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.

 

Vaccines: Yale Study Links Higher Rates of Multiple Dissorders with Vaccinations in Children

page: 3
48
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Navieko
a reply to: hutch622
You've missed the point he made. He's not saying the study from the OP has conclusively proved anything (that was made clear in the OP). You posted a picture and made a ridiculous insinuation that just because many have doubts about some of today's vaccinations, that the only alternative is to go back to the time when there were none.

The point is - while there may be some vaccinations that are absolutely effective (and vital) for preventing certain viruses - there is just way too much money being invested in the creation and pushing of new vaccinations, without anywhere near enough testing/studies on the potential risks. Creating vaccinations has effectively become a license to print money for the pharmaceutical industry - and anyone with a brain should know that where there is a potential for ridiculous amounts of profit to be made - there will inevitably be greed and corruption, if left unchecked (which it mostly is at the moment).

The public have largely been scared into submission to the point that they won't think twice about it - it's downright scary!
They've managed to create such a toxic political/social environment where vaccinations are concerned (through lobbying and fear campaigns) that anyone who dare speak/act out against vaccinations is attacked and marginalized. Many parents cannot even afford to send their children to day care anymore (or in some cases the schools they want), or get job's in certain positions - because of the Government's push against "anti-vaxxers". Undoubtedly a result of some very effective lobbying/campaigning by the Pharmaceutical companies.

Why not wait for some more definitive studies/conclusions to be made on each vaccine (certainly no issues finding volunteer subjects) before punishing people for not being so sheepishly accepting of the mainstream indoctrination - especially where their children's health is concerned? It's not as if people are going to suddenly start dropping dead en masse because a few kid's didn't get their flue shots. A mad world we're living in.


Your post is like an anti-vax 101 course.

About the money in vaccines; more money is made by treating the diseases they prevent by an enormous factor so if they didn't make vaccines they would make more money. Logic.
Vaccines, due to their very nature of being administered to healthy people are the most tested forms of medication ever and are continually monitored and tested post release.
There are multitudes of definitive studies out there (and yes, even quite a few on vaxxed vs unvaxxed) however ridiculous claims by anti-vaxxers (like this "study") force researchers down blind-alleys to show there's no causation from vaccines. This means precious funding for more pressing issues is used up.

As for your last line, people ARE dying.
www.cidrap.umn.edu...


Cidrap as a source, he'll yeah, they vaccinate people against having a brain
Pick a better source or a less redder nose


"Pick a better source"? Do you mean one that you'r belief system will accept?
Or one which has verifiable data?


I am sure Einstein can take a seat and you can step up to the freaking obvious


After you.

And certainly after you can provide one yourself although I take it from your reply you won't have one will you?
Now that IS "freaking obvious".




posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Navieko
a reply to: hutch622
You've missed the point he made. He's not saying the study from the OP has conclusively proved anything (that was made clear in the OP). You posted a picture and made a ridiculous insinuation that just because many have doubts about some of today's vaccinations, that the only alternative is to go back to the time when there were none.

The point is - while there may be some vaccinations that are absolutely effective (and vital) for preventing certain viruses - there is just way too much money being invested in the creation and pushing of new vaccinations, without anywhere near enough testing/studies on the potential risks. Creating vaccinations has effectively become a license to print money for the pharmaceutical industry - and anyone with a brain should know that where there is a potential for ridiculous amounts of profit to be made - there will inevitably be greed and corruption, if left unchecked (which it mostly is at the moment).

The public have largely been scared into submission to the point that they won't think twice about it - it's downright scary!
They've managed to create such a toxic political/social environment where vaccinations are concerned (through lobbying and fear campaigns) that anyone who dare speak/act out against vaccinations is attacked and marginalized. Many parents cannot even afford to send their children to day care anymore (or in some cases the schools they want), or get job's in certain positions - because of the Government's push against "anti-vaxxers". Undoubtedly a result of some very effective lobbying/campaigning by the Pharmaceutical companies.

Why not wait for some more definitive studies/conclusions to be made on each vaccine (certainly no issues finding volunteer subjects) before punishing people for not being so sheepishly accepting of the mainstream indoctrination - especially where their children's health is concerned? It's not as if people are going to suddenly start dropping dead en masse because a few kid's didn't get their flue shots. A mad world we're living in.


Your post is like an anti-vax 101 course.

