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.

 

Courts Quietly Confirm MMR Vaccine Causes Autism

page: 13
71
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   

BABYBULL24
If these vaccines are safe - why do they have a special Vaccine Court?

Vaccine court


Specifically the last part : Petitioner’s Burden of Proof

Everyone wants to get paid..its ruined the whole process of changing the vaccine manufacture and actually helping the kids who are already effected. PEOPLE individually are just as greedy as the vaccine makers.. and a whole hell of a lot more irrational. Everything isnt due to the vaccine. What are being thrown under the "autism spectrum" now are sometimes totally unrelated to the vaccine.. yet folks want their paycheck for their kids' problems. They should IMO stop the individual payments in these settlements and set up a wholly medical and educational fund for supplies, materials ( weighted blankets and other tactile instruments), education funds/autism center funds, etc for the children **themselves**. By time the parents are older or dead and can no longer take care of the profoundly autistic kids and they need care.. the funds are spent.
We do live in Bizarroworld...




posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I also have to wave the BS flag on this.

Also on the Autistic spectrum, and had the MMR shot, but I've had some problems even before the shot.

I'm not sure if my ASD was caused by prior health problems, but I know for sure that I've never had any reactions to all my vaccines that I've had up to this point.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   

OneManArmy

boncho

Rubinstein

boncho

I said I would support mandatory vaccines for something like smallpox:



That would be madness as the vaccine can spread Small Pox itself. Keep in mind that vaccines did not eradicate Small Pox, it was quarantine which eradicated Small Pox. Only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated against Small Pox, it is eradicated everywhere, even in countries which didn't have vaccine programs such as Australia and New Zealand. Big Pharma have rewrote history, anyone can look this up for themselves and easily see the lies.


Uh, look up history of Vietnam exodus. The camps in Hong Kong all had mandatory vaccinations.

I don't know if the information is available, but everyone you meet from these camps has a small pox mark on their shoulder.


1980s - stemming the tide[edit]
The tide of refugees continued to flow, and in 1980, more than 100,000 Vietnamese sought refugee rights in Hong Kong[dubious – discuss]. At this time, these migrants usually succeeded in gaining refugee status, and were eventually accepted by Western countries.
To deter the influx of refugees, new arrivals from Vietnam were interned in "closed camps" from July 1982 as possibilities for resettlement to third countries dwindled.[9] These camps were criticised for keeping freedom-seeking people "behind barbed wire".[10]


Not the only group to get it. But it just comes to mind since the stories of that place never mention actual smallpox, just the vaccine (which you claim causes smallpox)

Plenty other people to get it too…

dyingbraincells.wordpress.com...


Now who is posting links to blogs, like they are a credible source of information and not based on opinion.
The irony. Or would hypocrisy be a more appropriate word?
edit on 201311America/Chicago11pm11pmFri, 22 Nov 2013 18:49:02 -06001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)


Ah yes, what source did the other poster provide on "smallpox vaccine causes smallpox" ??

You are just an ignorant troll now.




Now who is posting links to blogs, like they are a credible source of information and not based on opinion.


Yes they are, when the statement is: "People get the smallpox vaccine and it does not give them smallpox" as in, so I can post a blog and say, 'Hey look, here's a person that had a smallpox vaccine'.

Unless you want to argue that no one has received the smallpox vaccine because it causes smallpox, like Rubestein was…


edit on 23-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   

BABYBULL24
If these vaccines are safe - why do they have a special Vaccine Court?

Vaccine court


If hospitals are safe, why is there malpractice… if drugs are safe, why is there… I mean, you can use that with anything.

Vaccines are generally safe. But anaphylaxis could kill you. *gasp*, although eating peanut butter could do the same thing.

As I said, generally safe, there are some stringent protocols they have to meet, but with everything, there are always a few people who don't react well to something, or are wired differently than the rest.

