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.

 

Infant Monkeys Given Doses of Vaccines Develop Autism Symptoms

page: 3
36
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Funny, I was just reading that not only do unvaccinated Amish folks not seem to have autism
they are also very much non allergenic too.

Bottom line, vaccines have NEVER been properly tested
oh,
Don't forget the polio vaccine where they used monkey kidneys and gave millions of peope the worst cancer virus there is.
Also more people in Canada get the flu if they have been vaccinated
Then there was the admision that the 1918 flu epidemic was caused by army vaccinations as apparantly is gulf war disease also....

*Sigh* corporations and governments enjoy blanket immunity...but then, they aren't really people.
edit on 7-5-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by CryHavoc
 


What symptoms?

www.vaccineriskawareness.com...

Using infant macaque monkeys, University of Pittsburgh's Dr. Laura Hewitson, Ph.D., described how vaccinated animals, when compared to unvaccinated animals, showed significant neurodevelopmental deficits and "significant associations between specific aberrant social and non-social behaviors, isotope binding, and vaccine exposure."

Researchers also reported, "vaccinated animals exhibited progressively severe chronic active inflammation whereas unexposed animals did not" and found "many significant differences in the GI tissue gene expression profiles between vaccinated and unvaccinated animals." Gastrointestinal issues are a common symptom of children with regressive autism.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
90 percent of your immune system is in that gastro intestinal area too



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
Funny, I was just reading that not only do unvaccinated Amish folks not seem to have autism
they are also very much non allergenic too.


Hmmm, you sure about that? Because Amish people DO get vaccinated, as was pointed out several times in that thread.

It's truly AMAZING to me that one person's post on a thread can be taken as fact, even when it is EASILY disproven.

autism.about.com...
edit on 7-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


That's actually what Dr. Wakefield was working on in his original research with autistic children, the relationship between autism and gastrointestinal issues.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
thre is a very strong influence of heredity in autism , and a study of twins points to this conclusion.

as a general rule identical twins share certain disorders at a much higher rate than fraternal twins

in autism, identical twins share it about 70% of the time, and fraternal about 10% of the time

those percentages are guesses I made from a bar graph, source is january 2012 national geographic

the disorders mentioned are everything from reading disablities to diabetes to alcoholism

the significance is that the twins share environmental factors closely, from diet to parenting, vaccinations and all, and the identical twins also share the same DNA

then why isn't it 100% ? I dunno. that remains a mystery. the same DNA raised in the same house is expressing the genes differently. in theory, identical twins could recieve the same vaccination, and one would develop autism, and the other would not. why ?

some factors mentioned in the article include stress and nutrition.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by rory212
 


Oh cool, so they gave autism to poor innocent monkeys.
NIIIICE



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by Danbones
Funny, I was just reading that not only do unvaccinated Amish folks not seem to have autism
they are also very much non allergenic too.


Hmmm, you sure about that? Because Amish people DO get vaccinated, as was pointed out several times in that thread.

It's truly AMAZING to me that one person's post on a thread can be taken as fact, even when it is EASILY disproven.

autism.about.com...
edit on 7-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)

yes some amish folks do get vaccinated
I am of course refereing to the ones that aren't, and the amish that do have the same problems as the rest of the vaccinated population
(It used to be look at the amish with autism till it was discovered they had been vaccinated)
that straw man arguement has been shot down so many times I can't believe anyone could have possibly have trotted that vaccinated corpse of a straw man arguement out at this piont in time

edit on 7-5-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Please supply the evidence you have that shows that Amish who are not vaccinated have lower rates of Autism than those who do.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 

Yeah, I know what the natural immune system does.

I don't have to know how to make a car to know that putting foreign substances into the gas tank can blow the engine.


Put the right substances with the appropriate quantities in to a car's petrol tank and you can also make it go faster.

Put the right substances into the oil and you can make it last longer.

There is a very good reason why the lifespan of modern homo sapiens has almost doubled in the last one hundred years.

Polio has almost been eradicated worldwide due to vaccines.

How many hundreds of thousands of people have been saved by Polio vaccines?

How many millions of people would be dead if smallpox had not been eradicated?

Like all drugs, vaccines have their risks.

IMHO, the pro's outweigh the con's by a landslide though when looked at subjectively.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 


OccamAssassin: Put the right substances with the appropriate quantities in to a car's petrol tank and you can also make it go faster.

Put the right substances into the oil and you can make it last longer.


Cars are made fuel deficient. Children are not born vaccine deficient. Put the wrong fuel into either and you'll have a broken car or a broken child. One can be replaced, the other cannot.

OccamAssassin:There is a very good reason why the lifespan of modern homo sapiens has almost doubled in the last one hundred years.