About the money in vaccines; more money is made by treating the diseases they prevent by an enormous factor so if they didn't make vaccines they would make more money. Logic.
Vaccines, due to their very nature of being administered to healthy people are the most tested forms of medication ever and are continually monitored and tested post release.
There are multitudes of definitive studies out there (and yes, even quite a few on vaxxed vs unvaxxed) however ridiculous claims by anti-vaxxers (like this "study") force researchers down blind-alleys to show there's no causation from vaccines. This means precious funding for more pressing issues is used up.

As for your last line, people ARE dying.
www.cidrap.umn.edu...


Cidrap as a source, he'll yeah, they vaccinate people against having a brain
Pick a better source or a less redder nose


"Pick a better source"? Do you mean one that you'r belief system will accept?
Or one which has verifiable data?


I am sure Einstein can take a seat and you can step up to the freaking obvious


After you.

And certainly after you can provide one yourself although I take it from your reply you won't have one will you?
Now that IS "freaking obvious".


Sorry?
Are you asking me to provide a source of verifiable data from a mutual third party to explain that vaccines are all safe and harmless

I am scratching my head here because that's what this whole thread is about, that's what I am asking for, and your clever quips is to ask I provide that source

I don't think you quite understand the issue at hand here



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: snowspirit

In CA it's 10 vaccines, 40 doses.

It's all about the money. Meanwhile, mental issues with our kids have shot up rapidly in lock-step with increased vaccinations. In countries where vaccines aren't used nearly as much, mental issues have much lower rates.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

No, I'm asking you to show verifiable sources which prove your stance.
You agree with the study in the OP even though it's clearly not verifiable and pretty crap science and then you agreed with the article about GB even though I showed why it wasn't an issue. Neither time did you comment on the rebuttals.
So, prove your stance.

Your move.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: MysticPearl

As I've mentioned in an earlier post there's more money in trading disease than in prevention.
And you may find that better and more diagnostic techniques have led to an apparent rise in "mental issues".



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 05:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: GenerationGap


Rose expressed concern that the study would “activate anti-vaccine people in a very serious way” and agreed with the study’s assertion that the results are very preliminary and do not establish a cause and effect relationship


Oh how right he is.

Watch the responses in this thread for said "activation"


Yeah, it's silly, all these anti vaxers, why wouldn't they believe monopolies who make trillions of dollars selling their products
How silly to live in a world where trusting megalomaniacs is considered the acceptable normal
Does anyone really think a buisness making trillions is going to find their own product unsafe...regulate themselves hounestly, loose billions

Your response seems like atypical activation.


Yes, yes they would (and have done).
www.cdc.gov...
Rotashield Withdrawal
edit on 24/2/17 by Pardon? because: Fixed link



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?
a reply to: Raggedyman

No, I'm asking you to show verifiable sources which prove your stance.
You agree with the study in the OP even though it's clearly not verifiable and pretty crap science and then you agreed with the article about GB even though I showed why it wasn't an issue. Neither time did you comment on the rebuttals.
So, prove your stance.

Your move.


What?
How can I agree with the study in the op if it's not verifiable

All I said was I agree more study should be done
All the rest is some crazy tangent you have gone down the road on

I guess you don't believe more study should be done, that's fine by me
But I think my point is and has always been clear, not to you maybe but others seem to understand it

Maybe 1 to many vaccines?



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Pardon?
a reply to: Raggedyman

No, I'm asking you to show verifiable sources which prove your stance.
You agree with the study in the OP even though it's clearly not verifiable and pretty crap science and then you agreed with the article about GB even though I showed why it wasn't an issue. Neither time did you comment on the rebuttals.
So, prove your stance.

Your move.


What?
How can I agree with the study in the op if it's not verifiable

All I said was I agree more study should be done
All the rest is some crazy tangent you have gone down the road on

I guess you don't believe more study should be done, that's fine by me
But I think my point is and has always been clear, not to you maybe but others seem to understand it

Maybe 1 to many vaccines?


"How can I agree with the study in the op if it's not verifiable"

I'll type this slowly so you can keep up...

You stated that the "study" needs looking into.
The "study" has no real scientific basis for its conclusions and is essentially saying 2+3=potato.
You stated that you think "more study should be done...".
So, show some real reasons why this should be looked into further as the study in the OP isn't valid so doesn't need following up.
Otherwise any pretend scientist could come up with any pointless hypothesis and demand further investigation couldn't they (which is pretty much what happens in anti-vaccine land")?


edit on 26/2/17 by Pardon? because: Removed link



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Pardon?
a reply to: Raggedyman

No, I'm asking you to show verifiable sources which prove your stance.
You agree with the study in the OP even though it's clearly not verifiable and pretty crap science and then you agreed with the article about GB even though I showed why it wasn't an issue. Neither time did you comment on the rebuttals.
So, prove your stance.

