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: 4
48
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

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...


I don't know if you have a learning disability, try and follow me
I don't care was probably wrong, I don't mind
If you want to vaccinate yourself, your kids that's fine, it's your choice
If others don't, then I understand, now leave me alone

edit on 28-2-2017 by Raggedyman because: Clarity




posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Anything to avoid answering a straight question, huh?



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Pardon?

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...


I don't know if you have a learning disability, try and follow me
I don't care was probably wrong, I don't mind
If you want to vaccinate yourself, your kids that's fine, it's your choice
If others don't, then I understand, now leave me alone


If wanting to learn more is a disability then yes, I have a learning disability.
Your second sentence doesn't make any sense.
Correct, it is a choice.
If people don't then I'd like to understand why as most of the time it's because they don''t understand or have been misinformed.

A little hint for you, telling someone to re-read something is all well and good but if the person your telling has read it and you still go on about it then do the right thing and point out what they've missed else they'll keep replying to you...



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: GenerationGap

GREAT find! Thank you!

...and of course there are.






posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Of course, studies have also linked herpes flare ups to autism. And considering the rise in autism cases and the increase in sexual licentiousness in society have both increased together, there may be something to that.

It is estimated that 1 in 5 American women have the herpes 2 virus today.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 07:22 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: 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...


I don't know if you have a learning disability, try and follow me
I don't care was probably wrong, I don't mind
If you want to vaccinate yourself, your kids that's fine, it's your choice
If others don't, then I understand, now leave me alone


If wanting to learn more is a disability then yes, I have a learning disability.
Your second sentence doesn't make any sense.
Correct, it is a choice.
If people don't then I'd like to understand why as most of the time it's because they don''t understand or have been misinformed.

A little hint for you, telling someone to re-read something is all well and good but if the person your telling has read it and you still go on about it then do the right thing and point out what they've missed else they'll keep replying to you...



Try learning this, I promise is not difficult
Some people are dubious about vaccines
If the government want to increase the rate of vaccination then they have one choice

Ease peoples minds, you cant ease a persons mind by acting like you do. Science

A little hint for you, bitchin and moaning, demanding, bullying people into your opinion is not going to work all the time.
Go reread the op, if you dont understand it then ask someone, ask someone else because I dont mind what you think.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 03:43 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?

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...


I don't know if you have a learning disability, try and follow me
I don't care was probably wrong, I don't mind
If you want to vaccinate yourself, your kids that's fine, it's your choice
If others don't, then I understand, now leave me alone


If wanting to learn more is a disability then yes, I have a learning disability.
Your second sentence doesn't make any sense.
Correct, it is a choice.
If people don't then I'd like to understand why as most of the time it's because they don''t understand or have been misinformed.

A little hint for you, telling someone to re-read something is all well and good but if the person your telling has read it and you still go on about it then do the right thing and point out what they've missed else they'll keep replying to you...



Try learning this, I promise is not difficult
Some people are dubious about vaccines
If the government want to increase the rate of vaccination then they have one choice

Ease peoples minds, you cant ease a persons mind by acting like you do. Science

A little hint for you, bitchin and moaning, demanding, bullying people into your opinion is not going to work all the time.
Go reread the op, if you dont understand it then ask someone, ask someone else because I dont mind what you think.



There's obviously a raw nerve that needs some attention with you.

Tell me exactly what I'm doing.
Then re-read your posts and look at the way you've been responding (hint: one of your posts has been removed for a manners violation).

A post is put up (which I've read and re-read and understood it extremely well thanks) which attempts to cast doubt on the safety of vaccines.
It's attempting to look and sound scientific to the layman to prey on that dubious nature you mentioned.
However, to a non-layman, it fails in every aspect of the scientific method.
It's not science, it's lies.
The one and only reason it's been made is to frighten people away from being vaccinated (and why i can only guess at). If left unchecked no doubt people will decide against vaccination based upon it's fabricated conclusions and intimations.

This and all of the other anti-vax scare studies are the reason why people are questioning vaccines.
So whilst it's always valid to question science it's equally valid to dismiss science when it's obviously fabricated like this one.
Okay, it seems like you have a distrust of government, welcome to the masses but does that mean that everyone who questions them is right? No, not at all, certainly not in this case.

Instead of blaming the government and asking them to calm people's fears you should instead attack the ghouls who put this information out there.

They should be outed for what they are, anti-vax and anti-health with no care nor responsibility for anyone other than themselves.
They are the ones doing harm so I suggest you take those belief-based blinkers off and take a proper look at the real world.
Either that or go and lie down in a dark room, you sound like you need it.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

Oh well done you, you have an opinion, good boy you,, we like that
I have one as well, now run along



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Pardon?

Oh well done you, you have an opinion, good boy you,, we like that
I have one as well, now run along


Wrong again sonny Jim.
I don't have an opinion, I have facts.

Again, you're not really up to speed on the science thing are you?



