my three children had all their vaccinations and they didn't even have a slight temperature, nevermind changing their behaviour. They also never get ill.

There are thousands of trials and studies done that prove vaccines are safe and they are the most tested drug ever created.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

thats a great link, I read the article and am now going through the comments which are very enlightening. If you havent read the comments section you might enjoy it, i know i am.

One thing that seems to be coming more clear as i get deeper into this is there are ALOT of qualifier words used by those who want to downplay the importance of something, OR those who want to exaggerate the importance of something. In either case the use of those words is troubling for those who just want the unvarnished truth. I am always ecstatic when i can actually get a doctor say "i dont know" because its so bloody rare. Most "professionals" are trained out of the ability to admit they dont know something, probably has something to do with "keeping up appearances"....but thats just my personal theory


So when you read through that gentlemans explanation on formaldehyde and how benign it is in the body you have to really lookout for those words.

changingminds.org...



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

they are NOT enough to get a sufficient immune reaction, hence the inclusion of adjuvants.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Anecdotal evidence is unreliable because I could contradict yours immediately: my three children had all their vaccinations and they didn't even have a slight temperature, nevermind changing their behaviour. They also never get ill.

There are thousands of trials and studies done that prove vaccines are safe and they are the most tested drug ever created.


Actually, what you behold is just as relevant to the science as what I behold. Both stories can be true, which would raise new questions.

What I see with my eyes is not anecdotal to me. Are you asking me to be silent about my observations because you didn't observe them?

Any evidence, any statement, should be taken seriously and analyzed to determine its value. If not, then science is completely and utterly forgone.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

anecdotal evidence is not the same as EMPIRICAL evidence. This man was providing EMPIRICAL evidence. You dont have to like it, but it is what it is. Please learn the difference for a more fruitful discussion.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: Agartha

You're right. The vaccines won't produce the same problems as the virus itself. They'll produce NEW ones.


Care to elaborate McCoy?
(Some citations would be useful too)


Makes me wonder if you have kids who have been vaccinated.


Pardon? is a paediatrician so I'm sure has seen his fair share of vaccinated children. Certainly more data points to draw conclusions from than yours of... what, 1? 2?

But in any case, that's irrelevant. Please tell us more about how personal anecdotes trump scientific data.
edit on 10-1-2017 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: Agartha

You're right. The vaccines won't produce the same problems as the virus itself. They'll produce NEW ones.


Care to elaborate McCoy?
(Some citations would be useful too)


Makes me wonder if you have kids who have been vaccinated.


Pardon? is a paediatrician so I'm sure has seen his fair share of vaccinated children. Certainly more data points than yours of... what, 1? 2?

But in any case, please tell us more about how personal anecdotes trump scientific data.


What I witness myself will always be more valuable to me than the opinions of those who tell me that I'm wrong.

Forever.

Any real scientist would understand that.

Not all professionals are scientists. Some are just examiners following a book and pushing needles.

Some are far better than that.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: Agartha

they are NOT enough to get a sufficient immune reaction, hence the inclusion of adjuvants.


They are strong enough, adjuvants only help create a stronger immune response.

Some vaccines do not contain adjuvants, for example MMR, chickenpox, rotavirus, polio, and seasonal influenza.
Vaccines Adjuvants CDC



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: mrthumpy
Interesting thread on Metabunk about this Dr looking specifically at the too many too soon claim

www.metabunk.org...


each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time


Let's load up a bunch of dead or dying foreign soldiers into a military base and just see what happens.

While the body is busy discovering all 10,000 variations of the enemy, the Foot clan jumps in, replaces the officer of each department, and makes off with all the televisions and chow while the Ninja Turtles are busy eating pizza and taking turns making snarky jokes about how all the enemies look weird.

Medicine is war in the body. It requires strategy and tactics to win. That theory is absurd.

Edit to add:. In the event it escapes anyone, I approach medicine the same way that Leonard McCoy approaches life.


Well with that kind of rebuttal the medical world is bound to be rocked to its core



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: tribal
anecdotal evidence is not the same as EMPIRICAL evidence. This man was providing EMPIRICAL evidence. You dont have to like it, but it is what it is. Please learn the difference for a more fruitful discussion.

en.wikipedia.org...


hahaha TarzanB provided anedoctal, which is personal experience.

Empirical is what scientists use!! lol



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

Thank you.

Joking aside, I conveyed an idea that should be taken into consideration when performing the science. Method is important. I simply explained it in a way anyone can understand.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

eh, no. did you read the wiki? or even a definition? Empirical evidence by definition is the evidence of observation, period. You are welcome to argue with the dictionary.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: tribal
anecdotal evidence is not the same as EMPIRICAL evidence. This man was providing EMPIRICAL evidence. You dont have to like it, but it is what it is. Please learn the difference for a more fruitful discussion.

en.wikipedia.org...


hahaha TarzanB provided anedoctal, which is personal experience.

Empirical is what scientists use!! lol


I think you're not understanding.

To me, for my personal research and my own pool of knowledge, it is empirical. I ran a TEST on my middle child.

To you, it's anecdotal because you choose not to or haven't been in a position to discover what I have witnessed. That's fine.

I'm not a text book. I'm a person who has a right to his own body of knowledge for his own personal wisdom and use. I perform very little science for the world. I do it for myself.

Scientists are more biased and less organized than government. I couldn't possibly wait 20 years for a consensus on what I saw to be true in a matter of minutes. I'm not patient enough.

My learning is for me. The statement is there for any willing and true scientist who has the patience to take note.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join