Your move.


What?
How can I agree with the study in the op if it's not verifiable

All I said was I agree more study should be done
All the rest is some crazy tangent you have gone down the road on

I guess you don't believe more study should be done, that's fine by me
But I think my point is and has always been clear, not to you maybe but others seem to understand it

Maybe 1 to many vaccines?


"How can I agree with the study in the op if it's not verifiable"

I'll type this slowly so you can keep up...

You stated that the "study" needs looking into.
The "study" has no real scientific basis for its conclusions and is essentially saying 2+3=potato.
You stated that you think "more study should be done...".
So, show some real reasons why this should be looked into further as the study in the OP isn't valid so doesn't need following up.
Otherwise any pretend scientist could come up with any pointless hypothesis and demand further investigation couldn't they (which is pretty much what happens in anti-vaccine land")?



This science thing must be hard to fathom out for some people
You are asking me
Why do I think there should be research into vaccines

Try this,
because they are administering it to us and our children and there are questions arising from that by countless sources

Ok

And last I read, a hypothesis- ah don't worry



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Pardon?
a reply to: Raggedyman

No, I'm asking you to show verifiable sources which prove your stance.
You agree with the study in the OP even though it's clearly not verifiable and pretty crap science and then you agreed with the article about GB even though I showed why it wasn't an issue. Neither time did you comment on the rebuttals.
So, prove your stance.

Your move.


What?
How can I agree with the study in the op if it's not verifiable

All I said was I agree more study should be done
All the rest is some crazy tangent you have gone down the road on

I guess you don't believe more study should be done, that's fine by me
But I think my point is and has always been clear, not to you maybe but others seem to understand it

Maybe 1 to many vaccines?


"How can I agree with the study in the op if it's not verifiable"

I'll type this slowly so you can keep up...

You stated that the "study" needs looking into.
The "study" has no real scientific basis for its conclusions and is essentially saying 2+3=potato.
You stated that you think "more study should be done...".
So, show some real reasons why this should be looked into further as the study in the OP isn't valid so doesn't need following up.
Otherwise any pretend scientist could come up with any pointless hypothesis and demand further investigation couldn't they (which is pretty much what happens in anti-vaccine land")?



This science thing must be hard to fathom out for some people
You are asking me
Why do I think there should be research into vaccines

Try this,
because they are administering it to us and our children and there are questions arising from that by countless sources

Ok

And last I read, a hypothesis- ah don't worry


No, I'm not asking you why you think there should be research into vaccines.
I'm asking you why research should be conducted on the basis of this nonsensical "hypothesis" as per the OP as it would be pointless.
I could easily write an abstract and hypothesise that vaccines cause anything whatsoever and from your perspective we would have to conduct further research into it all.
There is a definitive point at where an hypothesis fails or makes the grade and is followed up.
This one fails.

I agree, some people certainly have a hard time understanding this "science thing".


(post by Raggedyman removed for a manners violation)

posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Pardon?
a reply to: Raggedyman

No, I'm asking you to show verifiable sources which prove your stance.
You agree with the study in the OP even though it's clearly not verifiable and pretty crap science and then you agreed with the article about GB even though I showed why it wasn't an issue. Neither time did you comment on the rebuttals.
So, prove your stance.

Your move.


What?
How can I agree with the study in the op if it's not verifiable

All I said was I agree more study should be done
All the rest is some crazy tangent you have gone down the road on

I guess you don't believe more study should be done, that's fine by me
But I think my point is and has always been clear, not to you maybe but others seem to understand it

Maybe 1 to many vaccines?


"How can I agree with the study in the op if it's not verifiable"

I'll type this slowly so you can keep up...

You stated that the "study" needs looking into.
The "study" has no real scientific basis for its conclusions and is essentially saying 2+3=potato.
You stated that you think "more study should be done...".
So, show some real reasons why this should be looked into further as the study in the OP isn't valid so doesn't need following up.
Otherwise any pretend scientist could come up with any pointless hypothesis and demand further investigation couldn't they (which is pretty much what happens in anti-vaccine land")?



