Why call me Flavon? That is clearly not my screen name and is therefore intentionally disrespectful to a fellow member. Can't be bothered if you want to go down that road.
Can't be bothered if you want to go down that road.
This longitudinal, case-control pilot study examined amygdala growth in rhesus macaque infants receiving the complete US childhood vaccine schedule (1994-1999). Longitudinal structural and functional neuroimaging was undertaken to examine central effects of the vaccine regimen on the developing brain. Vaccine-exposed and saline-injected control infants underwent MRI and PET imaging at approximately 4 and 6 months of age, representing two specific timeframes within the vaccination schedule. Volumetric analyses showed that exposed animals did not undergo the maturational changes over time in amygdala volume that was observed in unexposed animals.
Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science's understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue.
Now, in a new study from the University of Missouri, one researcher has found an explanation for that poor response. In the study, the MU scientist found evidence that the immune systems of newborns might require some time after birth to mature to a point where the benefits of vaccines can be fully realized. Habib Zaghouani, a professor of molecular microbiology and immunology and child health at the MU School of Medicine, recently found that a slowly maturing component of the immune system might explain why newborns contract infections easily. In his work, Zaghouani studied newborn mice and how their immune systems reacted when they were repeatedly exposed to an antigen that simulates a virus.
In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community.
Originally posted by mandrake
I find it extremely hard to believe a "doctor" who has his own domain name, especially when googling his name results in various websites calling fraud and quackery. There is an entire section on his website that is dedicated to selling "alternative products" from shower gel to air purifiers. Seriously, is this the kind of person people believe in now.
As for the case in question, there is no way of proving cause and effect from a single case, period.
Originally posted by InfiniteConsciousness
Regarding India and other third world countries that have outbreaks of these diseases...
Look at their living conditions. Much of the country live in squalor, dig through trash dumps for food or other items with feral animals alongside them...
Poverty is the real culprit of disease outbreaks. Poor diets, poor living conditions and poor health...
If India and other 3rd world countries improve their living conditions, my money would be on a serious drop in disease incidents and outbreaks. But, until then, I guess vaccines are their only refuge...
Bill Gates has said some things that really bother me. Particularly about his "reducing the population by 10-15% with vaccines and reproductive health services" commentary. AFAIAC his philanthropy is tainted until he makes it very clear what he means with his comments and what type of evidence he has to back up his claims.
Originally posted by six67seven
I think people must also keep in mind the political spectrum regarding big pharma, the FDA and the gov. There is a constant power struggle among these three that ultimately weakens the science of vaccines. This is because big pharma companies want to be the first company to develop the vaccine. They want the $$$. It's truly amazing the lack of knowledge being put forth as knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum. Politicians are not scientists, not physicians and they will say anything during an election year.
And the drug companies and their CEOs are driven by profits. They would like us all to think they care more about saving children's lives, preventing cancers and other diseases. But this day and age, that is just a by-product. How can we really trust CEOs? Look at all the drugs pushed through over the decades that get recalled. Many pharmaceutical companies get fined all the time for Billions of dollars for fixing research.
Are we really to trust these three entities? Are we really to trust the 'sceince'? It's hard enough to find factual science and know for certain that the research and science you find and read is factual. If these big drug companies fix their finding during the studies they conduct, how can they be fully trusted? They can't. And we already know we can't trust the government, nor politicians. That is the point of all of this.
Originally posted by Flavian
Originally posted by VoidHawk
Originally posted by FissionSurplus
In essence, you're saying that, although your kid and the other kids are vaccinated, they are still in danger if there is one unvaccinated child among them. LOL! This invalidates the whole vaccine theory.
Their new argument is now "Your unvaccinated child could pass a virus to a vaccinated child who might then take it home and infect a younger child not yet vaccinated"
This argument does not hold water at all.
If you think this doesn't hold water then sorry but you clearly do not understand the process of contagion.
Facepalm of epic proportions.
Originally posted by SprocketUK
I mentioned this thread to the Mrs, who came up with a good point.
If your kid gets autism from a mmr, that's it, there's no way back, though the chances are, that measles, mumps or rubella won't do anything long term to them.
She said that it would be like losing your child, cos their personality would be gone, replaced by something else.
A pretty good observation I thought.
the thing is everybody's different and I feel fortunate my kids didn't suffer the side effects of vaccines.I truley believe as a parent you have to decide whats best for you and your family you have to live with the decisions you make.In other word what I'm saying is if you decide not to vaccinate because of something said on the internet and your child gets severly ill or worst who will you blame?
Originally posted by foxi1234
reply to post by TWILITE22
Spot on.....investigate yourself....don't believe what you are told and make your own mind up! I put my opinion on here and am shocked at the attacks by some of the members...
as you say...knowledge is power