In some cases this has pulled vaccines of the market (I gave an example of one earlier) and in other cases where they feel evidence shows it lays with a set few people and not the vaccine, they still offer means to have resolution since the vaccine brought on the problem.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   

OneManArmy

It wasn't hard at all. It took only a few minutes.
I'm surprised that since you call yourself an "investigator" that you couldn't have found this yourself.
They're not on anti-vax sites though, so that could be why you're not finding them.

The link I called supposition was from the Telegraph and I pointed out why more than once.
Do you need me to point it out yet again?
Once again, the link you posted on the Telegraph says that the deaths may be associated with the vaccine.
It does not say they definitely are. It does not provide any proof to show they are. It cannot by definition be used to compare deaths from MMR to deaths from measles. Aside from the fact that measles and measles complications can cause other major problems than death (if I say this enough it might just sink in...)
Which is why I called it supposition.
Do you get it now?

The deaths I've seen means on the internet.
Case reports but not the full medical reports hence why I've not linked them.
They're not testimonial type reports though.
They are very hard to find though as there have been very few indeed.
I've physically seen and been involved in the treatment of a couple of babies who developed septicaemia from measles though. I never wish to see that again.

The graph shows incidence NOT infection.
Incidence is where someone becomes infected with the virus then develops the disease.
The graph also show that the incidence carried on decreasing when the MMR was introduced.
Spend a little time using the same website to find the incidence of mumps and rubella and you'll find a similar slope.
I've already spoken about mortality but what that graph doesn't show is the numbers of people who have secondary problems with measles, a point you keep dodging. We are good at keeping people alive these days, even if they are extremely close to death.

I'm glad you agree vaccines don't cause autism.
We're getting somewhere now.
The vaccine event numbers are freely available.
You should be able to find them on the vaccine event link I posted.

You said that the doctor who found a link between vax and autism was publicly dragged through the mud. That implies that for some reason he was made a scapegoat when he shouldn't have been.
I've shown you why he deserved to be, twice.
Hopefully you'll get it now.

Being "unrelentlessly critical" of anything proves you are anti the thing you are so critical of.
The clue's in the word "unrelentlessly".
The links you provided have not backed up your claim that they don't work or are dangerous either. I've already told you why.
The Telegraph link is anecdotal.
Only providing worst case scenarios whilst omitting counter facts by default is cherry-picking. As I mentioned earlier, you did it to one of the points I made.
I'm telling you what you are being, that's not name calling.
Yes, it is a conspiracy site. I should have changed the word conspiracy to fear. It may be a conspiracy in your opinion but factually it isn't.
The fact you say "I WANT TO BE PROVEN WRONG" suggests that in spite of all of the evidence against what you believe you still think you're correct.

Use your investigative skills to determine the number of MMR vaccines given since their inception (it's in the hundreds of millions) then find the number of directly attributable SEVERE adverse events leading to death (not normal adverse events like mild fever or injection site soreness etc). You'll find that this number is quite small, in fact it's very small indeed.
Then do some simple maths to determine the percentage.

Then compare that to the fact that if you contract measles you have a 1 in 10 chance of being hospitalised and a 1 in just over 3000 chance of death.

The benefits of the MMR far outweigh even the perceived risks by a huge factor.


I have two children who are my life and who I would happily protect with my own life.
I do not take any chances with their health.
If I thought even for one second that they had any appreciable risk from having vaccines they would not have had them.
Seeing the alternative first hand (I used to work in a paediatric ICU), septicaemic patients, neonates becoming brain-damaged after having whooping cough etc etc I know I have made the correct decision and would do exactly the same again.
Luckily I'm in a position where I'm able to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to clinical studies etc and I realise that some people do not have the same background as I do but what I don't understand is when it's spelled out to people and they still take the opposite view.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 03:47 AM
link   

BABYBULL24
If these vaccines are safe - why do they have a special Vaccine Court?

Vaccine court


The idea of the vaccine court is to protect vaccine providers from a flood of frivolous lawsuits.
It also allows for the handling of meritorious lawsuits.

Ironically it was initiated by Barbara Loe Fisher who is the queen of anti-vax....

scienceblogs.com...