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Pardon?

Oh well done you, you have an opinion, good boy you,, we like that
I have one as well, now run along


Wrong again sonny Jim.
I don't have an opinion, I have facts.

Again, you're not really up to speed on the science thing are you?

Sonny Jim?
Creepy, Jim Snailyn to my friends..

Here I am asking for the facts, go ahead
Best of luck



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I don't know you so I can't call you a friend.

Plenty of facts out there if you look.
Plenty of fiction too, see OP...



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

You can call me friend or if taken, anyway you want. We disagree on this as well as many other things I am sure
Facts, unfortunately I have seen the truth manipulated, construed, twisted and poisoned to reach an outcome to a persons likening for their own benefit though they were complete lies
I could go on, facts don't mean anything and neither does evidence

I am still undecided



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 04:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Pardon?

You can call me friend or if taken, anyway you want. We disagree on this as well as many other things I am sure
Facts, unfortunately I have seen the truth manipulated, construed, twisted and poisoned to reach an outcome to a persons likening for their own benefit though they were complete lies
I could go on, facts don't mean anything and neither does evidence

I am still undecided


That paragraph pretty much sums up every anti-vax "study" I've ever seen.

The thing about real science is that it stands up to scrutiny.
And if it stands up to scrutiny then scientifically it has to be accepted and therefore becomes fact.
Whether you as an individual agrees with that is completely irrelevant and would only become relevant if you could challenge them on a scientific level.

So no, we don't really disagree as such because we're not singing from the same sheet.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 05:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Pardon?

You can call me friend or if taken, anyway you want. We disagree on this as well as many other things I am sure
Facts, unfortunately I have seen the truth manipulated, construed, twisted and poisoned to reach an outcome to a persons likening for their own benefit though they were complete lies
I could go on, facts don't mean anything and neither does evidence

I am still undecided


That paragraph pretty much sums up every anti-vax "study" I've ever seen.

The thing about real science is that it stands up to scrutiny.
And if it stands up to scrutiny then scientifically it has to be accepted and therefore becomes fact.
Whether you as an individual agrees with that is completely irrelevant and would only become relevant if you could challenge them on a scientific level.

So no, we don't really disagree as such because we're not singing from the same sheet.


And your pro vax and I believe every thing I am told by those who tell me they are smarter than me is the same stuff I hear from sheep every day of my life

What you believe is irrelevant to me, tough it out sweety

Of course we don't disagree, we agree, yeah sure we do

Facepalm



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 12:01 PM
link   
OP, here. Since we've gotten away from the study, and the discourse has gone to the Vaxer - AntiVaxer binary debate I figure I'll throw in my two pennies:

There's ridiculous assumptions on both sides; mainly because it's not a binary debate, IMO.

Vaxxers seem to be on board with anything science wants to inject into the human body. There's going to be a new wave of vaccinations, it's already started, and we are bound to discover that certain vaccines affect different people differently. Age, race, sex, hormonal make up, and even individual organ capability (i.e. hypothyroidism) will determine what side affects these new wave of vaccines present. Only until there's been a generation of people these have been injected into, we will not have the data to say which is safe for whom; and even then it's only going to be based on probabilities not certainties.

Anti-Vaxers seem to reject all vaccinations. That's a bit too far. As far as my skepticism; my own pediatrician recommended that I not do the MMR All-in-One vaccine with my kid. Instead, my kid got vaccinated for mumps, three months later for measles, three months later for Rubella...just like has been done safely for more than two generations.

For me, I think there's hysteria on both sides. The West Boro Science Churchers that believe every new thing science comes up with is good for you, so take it and ask no questions, are completely out of their freaking minds. The folks that say any thing science comes up with is out evil are simply out of touch with history and some of the miracles science is capable of...

But we have got to come at this with rational minds; and those that insist on making this a binary issue, regardless of what side of the isle they are on of that choice, are completely irrational.

That's my take.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: GenerationGap
Article



The researchers found correlations for one vaccine in particular: the influenza vaccine, which was associated with higher rates of OCD, anorexia, anxiety disorder and tic disorder. A biological explanation for these correlations has not been found, but a potential mechanism could lie in the body’s immune response to vaccines, the study suggested.





Yes, immune response or perhaps the more than 50 neurotoxins that vaccines contain.

Or 49 I mean, as most removed mercury.

edit on 25-3-2017 by winterwind93 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 05:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: winterwind93
neurotoxins


At what dose?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Why is it crap? How do you know it is? Can you prove it? Studies come out of all sorts of universities and it does not mean they are wrong-- though 75%-90% of published science is.
The study has to be evaluated on its own rights, and if you are presuming to criticise it I would expect that you have accessed the paper, reviewed all the basic assumptions, and checked all the statistics.