Polio has almost been eradicated worldwide due to vaccines.

How many hundreds of thousands of people have been saved by Polio vaccines?

How many millions of people would be dead if smallpox had not been eradicated?

Like all drugs, vaccines have their risks.

IMHO, the pro's outweigh the con's by a landslide though when looked at subjectively.



Quantity is nothing if there isn't quality. Millions of people in the US languish for their entire lives at high skilled nursing centers because they've been damaged by contaminated vaccines, where they're fed more contaminated drugs to keep them minimally alive and functioning ~ at great expense, I might add. Millions of others suffer with a plethora of "new" diseases and conditions that have only cropped up since vaccinations became mandatory and proliferated from three or four jabs to dozens, including combined chemicals. Medical science, to date, has not or will not explain the cause of these new chronic and debilitative autoimmune diseases and conditions, many of which have no treatment besides ~ you got it ~ more drugs.

The reason you have to say "how many millions have been saved?" is because you have no idea of the answer. Or of the risk. And studies/statistics to determine that risk/benefit are heavily dominated by the very same people who crank out the drugs and vaccines. For a hefty profit.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

FIRST, do no harm.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 



Cars are made fuel deficient.


No, cars are made for the fuel that is available. You can improve the fuel of you wish to invest in it.

It is no secret that if you mix 5-10% AVGAS to petrol you will increase power, torque and efficiency as well as significantly clean intake parts in the process(inlet manifold, injectors, valves, etc ...

The benefits for adding aviation fuel are widely known to engineers, yet we don't add AVGAS to a car's fuel.

Why?

Simple.......cost.



Quantity is nothing if there isn't quality. Millions of people in the US languish for their entire lives at high skilled nursing centers because they've been damaged by contaminated vaccines, where they're fed more contaminated drugs to keep them minimally alive and functioning ~ at great expense, I might add. Millions of others suffer with a plethora of "new" diseases and conditions that have only cropped up since vaccinations became mandatory and proliferated from three or four jabs to dozens, including combined chemicals. Medical science, to date, has not or will not explain the cause of these new chronic and debilitative autoimmune diseases and conditions, many of which have no treatment besides ~ you got it ~ more drugs.


This is a circular argument. It just paints you the fool and I'm not even going to dignify it with a response.



The reason you have to say "how many millions have been saved?" is because you have no idea of the answer.


Ok, then.

Can you tell me how many peoples lives have been saved by disc brakes in cars?

Can you tell me how many peoples lives have been saved by seat-belts in cars?

Sure, I have absolutely no idea of how many peoples lives have been saved by vaccines.

Does that mean that zero lives have been saved due to vaccine use?

It doesn't change the fact - the main point of my last postthe post before my last post - is that man is living twice as long as we did 100 years ago.

edit on 8/5/2012 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Originally posted by OccamAssassin

I noticed you edited this part of my comments out of your response: "Or of the risk. And studies/statistics to determine that risk/benefit are heavily dominated by the very same people who crank out the drugs and vaccines. For a hefty profit."

Didn't like that part, didja? No argument possible, its an undeniable fact.

Life expectancy is up, at least in part, due to the fact that more people are doing sedentary work, 15% more now than in 1960. There is very little risk of accidental death while sitting at a computer all day long, unlike farm and logging accidents. etc., which happened regularly back in the 60's. And school children today are prohibited from playing any dangerous games, like tag, for the love of pete. So how could anybody possibly get hurt and die? (Well, unless they drive without disk brakes, of course
, no one would have a car accident otherwise. There are so many variables that account for differences in lifespan at any point in time that we could spend from now until eternity debating them. No thanks.

But if mass vaccination is so good, why must parents be lied to, threatened, co-opted and forced to have their children vaccinated? Oooooh, A booming voice comes out of the sky: "Because I said so and I know what's good for you."



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
Originally posted by OccamAssassin

I noticed you edited this part of my comments out of your response: "Or of the risk. And studies/statistics to determine that risk/benefit are heavily dominated by the very same people who crank out the drugs and vaccines. For a hefty profit."


No, I didn't bother posting it because it was superfluous to the conversation, as I addressed the "risk" in earlier post.


Didn't like that part, didja? No argument possible, its an undeniable fact.


No. What you quoted was complete BS. Show me a peer reviewed paper that supports your statement that millions of people in America have Autism due to vaccines. Show me a peer reviewed paper that supports your statement that millions of people in the USA have illnesses caused by vaccination.