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   

boncho


Ah yes, what source did the other poster provide on "smallpox vaccine causes smallpox" ??

You are just an ignorant troll now.


Smallpox vaccine contains a live form of the virus. This means that after you receive the vaccine and until your scab falls off, your vaccination sore will be "contagious" and could spread the virus to anything or anyone who touches it.


Source - Drugs.com
Is that a valid enough source for you?

You accuse others of visiting sites that are not credible, but then when you do it its okay.
And Im the troll? lol. SMH.
You are just being hypocritical.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 04:36 AM
link   

OneManArmy

boncho


Ah yes, what source did the other poster provide on "smallpox vaccine causes smallpox" ??

You are just an ignorant troll now.


Smallpox vaccine contains a live form of the virus. This means that after you receive the vaccine and until your scab falls off, your vaccination sore will be "contagious" and could spread the virus to anything or anyone who touches it.


Source - Drugs.com
Is that a valid enough source for you?

You accuse others of visiting sites that are not credible, but then when you do it its okay.
And Im the troll? lol. SMH.
You are just being hypocritical.


The vaccinia used to combat smallpox isn't smallpox though is it?
Yes, it can be contagious but you won't, for obvious reasons, contract smallpox.

Cherry-picking again?



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Pardon?

It wasn't hard at all. It took only a few minutes.
I'm surprised that since you call yourself an "investigator" that you couldn't have found this yourself.
They're not on anti-vax sites though, so that could be why you're not finding them.



I dont frequent anti vax sites, but obviously you do, as you keep telling me whats on them.
Instead of telling everyone how I conduct my research, which you obviously have no idea about as I havent posted a single link to an "anti vaxxers" site.
In my investigations I have found every single piece of information you provide as evidence that backs up your claims(And contrary to the information "backing up your claims" it actually backs mine. ), except the "problems caused by vaccination" information which you posted, which I add upon further examination showed was just a summarisation which showed "inadequate evidence for the majority of vaccine-effect pairs".
If their conclusions werent supposition then I dont know what the word supposition means.



The link I called supposition was from the Telegraph and I pointed out why more than once.
Do you need me to point it out yet again?
Once again, the link you posted on the Telegraph says that the deaths may be associated with the vaccine.
It does not say they definitely are. It does not provide any proof to show they are. It cannot by definition be used to compare deaths from MMR to deaths from measles. Aside from the fact that measles and measles complications can cause other major problems than death (if I say this enough it might just sink in...)
Which is why I called it supposition.
Do you get it now?

Okay but the finding came from a government advisors report, if what you suggest is true then is it any surprise our governments are so misguided by working with "supposition" and "testimonials" for their information.
It doesnt matter how many credible sources I do provide you, you continually accuse me of getting information from dubious sources. How many times do I have to provide facts before it sinks in?


The deaths I've seen means on the internet.
Case reports but not the full medical reports hence why I've not linked them.
They're not testimonial type reports though.

Post links and let US be the judge of that.



They are very hard to find though as there have been very few indeed.
I've physically seen and been involved in the treatment of a couple of babies who developed septicaemia from measles though. I never wish to see that again.

I know they are hard to find, but that doesnt mean lack of existence as the telegraph article showed.



The graph shows incidence NOT infection.
Incidence is where someone becomes infected with the virus then develops the disease.

And your point is?




The graph also show that the incidence carried on decreasing when the MMR was introduced.
Spend a little time using the same website to find the incidence of mumps and rubella and you'll find a similar slope.
I've already spoken about mortality but what that graph doesn't show is the numbers of people who have secondary problems with measles, a point you keep dodging. We are good at keeping people alive these days, even if they are extremely close to death.

Im dodging nothing, I want ALL the facts.
But Im simply struggling to find the information of which you speak.




I'm glad you agree vaccines don't cause autism.
We're getting somewhere now.
The vaccine event numbers are freely available.
You should be able to find them on the vaccine event link I posted.