There is serious, and realistic concern about the aluminium adjuvant in vaccines (oral aluminium load is less of an issue as it is excreted faster than the aluminium in granulomas etc from vaccines, both in terms of neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders. That concern is well founded, there is not a single molecule in the healthy human body that needs aluminium.

and then there are these studies--417 in the first search I did:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

As aluminium will accumulate there is a good argument to be made that we should be cautious about how many vaccines we give- and that is not an antivax argument- it is about seeking balance.
edit on 29-3-2017 by Barliman because: forgot the hyperlink



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

Africa is a completely different question. Look at the stats- deaths from infectious disease had become rare in the West by the time that vaccines were introduced (the exceptions being smallpox, which ultimately disappeared faster after the compulsory vaccine was started,and polio which remains difficult to explain-- it may have been an interaction between enterovirus and DDT exposure- and it started very recently in our history.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

There's obviously a raw nerve that needs some attention with you.

Tell me exactly what I'm doing.
Then re-read your posts and look at the way you've been responding (hint: one of your posts has been removed for a manners violation).

A post is put up (which I've read and re-read and understood it extremely well thanks) which attempts to cast doubt on the safety of vaccines.
It's attempting to look and sound scientific to the layman to prey on that dubious nature you mentioned.
However, to a non-layman, it fails in every aspect of the scientific method.
It's not science, it's lies.
The one and only reason it's been made is to frighten people away from being vaccinated (and why i can only guess at). If left unchecked no doubt people will decide against vaccination based upon it's fabricated conclusions and intimations.

This and all of the other anti-vax scare studies are the reason why people are questioning vaccines.
So whilst it's always valid to question science it's equally valid to dismiss science when it's obviously fabricated like this one.
Okay, it seems like you have a distrust of government, welcome to the masses but does that mean that everyone who questions them is right? No, not at all, certainly not in this case.

Instead of blaming the government and asking them to calm people's fears you should instead attack the ghouls who put this information out there.

They should be outed for what they are, anti-vax and anti-health with no care nor responsibility for anyone other than themselves.
They are the ones doing harm so I suggest you take those belief-based blinkers off and take a proper look at the real world.
Either that or go and lie down in a dark room, you sound like you need it.


Actually a significant group of those who are uncomfortable about vaccines have had or know someone who has had a significant reaction. A good number are also unhappy about some of the ingredients of the vaccines. There are studies that show better health outcomes in non vaccinating families in the West- have been for years.
On top of that the efficacy rates in vaccines are usually not as good as claimed, and some, like the new pertussis vaccine actually encourage asymptomatic carriage of the bacteria and increase risk of transmission to the non vaccinated ( and yes Pertussis in babies is a terrifying illness and well worth vaccinating for.

Additionally the fact that the companies are indemnified against consumer injury raises concern- especially when the companies are the same ones that have been penalised time and time again for dishonesty and shoddy products (Merck- who make one of the cervical Wart vaccines) got done for 84.5 billion dollars over the 50,000 odd deaths by heart attack caused by Vioxx- which only got accepted by the FDA due to fraud.

Then the rapid production of new vaccines does not allow for proper evaluation of the damn things.

Now lets get down to the science- which is often corrupted. We know for a fact that 75-90% of published papers cannot be replicated. We know that drug companies hide uncomfortable results by pretending the study was never done, or reformatting the study so that it appears to be looking for something else and is not found in the search engines.
None of this is controversial- and it can all be searched for.

However vaccine schedules are not based on just the science- they are the product of guidelines.
One example of which I am well and truly familiar is the Australian Immunization Handbook 10th edition- published in 2013.
We are allowed to know the name of the committee who oversaw the handbook, but I have not been able to identify a statement of conflict of interest.
There is no consumer representative, and there should be several.

The science for this was based on literature searches from 2006-2011.. the science on the safety of Aluminium adjuvants was based on a Cochrane review done on 21 papers in 2004.
We are given no information as to what criteria were used in choosing papers to review, and we have no idea at all as to whether the committee were critical of holes in the scientific database. I doubt it very much.

The guidelines are subject to minor annual reviews but I cannot see that there is a comprehensive literature review done.

One site raising concerns about vaccine safety lists 27 papers from the last couple of years.which have not been reviewed which are clearly highly likely to be important, especially when it comes to aluminium safety (New studies out of China)
My own search on aluminium and neurotoxicity pulled 417 papers:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

For the non vaccinated, simple instruction in quarantining is highly effective. The Leicester experiment in the 19th century, when the bulk of the town refused smallpox vaccine proved that a combination of case finding and rapid hospitalisation and quarantining was highly effective-- as Leicester soon had a lower rate of smallpox than the rest of the English.

Now given that, and given that there are serious doubts about herd immunity I can see no reason that vaccines should be forced on people who do not want them, and I can see no reason why the medical profession should break from a long and honourable principal of informed consent.

As a rule, most doctors I know (and I know a few) would not even know enough to give informed consent.



edit on 29-3-2017 by Barliman because: punctuation/quotation marks



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join