posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 03:26 AM
Originally posted by maddog3n8
reply to post by Pardon?
Did you even read the evidence I have presented? I think not. If you had and then disagreed with it, you would then provide evidence to back up your
claim. All I am hearing from you in innuendo, personal attacks, and assumptions.
For the record, I am not nor have I ever been anti-vaccine. I am however, against putting harmful agents in the vaccines.
As to Wakefield, you might want to get with the times, as you may not be aware of the change in status in the way the GMC handled Dr. Wakefield's
You might also be interested in these articles on the consequences of some vaccinations:
www.dailymail.co.uk... Former Science Chief's fears coming true
www.thelocal.se... Sweden Affirms swine flu vaccine narcolepsy link
www.thelocal.se... Narcolepsy traced to specific vaccine batches
www.thelocal.se... Skane hardest hit by swine flu narcolepsy
Wakefield's not been cleared has he?
His study's not been able to be replicated either.
The second link's from 7 years ago and if you read it properly, it doesn't actually say very much at all.
126 cases out of 3.3 million? Whilst there's a link it's a bit tenuous and more than likely down to the individual's genetics rather than the
vaccine don't you think?
How many people are allergic to anti-biotics? Does that mean anti-biotics cause allergies?
A larger than average number of cases being found in a relatively small area of a country?
Nothing to do with that specific gene pool then eh?
Whilst you may consider these articles to be evidence to prove the dangers of vaccines, to those of us who have a lot of knowledge on the subject they
really don't mean much at all.
What they do prove are the dangers of learning via Google.