I havent conclusively thought MMR did cause autism for years, so no we are not getting anywhere.
The vaccine event numbers are not freely available as the link you posted was simply a summarisation.
I did look, but didnt find what I was looking for.
It showed a conclusive link between "some" vaccines and anaphylactic shock.
It discounted 5 vaccine event pairs, and in 135 vaccine event pairs it was totally inconclusive due to lack of evidence.


You said that the doctor who found a link between vax and autism was publicly dragged through the mud. That implies that for some reason he was made a scapegoat when he shouldn't have been.
I've shown you why he deserved to be, twice.
Hopefully you'll get it now.

Like I said before Im no fan of Andrew Wakefield, but he was made an example of.


Being "unrelentlessly critical" of anything proves you are anti the thing you are so critical of.
The clue's in the word "unrelentlessly".

Say what you like, I call it a citizens duty to be highly critical of everything our governments and corporations tell us, as they have a very long history of lying and cheating us for their own gain.
Call that what you like, I call it responsible.


The links you provided have not backed up your claim that they don't work or are dangerous either. I've already told you why.
The Telegraph link is anecdotal.

Then show me non anecdotal evidence, I cannot find it.


Only providing worst case scenarios whilst omitting counter facts by default is cherry-picking. As I mentioned earlier, you did it to one of the points I made.
I'm telling you what you are being, that's not name calling.
Yes, it is a conspiracy site. I should have changed the word conspiracy to fear. It may be a conspiracy in your opinion but factually it isn't.
The fact you say "I WANT TO BE PROVEN WRONG" suggests that in spite of all of the evidence against what you believe you still think you're correct.

No the evidence I am finding on credible sites is proving to me that the fear mongering by government and big pharma isnt justified by the statistics.


Use your investigative skills to determine the number of MMR vaccines given since their inception (it's in the hundreds of millions) then find the number of directly attributable SEVERE adverse events leading to death (not normal adverse events like mild fever or injection site soreness etc). You'll find that this number is quite small, in fact it's very small indeed.
Then do some simple maths to determine the percentage.
Then compare that to the fact that if you contract measles you have a 1 in 10 chance of being hospitalised and a 1 in just over 3000 chance of death.

The offical chances of death by measles are between 1 in 1500 and 1 in 5000. So you are generalising what the official line is by just choosing the middle ground.


The benefits of the MMR far outweigh even the perceived risks by a huge factor.

I have been attempting to show how that might not be true.


I have two children who are my life and who I would happily protect with my own life.
I do not take any chances with their health.
If I thought even for one second that they had any appreciable risk from having vaccines they would not have had them.
Seeing the alternative first hand (I used to work in a paediatric ICU), septicaemic patients, neonates becoming brain-damaged after having whooping cough etc etc I know I have made the correct decision and would do exactly the same again.
Luckily I'm in a position where I'm able to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to clinical studies etc and I realise that some people do not have the same background as I do but what I don't understand is when it's spelled out to people and they still take the opposite view.

Same here



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Pardon?

OneManArmy

boncho


Ah yes, what source did the other poster provide on "smallpox vaccine causes smallpox" ??

You are just an ignorant troll now.


Smallpox vaccine contains a live form of the virus. This means that after you receive the vaccine and until your scab falls off, your vaccination sore will be "contagious" and could spread the virus to anything or anyone who touches it.


Source - Drugs.com
Is that a valid enough source for you?

You accuse others of visiting sites that are not credible, but then when you do it its okay.
And Im the troll? lol. SMH.
You are just being hypocritical.


The vaccinia used to combat smallpox isn't smallpox though is it?
Yes, it can be contagious but you won't, for obvious reasons, contract smallpox.

Cherry-picking again?

While vaccinia may not be the smallpox virus per se, it states that it is and I quote "A live form of the virus".
If there was no relation then it wouldnt be a smallpox vaccine at all.
I will grant you that it could be construed as "cherry picking". On this one occasion.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by OneManArmy


Source - Drugs.com
Is that a valid enough source for you?

