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.

 

Tetanus Vaccine

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I'll admit it is hard to find data that supports my stance conclusively. I contend that Big Pharma does not pay to find negative data, and it is costly for independent research to be conducted. I also contend that the independent research that may be found and negates big pharma science is bought, and/or buried. Ergo...you will not find that data.

This is a small find dated before the Tetanus trials:



intimm.oxfordjournals.org...

Bypass by an alternate ‘carrier’ of acquired unresponsiveness to hCG upon repeated immunization with tetanus-conjugated vaccine
Amitabh Gaur, K. Arunan, O. Singh and G. P. Talwar
+ Author Affiliations
National Institute of Immunology New Delhi 110067, India
1Present address: Department of Medicine, Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, Stanford University Medical School, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Correspondence to. Dr Amitabh Gaur, Department of Medicine, Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, Stanford University Medical School, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Received September 12, 1989.
Accepted November 7, 1989.

Abstract
We report here the use of an alternative cariler diphtheria toxoid (DT) In human subjects to overcome antigen-specific unresponsiveness upon Immunization with a hapten/ligand-carrier conjugate. In the phase I clinical trial of a birth control vaccine using gonadotrophin subunits linked to tetanus toxoid, some of the subjects failed to evoke a booster antibody response to human chorlonic gonadotrophin (hCG). Presentation of the ligand on DT Instead In subsequent Immunizations restored anti-hCG response.

edit on 3-1-2011 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
People believe that vaccines cause autism and other stuff like that...bottom like without vaccines you had a 2/3 chance of not being alive right now.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
I'll admit it is hard to find data that supports my stance conclusively. I contend that Big Pharma does not pay to find negative data, and it is costly for independent research to be conducted. I also contend that the independent research that may be found and negates big pharma science is bought, and/or buried. Ergo...you will not find that data.


Really? There are negative studies about new drugs and therapies written and published all the time. The polio vaccine isn't a big "money-maker" anymore. It is given for little-to-no cost at every public health hospital and clinic in the country.

Also, how, exactly, would "Big Pharma" be able to manipulate epidemiology data published before they really existed as a political force? Shouldn't you be able to point to sharp declines in polio that match, at least somewhat, the rate seen in the year following the introduction of the vaccine?

How do ou account for the nearly 50% drop in 1955-1956 (when the vaccine was introduced) which was never seen previously? How is this data being manipulated?

As for the link you posted, please re-read it. It is NOT about a tetanus vaccine. It is for a birth control vaccine that uses dipteria toxoid (a protein) as a conjugate. The toxoid is harmless, but has been found to be a pretty nifty carrier for other proteins, as it can evoke an immune response but will not be targeted itself. The study, though, has absolutely NOTHING to do with tetanus vaccines.
edit on 1/3/2011 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Maybe you should reread it!

Edit to add, for those that want it explained: The abstract says it will try to use the DT toxoid instead of the Tetanus because the tetanus failed to deliver a constant result.
edit on 3-1-2011 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Maybe you should reread it!

Edit to add, for those that want it explained: The abstract says it will try to use the DT toxoid instead of the Tetanus because the tetanus failed to deliver a constant result.
edit on 3-1-2011 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)


*sigh*

From the abstract you posted:


In the phase I clinical trial of a birth control vaccine using gonadotrophin subunits linked to tetanus toxoid


Do you see it now?

Additionally, here is some information for you about the use of toxoid as a vaccine conjugate:

Toxoid in vaccines

Please note this bit in particular: "Toxoids are used as vaccines for they induce an immune response to the original toxin or increase the response to another antigen".

In the case of your abstract, toxoid was being used to increase the response to hCG in a birth control vaccine, it WAS NOT BEING USED AS A TETANUS VACCINE.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by RogerT
do some thorough research on the rather dismal history of the vaccine scam


And what a dismal history it is:

- Eliminating small pox from ALL nations
- Reducing paralytic polio to zero in most first world nations
- Saving countless infants from one of the most common forms of encephalitis (H. flu)
- Reducing measles and rubella to nearly non-existent status in the first world
- Sparing countless children from deafness caused by mumps
- Reducing the severity and frequency of pertussis
- Reducing the rate of death from influenze in infants and the elderly

Can you remind me again how many similar events were achieved by homeopathy and naturopathy? I'll need verifiable data, by the way, not some blog or personal site of some snake oil salesman claiming he has "cured a million people of cancer" with no proof other than his word.
edit on 1/3/2011 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)


I am unsure on the rest...but polio WENT UP when they started vaccines for it - and had been falling steadily because better food and hygiene were available/practiced. So you might want to remove polio fron this list...