This science thing must be hard to fathom out for some people
You are asking me
Why do I think there should be research into vaccines

Try this,
because they are administering it to us and our children and there are questions arising from that by countless sources

Ok

And last I read, a hypothesis- ah don't worry


No, I'm not asking you why you think there should be research into vaccines.
I'm asking you why research should be conducted on the basis of this nonsensical "hypothesis" as per the OP as it would be pointless.
I could easily write an abstract and hypothesise that vaccines cause anything whatsoever and from your perspective we would have to conduct further research into it all.
There is a definitive point at where an hypothesis fails or makes the grade and is followed up.
This one fails.

I agree, some people certainly have a hard time understanding this "science thing".


Let me have another crack and make it less ill mannered then shall we

People who refuse more scientific testing into vaccines are anti vaxers
People who wont listen to people frightened of vaccines are anti vaxers
People who have decided on no need for vaccine testing any more are effectively encouraging others to stop vaccinating because of their concerns.
....Anti Vaxers.

And just an aside, the research shouldnt be done
" on the basis of this nonsensical "hypothesis" as per the OP "
IT SHOULD BE DONE based on all the other issues that have arisen in the past few decades and the fear there is in the public

Easy isnt it Pardon?



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Pardon?
a reply to: Raggedyman

No, I'm asking you to show verifiable sources which prove your stance.
You agree with the study in the OP even though it's clearly not verifiable and pretty crap science and then you agreed with the article about GB even though I showed why it wasn't an issue. Neither time did you comment on the rebuttals.
So, prove your stance.

Your move.


What?
How can I agree with the study in the op if it's not verifiable

All I said was I agree more study should be done
All the rest is some crazy tangent you have gone down the road on

I guess you don't believe more study should be done, that's fine by me
But I think my point is and has always been clear, not to you maybe but others seem to understand it

Maybe 1 to many vaccines?


"How can I agree with the study in the op if it's not verifiable"

I'll type this slowly so you can keep up...

You stated that the "study" needs looking into.
The "study" has no real scientific basis for its conclusions and is essentially saying 2+3=potato.
You stated that you think "more study should be done...".
So, show some real reasons why this should be looked into further as the study in the OP isn't valid so doesn't need following up.
Otherwise any pretend scientist could come up with any pointless hypothesis and demand further investigation couldn't they (which is pretty much what happens in anti-vaccine land")?



This science thing must be hard to fathom out for some people
You are asking me
Why do I think there should be research into vaccines

Try this,
because they are administering it to us and our children and there are questions arising from that by countless sources

Ok

And last I read, a hypothesis- ah don't worry


No, I'm not asking you why you think there should be research into vaccines.
I'm asking you why research should be conducted on the basis of this nonsensical "hypothesis" as per the OP as it would be pointless.
I could easily write an abstract and hypothesise that vaccines cause anything whatsoever and from your perspective we would have to conduct further research into it all.
There is a definitive point at where an hypothesis fails or makes the grade and is followed up.
This one fails.

I agree, some people certainly have a hard time understanding this "science thing".


Let me have another crack and make it less ill mannered then shall we

People who refuse more scientific testing into vaccines are anti vaxers
People who wont listen to people frightened of vaccines are anti vaxers
People who have decided on no need for vaccine testing any more are effectively encouraging others to stop vaccinating because of their concerns.
....Anti Vaxers.

And just an aside, the research shouldnt be done
" on the basis of this nonsensical "hypothesis" as per the OP "
IT SHOULD BE DONE based on all the other issues that have arisen in the past few decades and the fear there is in the public

Easy isnt it Pardon?



People who keep moving the goalposts when it comes to vaccine research are anti-vaxxers (see OP for example).
People who dismiss the countless studies which have been published and reproduced yet still demand more are anti-vaxxers.

People who are concerned about vaccines need correct information. Anti-vaxxers corrupt that information to promote their twisted (and often very well paid for agendas) by suggesting nonsensical studies should be performed.

Show me where people have decided on "no more testing for vaccines" as vaccines are continually being tested and monitored. The testing doesn't stop.
What you mean is that vaccines should be tested for things they have nothing to do with based upon junk science like the OP.
No, that avenue will put more people off vaccinating as it's essentially promoting misinformation. It also takes up valuable resources which could be better used.

Seriously, which part can't you get your head around?



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

People who keep moving the goalposts when it comes to vaccine research are anti-vaxxers (see OP for example).
People who dismiss the countless studies which have been published and reproduced yet still demand more are anti-vaxxers.