You accuse others of visiting sites that are not credible, but then when you do it its okay.
And Im the troll? lol. SMH.
You are just being hypocritical.


 


Did you even look at the response I was replying to?


That would be madness as the vaccine can spread Small Pox itself. Keep in mind that vaccines did not eradicate Small Pox, it was quarantine which eradicated Small Pox. Only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated against Small Pox, it is eradicated everywhere, even in countries which didn't have vaccine programs such as Australia and New Zealand. Big Pharma have rewrote history, anyone can look this up for themselves and easily see the lies.


No sources, nothing. I was pointing out that there have been smallpox vaccine administration since. I thought this was common knowledge, since I know so many people with a scar on their shoulder.




Since late 2002, DoD has vaccinated more than 1.4 million military and contractor personnel, Smith told CIDRAP News. The shots are mostly for people bound for areas where smallpox attacks are deemed possible—mainly the Middle East. Currently the department gives about 15,000 smallpox vaccinations per month, Smith reported.


For another source you can go here.

www.cidrap.umn.edu...


The vaccine is made from a virus called vaccinia which is a “pox”-type virus related to smallpox. The smallpox vaccine contains the “live” vaccinia virus—not dead virus like many other vaccines. For that reason, the vaccination site must be cared for carefully to prevent the virus from spreading.


www.bt.cdc.gov...


Vaccinia virus is closely related to the virus that causes cowpox; historically the two were often considered to be one and the same.[4] The precise origin of vaccinia virus is unknown, however, due to the lack of record-keeping as the virus was repeatedly cultivated and passaged in research laboratories for many decades.[5] The most common notion is that vaccinia virus, cowpox virus, and variola virus (the causative agent of smallpox) were all derived from a common ancestral virus. There is also speculation that vaccinia virus was originally isolated from horses.[4]


en.wikipedia.org...

The poster is technically sort of, almost right, kind of correct, if only we dumb our understanding down enough to say things like, people with chicken pox have genital herpes.

Now that I realize I am speaking to people on the grade 3 level I will make sure I explain myself more.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   

OneManArmy

Pardon?

OneManArmy

boncho


Ah yes, what source did the other poster provide on "smallpox vaccine causes smallpox" ??

You are just an ignorant troll now.


Smallpox vaccine contains a live form of the virus. This means that after you receive the vaccine and until your scab falls off, your vaccination sore will be "contagious" and could spread the virus to anything or anyone who touches it.


Source - Drugs.com
Is that a valid enough source for you?

You accuse others of visiting sites that are not credible, but then when you do it its okay.
And Im the troll? lol. SMH.
You are just being hypocritical.


The vaccinia used to combat smallpox isn't smallpox though is it?
Yes, it can be contagious but you won't, for obvious reasons, contract smallpox.

Cherry-picking again?

While vaccinia may not be the smallpox virus per se, it states that it is and I quote "A live form of the virus".
If there was no relation then it wouldnt be a smallpox vaccine at all.
I will grant you that it could be construed as "cherry picking". On this one occasion.


More than cherry picking. Complete ignorance. Yes it uses a live form of vaccinia, but the differences between vaccinia and variola is the difference between chicken pox and genital herpes.

And even more similar to actively seeking a chicken pox infection so one has later protection from shingles. (Shingles being another herpes virus)

For the striked out text refer to this post.
edit on 23-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   

OneManArmy

Pardon?

OneManArmy

boncho


Ah yes, what source did the other poster provide on "smallpox vaccine causes smallpox" ??

You are just an ignorant troll now.


Smallpox vaccine contains a live form of the virus. This means that after you receive the vaccine and until your scab falls off, your vaccination sore will be "contagious" and could spread the virus to anything or anyone who touches it.


Source - Drugs.com
Is that a valid enough source for you?

You accuse others of visiting sites that are not credible, but then when you do it its okay.
And Im the troll? lol. SMH.
You are just being hypocritical.


The vaccinia used to combat smallpox isn't smallpox though is it?
Yes, it can be contagious but you won't, for obvious reasons, contract smallpox.