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

I am unsure on the rest...but polio WENT UP when they started vaccines for it - and had been falling steadily because better food and hygiene were available/practiced. So you might want to remove polio fron this list...


This is blatantly false. I provided a link (on page two, I think? Maybe the bottom of page 1) showing the statistics of polio from the early 1950s into the 1960s. The year the vaccine was introduced, there was a nearly 50% decrease in polio cases. That drop had not been even remotely matched in previous years.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Oh yep we forgot the human race died before modern medicine did it not for all you doctors.

No matter if small pox was gone or not mankind would be here, that is life. Mankind existed for how long before modern vaccinations?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Oh yep we forgot the human race died before modern medicine did it not for all you doctors.

No matter if small pox was gone or not mankind would be here, that is life. Mankind existed for how long before modern vaccinations?



Would you mind lending me the time machine you used to go back and "undo" modern medicine, and then travel into the future to see the result?

I mean...you DO have a time machine, right?

I would hate to think you're arguing against data by using hypothetical situations about hundreds of years of society, while ignoring socio-political implications of disease, the advent of cities and urbanization, the effect population growth and declines have had on disease, and so on.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


I never said that, i said arrogance of modern doctors think that mankind was somehow saved with todays ideas. So what happened all those years without it?

I never said anything about getting rid of modern medicine, i clearly said that arrogance of todays medicine groups in regards in a persons health.

Even if you never stopped small pox and all these other things mankind would be here today fact.

Yep alot of good things are done today in medicine like surgery and other things, but it was not the reason why mankind is here today.

The people in the Amazon still have survived. They have people going there from all over the world, and they where never wiped out by modern germs?

Explain how the people of the amazon still exist?
Also explain how mankind has still not cured the common cold, which must of been one of the most researched illnesses going?

I forgot your know it alls, but without any real clue above being told by companies to hand out large amounts of drugs for everything.
edit on 1/3/2011 by andy1033 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
Even if you never stopped small pox and all these other things mankind would be here today fact.


While it's certainly likely this is true, how do you know it is a "fact"?

Weren't you the one just whining about arrogance? That's awfully ironic.


The people in the Amazon still have survived.


And they also have a shorter life span, a high infant mortality rate, high rate of death of preventable disease, and so on.


Explain how the people of the amazon still exist?


I'll explain that when you can quote where I said smallpox would have eliminated humanity. I don't see why I should have to explain a point I never made. Maybe you should read a thread before commenting about something not even related to the discussion.


explain how mankind has still not cured the common cold, which must of been one of the most researched illnesses going?


Because "the common cold" is caused by, literally, hundreds of different bacteria, viruses, fungi, and pollens. Maybe if you had even a shred of knowledge on the subject, you would know this. But, instead, you ignorantly blather on as if what you're saying is true simply because you wish it to be.


I forgot your know it alls, but without any real clue above being told by companies to hand out large amounts of drugs for everything.


I'm not sure there is a cogent thought in this collection of words.
edit on 1/3/2011 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
And they also have a shorter life span, a high infant mortality rate, high rate of death of preventable disease, and so on.


They still exist and they have done for how long?

Yep mankind would of had problems, but we would of been still here.

Even the black death in europe was stopped and it did not wipe out everyone.

All i am saying is even without modern medicine humans would of survived, but somehow people always assume that we are like some sort of soft animal group that would of crumbled under a small flu. Just look at what swine flu did, and that was supposed to be bad. People should all be told just to make sure your airways are clear, and most of those deaths would never of happened. But of course the media will never tell people how to do something themselves, and which is totally preventable in most cases.
edit on 1/3/2011 by andy1033 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Maybe you should reread it!