People who are concerned about vaccines need correct information. Anti-vaxxers corrupt that information to promote their twisted (and often very well paid for agendas) by suggesting nonsensical studies should be performed.

Show me where people have decided on "no more testing for vaccines" as vaccines are continually being tested and monitored. The testing doesn't stop.
What you mean is that vaccines should be tested for things they have nothing to do with based upon junk science like the OP.
No, that avenue will put more people off vaccinating as it's essentially promoting misinformation. It also takes up valuable resources which could be better used.

Seriously, which part can't you get your head around?


Seriously, which part can't you get your head around?
Sounds like you are having a little melt down there fella

Go read the opening post, you have missed the whole point



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

People who keep moving the goalposts when it comes to vaccine research are anti-vaxxers (see OP for example).
People who dismiss the countless studies which have been published and reproduced yet still demand more are anti-vaxxers.

People who are concerned about vaccines need correct information. Anti-vaxxers corrupt that information to promote their twisted (and often very well paid for agendas) by suggesting nonsensical studies should be performed.

Show me where people have decided on "no more testing for vaccines" as vaccines are continually being tested and monitored. The testing doesn't stop.
What you mean is that vaccines should be tested for things they have nothing to do with based upon junk science like the OP.
No, that avenue will put more people off vaccinating as it's essentially promoting misinformation. It also takes up valuable resources which could be better used.

Seriously, which part can't you get your head around?


Seriously, which part can't you get your head around?
Sounds like you are having a little melt down there fella

Go read the opening post, you have missed the whole point



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Pardon?

People who keep moving the goalposts when it comes to vaccine research are anti-vaxxers (see OP for example).
People who dismiss the countless studies which have been published and reproduced yet still demand more are anti-vaxxers.

People who are concerned about vaccines need correct information. Anti-vaxxers corrupt that information to promote their twisted (and often very well paid for agendas) by suggesting nonsensical studies should be performed.

Show me where people have decided on "no more testing for vaccines" as vaccines are continually being tested and monitored. The testing doesn't stop.
What you mean is that vaccines should be tested for things they have nothing to do with based upon junk science like the OP.
No, that avenue will put more people off vaccinating as it's essentially promoting misinformation. It also takes up valuable resources which could be better used.

Seriously, which part can't you get your head around?


Seriously, which part can't you get your head around?
Sounds like you are having a little melt down there fella

Go read the opening post, you have missed the whole point


I have thanks.
And no I haven't missed the point.

As for the melt down, wasn't it you who had the manners violation (and double-posted the same thing)?

So, let's go back to the OP.
The "study" involving the tics etc doesn't require following up as it was initiated via a data dive via known anti-vax activists (RF Kennedy was one of the main sponsors). Aside from that there are several other issues which from a scientific perspective render it useless.
I linked this earlier on but I doubt you've read it.
Have a read, see what you think.
Scienceblogs

So their correlation is essentially fabricated so requires no further follow-up.
Are you keeping up?

The other one that is mentioned, the correlation between narcolepsy and the H1N1 vaccine was seen to be real and was further investigated. The outcome of which is that yes, the vaccine did provoke narcolepsy in these subjects but the part of the vaccine that did it would also have been present in the actual flu virus itself. So had they not been vaccinated and caught the flu they would have developed narcolepsy.
As far as I'm aware that particular vaccine has been altered and has caused no further issues.

So, to summarize, OP's study is garbage and doesn't need following-up.
Did you get all that?



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

Go read the op again and again and again
Actually don't bother, can't help



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 03:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Pardon?

Go read the op again and again and again
Actually don't bother, can't help


No, help me out, which part specifically do you want me to read?
Which part haven't I covered?



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Pardon?

Go read the op again and again and again
Actually don't bother, can't help


No, help me out, which part specifically do you want me to read?
Which part haven't I covered?


We disagree, now go live your life

I don't care what you think



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Pardon?

Go read the op again and again and again
Actually don't bother, can't help


No, help me out, which part specifically do you want me to read?
Which part haven't I covered?


We disagree, now go live your life

I don't care what you think


You see there's the difference.
I DO care what you think, or more specifically why you think what you think.
I would like to know why you think this "study" should be followed-up when from a scientific perspective it's not warranted.
If you know something no-one else does then please share it.

Also if I have missed something in the OP then let me know, I like to learn...




top topics



 
48
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join