Cherry-picking again?

While vaccinia may not be the smallpox virus per se, it states that it is and I quote "A live form of the virus".
If there was no relation then it wouldnt be a smallpox vaccine at all.
I will grant you that it could be construed as "cherry picking". On this one occasion.



You seem quite obsessed with numbers of adverse events from vaccines for some reason even though the numbers are very small indeed.
Here's some numbers to get your teeth into.

www.jennymccarthybodycount.com...

This second link is quite poignant.
www.jennymccarthybodycount.com...

1296 deaths which could have been prevented in only 6 years in the US alone.

It puts the 4 possibles you've mentioned into perspective doesn't it?
And as a responsible parent these are the numbers I would be trying to do something about as something CAN be done about them.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Pardon?

OneManArmy

Pardon?

OneManArmy

boncho


Ah yes, what source did the other poster provide on "smallpox vaccine causes smallpox" ??

You are just an ignorant troll now.


Smallpox vaccine contains a live form of the virus. This means that after you receive the vaccine and until your scab falls off, your vaccination sore will be "contagious" and could spread the virus to anything or anyone who touches it.


Source - Drugs.com
Is that a valid enough source for you?

You accuse others of visiting sites that are not credible, but then when you do it its okay.
And Im the troll? lol. SMH.
You are just being hypocritical.


The vaccinia used to combat smallpox isn't smallpox though is it?
Yes, it can be contagious but you won't, for obvious reasons, contract smallpox.

Cherry-picking again?

While vaccinia may not be the smallpox virus per se, it states that it is and I quote "A live form of the virus".
If there was no relation then it wouldnt be a smallpox vaccine at all.
I will grant you that it could be construed as "cherry picking". On this one occasion.



You seem quite obsessed with numbers of adverse events from vaccines for some reason even though the numbers are very small indeed.
Here's some numbers to get your teeth into.

www.jennymccarthybodycount.com...

This second link is quite poignant.
www.jennymccarthybodycount.com...

1296 deaths which could have been prevented in only 6 years in the US alone.

It puts the 4 possibles you've mentioned into perspective doesn't it?
And as a responsible parent these are the numbers I would be trying to do something about as something CAN be done about them.



I didnt ask for links to provisional cases of selected notifiable diseases.
I asked for figures of complications as a result of vaccination.
And being as this is an MMR thread and its associated complications, I think those figures are more relevant.
But note from your second link the 5yr weekly average deaths for measles..... 0.
Im obsessed about vaccination complication numbers because without them how can a comparison be made to complications as a result of the disease?



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   

boncho

OneManArmy

Pardon?

OneManArmy

boncho


Ah yes, what source did the other poster provide on "smallpox vaccine causes smallpox" ??

You are just an ignorant troll now.


Smallpox vaccine contains a live form of the virus. This means that after you receive the vaccine and until your scab falls off, your vaccination sore will be "contagious" and could spread the virus to anything or anyone who touches it.


Source - Drugs.com
Is that a valid enough source for you?

You accuse others of visiting sites that are not credible, but then when you do it its okay.
And Im the troll? lol. SMH.
You are just being hypocritical.


The vaccinia used to combat smallpox isn't smallpox though is it?
Yes, it can be contagious but you won't, for obvious reasons, contract smallpox.

Cherry-picking again?

While vaccinia may not be the smallpox virus per se, it states that it is and I quote "A live form of the virus".
If there was no relation then it wouldnt be a smallpox vaccine at all.
I will grant you that it could be construed as "cherry picking". On this one occasion.


More than cherry picking. Complete ignorance. Yes it uses a live form of vaccinia, but the differences between vaccinia and variola is the difference between chicken pox and genital herpes.

If you say so.




And even more similar to actively seeking a chicken pox infection so one has later protection from shingles. (Shingles being another herpes virus)


Shingles is an infection of a nerve and the area of skin supplied by the nerve. It is caused by a virus called the varicella-zoster virus. It is the same virus that causes chickenpox.