Edit to add, for those that want it explained: The abstract says it will try to use the DT toxoid instead of the Tetanus because the tetanus failed to deliver a constant result.
edit on 3-1-2011 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)


*sigh*

From the abstract you posted:


In the phase I clinical trial of a birth control vaccine using gonadotrophin subunits linked to tetanus toxoid


Do you see it now?

Additionally, here is some information for you about the use of toxoid as a vaccine conjugate:

Toxoid in vaccines

Please note this bit in particular: "Toxoids are used as vaccines for they induce an immune response to the original toxin or increase the response to another antigen".

In the case of your abstract, toxoid was being used to increase the response to hCG in a birth control vaccine, it WAS NOT BEING USED AS A TETANUS VACCINE.


No duh! It says right there they were trying to create an immune response to HCG by attaching it to the tetanus toxoid. They called it "birth control" and meant sterilization. Attaching it to a toxoid, what was the point? To be able to deliver mass sterilization by way of an inocuous vaccine Otherwise, why not just deliver an HCG vaccine and call it what it is?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
My question to those mass sterilisation people.

Why do you care if humans are sterilised? I could not care less if they sterilised me, do you people really care that much about bringing kids into this horrible world?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
No duh! It says right there they were trying to create an immune response to HCG by attaching it to the tetanus toxoid. They called it "birth control" and meant sterilization. Attaching it to a toxoid, what was the point? To be able to deliver mass sterilization by way of an inocuous vaccine Otherwise, why not just deliver an HCG vaccine and call it what it is?


You know that birth control shots have been around for some time now, right? I get my Depo Provera shot every few months. It uses a different mechanism, but it is an offshoot of the research into non-pill forms of birth control to make it easier and more reliable. The hCG shot was likely being looked into as a female version of the vasectomy, and as a less invasive alternative to having you "tubes tied". Why shouldn't women be in charge of their reproductive health?

I also like how you COMPLETELY ignored that you were pushing this as proof that "tetanus shots" were being used to sterilize people. Have a problem admitting you're wrong?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
All i am saying is even without modern medicine humans would of survived


I do not believe that VneZonyDostupa implied otherwise. However, without vaccines for small pox, polio, etc....you very well may not exist today.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033

They still exist and they have done for how long?


What does anything I have said have to do with a population being eradicated?

Do you normally argue with people by making things up and then pretending they said it?

What an odd way to debate.


Yep mankind would of had problems, but we would of been still here.


Would HAVE. Would HAVE. That's a pet peeve of mine. English is my third language, and even I cringe when I see or hear someone use "would of", "should of", or "could of". It doesn't even make sense when you look at the words!
.

All i am saying is even without modern medicine humans would of survived, but somehow people always assume that we are like some sort of soft animal group that would of crumbled under a small flu. Just look at what swine flu did, and that was supposed to be bad. People should all be told just to make sure your airways are clear, and most of those deaths would never of happened. But of course the media will never tell people how to do something themselves, and which is totally preventable in most cases.


I'm still waiting for you to post ANY quote in this thread where I or anyone else has said smallpox, or any other disease, would have "wiped us out".

Why do you continue to make stuff up and then argue against it?

Why can't you just stick to what has actually been said in this thread?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Not all humans are cut down with disease as easily as others, and that is why it is too complex to wipe us all out.

Personally would it really matter if i did not exist, and you where never born why should you even of cared about this question?

Yep science and medicine helps alot, but assuming mankind would of been drastically damaged without it is wrong assumption, like how alot of medical people got swine flu wrong.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


That is what modern medicine implies.

Just see the furore about swine flu today and how every human doctors say should have been immunised. Why?

The only way most need to treat it is keep your airways clear. This should of been made clear to all of the humans on this planet, and most of the deaths which are not that many would of been stopped.

This shows you how medical professionals use knowledge and holds back basic things to make sure people are into a system of dependence on them.

Of course we all need modern medicine sometimes in todays world, but not nearly as much as they push on us.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Not all humans are cut down with disease as easily as others, and that is why it is too complex to wipe us all out.


I didn't say all humans would be cut down. Putting words in my mouth? I see you are sticking with your formula here.



Yep science and medicine helps alot...


Agreed.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join