Life expectancy is up, at least in part, due to the fact that more people are doing sedentary work, 15% more now than in 1960. There is very little risk of accidental death while sitting at a computer all day long, unlike farm and logging accidents. etc., which happened regularly back in the 60's. And school children today are prohibited from playing any dangerous games, like tag, for the love of pete. So how could anybody possibly get hurt and die? (Well, unless they drive without disk brakes, of course
, no one would have a car accident otherwise. There are so many variables that account for differences in lifespan at any point in time that we could spend from now until eternity debating them. No thanks.


That was the best you could come up with?

I'll help you out here. Things that equate to a longer lifespan are many but the only thing that has really changed in the last hundred years due to mankind's living conditions is medicine and medical treatment.

Clean water, nutritious food, sewerage management, artificial heating, sturdy shelter and modern medicine all contribute to a longer lifespan, but medicine is the only one of the lot that has only been widely accessible in the last hundred years.

As to the disc brakes - your age betrays you - before disc brakes, we had drum braking systems. An inefficient system that is prone to failure. The system is so dangerous that trucks are required to have the system operate in reverse - so if the system fails, the brakes lock on - and the service intervals are usually every 5000 Km. Drum brakes are absolute garbage compared with a modern disc brake system. The early drum braking systems were incapable of an emergency stop and were know as 5 minute systems - you put your foot on the brake five minutes before you needed to stop.

The main reason I pointed out disc brakes previously was because they prevent accidents from happening and hence, make calculating their benefits hard to quantify.

Just like vaccines.

The Polio case count for this year is about 85 cases worldwide. Last year there were 650 reported cases and jump back to 1975 and there are over 50k reported cases. Imagine, 50k people on a yearly basis contracting a disease that there is no cure for. It is a disease that you are stuck with for life and in roughly 1% of cases the disease leads to a life of crippling pain. Polio was such a large problem that prior to the vaccine, entire populations of countries were infected.


But if mass vaccination is so good, why must parents be lied to, threatened, co-opted and forced to have their children vaccinated?


I'm sure that no amount of evidence will sway your beliefs, so pointing out that vaccinations work better when the entire population is vaccinated is probably a waste of time.

It's probably also a waste of time to point out that in a population where the majority are vaccinated and a few are not. If any amongst the unvaccinated manages to contract the virus and it mutates, it puts the rest of the population at risk as it may invalidate the previous vaccination. If everyone is vaccinated, the virus is stopped cold, permanently

In the case of smallpox, western medicine managed to eradicate a deadly virus that for a long time had been used as a biological weapon both in war and for the population control of native landowners.



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
Ok so I have found a little more out about this study. This is not recent. It comes from 2008 and is apparently actually the work of Andrew Wakefield. For those who don't know Wakefield he was a major advocate of the autism-vaccine link and published a paper in 1998 supporting the claim. Since that time Wakefield's research has been found to be primarily made-up. In February 2008 he had his medical license revoked and in 2010 30 different charges related to his work were proven among which included a dozen charges related to the abuse of developmentally challenged children. Shortly before his license was revoked he submitted a paper to the journal NeuroToxicology but the paper was not published after he was exposed. This paper was then pretty much broken up into three different papers which his proteges attempted to have published. This paper is one of them. In fact if you check out the abstract it even has a special thanks section for Wakeman. I'll see if I can turn up a peer-reviewed rebuttal to this paper but in the mean time here is a response from Scienceblogs.

Too much vaccine/autism monkey business for me to be involved in--but apparently not Laura Hewitson


Try reading Dr Wakefields book "Callous Disregard" for a full balance also

MMR Vaccine contains - hydrolized gelatin, chick embryonic fluid, and human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue

The BMA may well be an authority to some but to others are not to be trusted
Peer reviews all too often carry their own agenda and are predisposed to cover up uncomfortable facts




edit on 9-5-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by Danbones
 


That's actually what Dr. Wakefield was working on in his original research with autistic children, the relationship between autism and gastrointestinal issues.



Yes that is true - Dr Wakefield actually cared to look into the health problems autistic kids were having and found the MMR connection.
He never openly stated that the MMR Vaccine caused Autism - He asked for a fuller and more in depth study to be undertaken and for this He payed the price of the wrath of so called experts.
Guess the British Government did not like that they may be responsible for grave errors regarding the health of it's young citizens.
Instead of people attacking for the sake of holding the official line they should take a deeper look into what is being claimed - and who is responsible for pushing these vaccines and what their agenda is.



edit on 9-5-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alexander the Great
reply to post by rory212
 


Oh cool, so they gave autism to poor innocent monkeys.
NIIIICE


Yes they did it to "Sheep" too
"They" should test these things on themselves instead of others.
Ummm Scientific experiment for the advancement of Humanity
.....How many rocks thrown at a dog does it take before it bleeds to death..............
Scientific psychopaths working for psychopaths how noble



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Firstly, be wary as the researcher who produced this is hardly a disinterested part. She is personally suing a vaccine company, she has filed a claim with the vaccine court on behalf of her child.

leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk...
Laura Hewitson has left the University of Pittsburgh

A breakdown of the paper is here.
leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk...
A quick read shows that only a few of the subject monkeys got an MRI, and that the amygdala size can change that way in unvaccinated monkeys. I can't swear to it, but it looks like she just left out any data that didn't fit.

More bad science from Wakefield et al.

And you do get both vaccinated and autistic Amish.

For an educated dissection of this paper, go here:
www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heresy
Firstly, be wary as the researcher who produced this is hardly a disinterested part. She is personally suing a vaccine company, she has filed a claim with the vaccine court on behalf of her child.

leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk...
Laura Hewitson has left the University of Pittsburgh

A breakdown of the paper is here.
leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk...
A quick read shows that only a few of the subject monkeys got an MRI, and that the amygdala size can change that way in unvaccinated monkeys. I can't swear to it, but it looks like she just left out any data that didn't fit.

More bad science from Wakefield et al.

And you do get both vaccinated and autistic Amish.

For an educated dissection of this paper, go here:
www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...


Firstly be wary of those who attack the Vaccine-Autism link
Big Pharma has it's own Agenda and your attack does nothing to pull the wool over the eyes those that see what that agenda is
Vaccines are bad science in themselves - Read the ingredients used and gasp at the Frankenstein Science
Do not be put off by the so called experts who brought us Thalidomide
Who create more problems with their harmful drugs
Who throw yet more drugs at the problems the drugs cause
Be warned do you own research not based on those with vested interest
The same ones who tell you chemicals in the water are good for you
Who tell the excrement of ecoli is harmless in your food
Wake up to those who would fool you


edit on 10-5-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-5-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 


Your words betray your age bias. FYI, I grew up riding in and driving Packards, which held the road better at high speeds, rode smoother and braked better than anything I’ve driven since and probably better than anything you’ve ever driven. Sans disc brakes.

But back on topic, you seem to think pharmaceutical companies dominating vaccine and drug safety reporting is irrelevant despite the profit factor and the growing number of outside studies raising serious doubts about official statistics on many, if not all of the vaccines. You apparently also think that the embedded revolving door between drug companies and the FDA, which IS supposed to verify the safety of vaccines and drugs, is irrelevant. You must also think, then, that drug companies spending huge sums of money to lobby the ruling administrations and legislators in exchange for political favors is irrelevant. Think again.

We’re not talking about beliefs here, or even saving lives. The fact is, human AND animal lives are continuously sacrificed to satisfy the innate curiosity of scientists. And that’s all it is, an all consuming desire to know how things work. So you have people who capture and breed everything from mice to primates for the sole purpose of poking, jabbing, prodding and cutting on them for their entire miserable lives to find out how they will react to various chemical concoctions and physical alterations. Many are killed outright just determining what constitutes a lethal dose of whatever "life saving" drug is being studied. And isn’t it convenient that in these laboratories are millions of vials of deadly bacteria, viruses and fungal killers with which to tinker and satisfy rank curiosity while turning the entire world into their personal laBORatory.

On the other hand you will find other curious people studying more efficient ways of committing mass murder with chemical and biological weapons, some if which are allegedly specific to particular ethnic groups. And of course the only way to find out if one of those works as not advertised is to stick some of those ethnic people and see if they die. Still other scientists study making bigger better atom, nuclear and hydrogen bombs, EMP weapons and a lot more that neither one of us have ever heard of. And I suppose you can throw in the mad scientists working on HAARP for good measure.

But creating all this mayhem costs money, and grants can’t cover all the expenses so there must be an outside market created if medical scientists hope to continue satisfying their curiosity. Besides what good is science if there are no specimens available? And as everyone knows, there is no better sales tool for building a customer base than fear. That’s not too difficult to accomplish, either, is it? We're easily frightened folk, so its possible to make people so afraid of what the peer reviewed literature says might cause their untimely death, or their child’s, and promising to save them from all the horrors of disease, parents willingly throw their kids right into the petri dish and jump in after them, forgetting all about what makes life worth living in the first place. As far as I can tell, freedom from fear generated by charlatans should be right up there at the top of the list.

Science is a cult and peer review is the rule book of the cult. If a scientist questions the rules, methodology or results of his almighty peers he will find himself vilified and drummed out of the cult.

Its been interesting talking with you.

eta: Oh jeez, I totally left out the mad scientist splicing genes in seed to create franken food for the innoculated franken people.
edit on 10-5-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join