Source

It states quite clearly that it is the same virus that causes chicken pox.
On the source page it also states that having chickenpox doesnt necessarily prevent shingles.

Anyone who has had chickenpox in the past may develop shingles. Shingles is sometimes called herpes zoster.


And Im the one being accused of cherry picking, misrepresentation and complete ignorance?



edit on 201311America/Chicago11am11amSat, 23 Nov 2013 11:04:21 -06001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   

OneManArmy

boncho

OneManArmy

Pardon?

OneManArmy

boncho


Ah yes, what source did the other poster provide on "smallpox vaccine causes smallpox" ??

You are just an ignorant troll now.


Smallpox vaccine contains a live form of the virus. This means that after you receive the vaccine and until your scab falls off, your vaccination sore will be "contagious" and could spread the virus to anything or anyone who touches it.


Source - Drugs.com
Is that a valid enough source for you?

You accuse others of visiting sites that are not credible, but then when you do it its okay.
And Im the troll? lol. SMH.
You are just being hypocritical.


The vaccinia used to combat smallpox isn't smallpox though is it?
Yes, it can be contagious but you won't, for obvious reasons, contract smallpox.

Cherry-picking again?

While vaccinia may not be the smallpox virus per se, it states that it is and I quote "A live form of the virus".
If there was no relation then it wouldnt be a smallpox vaccine at all.
I will grant you that it could be construed as "cherry picking". On this one occasion.


More than cherry picking. Complete ignorance. Yes it uses a live form of vaccinia, but the differences between vaccinia and variola is the difference between chicken pox and genital herpes.

If you say so.




And even more similar to actively seeking a chicken pox infection so one has later protection from shingles. (Shingles being another herpes virus)


Shingles is an infection of a nerve and the area of skin supplied by the nerve. It is caused by a virus called the varicella-zoster virus. It is the same virus that causes chickenpox.

Source

It states quite clearly that it is the same virus that causes chicken pox.
On the source page it also states that having chickenpox doesnt necessarily prevent shingles.

Anyone who has had chickenpox in the past may develop shingles. Shingles is sometimes called herpes zoster.


And Im the one being accused of cherry picking, misrepresentation and complete ignorance?



edit on 201311America/Chicago11am11amSat, 23 Nov 2013 11:04:21 -06001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)


Yes because again you are misrepresenting the data:

The first line:


Yes it uses a live form of vaccinia, but the differences between vaccinia and variola is the difference between chicken pox and genital herpes.



Commonality with HSV1 and HSV2 indicates a common ancestor, five genes do not have corresponding HSV genes. Relation with other human herpes viruses is less strong, but many homologues and conserved gene blocks are still found.



VZV is closely related to the herpes simplex viruses (HSV), sharing much genome homology


Unless you want to argue that HSV1 and HSV2 are now the same as Zoster?? (VZV).

As for the latter sentence, very similar to the idea that people exposed themselves to VZV early on. The difference being, that there is empirical evidence that the small pox vaccine (which does not contain smallpox) works, while the anti-vax method of exposing yourself to various viruses doesn't work.



To understand the below text see this post.
Going completely against the anti-vax claims that no vaccines = stronger immune system:


Notice on U.S Vaccination Survey / and a German Study: Vaccinated Children Have More Than Twice the Diseases and Disorders Than Unvaccinated Children


journal.livingfood.us...



A survey administered by a German anti-vaccine homeopath backfires spectacularly


edit on 23-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by OneManArmy


And Im the one being accused of cherry picking, misrepresentation and complete ignorance?


 


Yes, what I did can be considered "baiting" since I gave you a clear difference in two viruses, but then also left and example of a single virus and an anti-vax method for "immunity" but you chose to address the latter and not the former.

You can also call me a troll if you wish.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   

boncho

Going completely against the anti-vax claims that no vaccines = stronger immune system:


Notice on U.S Vaccination Survey / and a German Study: Vaccinated Children Have More Than Twice the Diseases and Disorders Than Unvaccinated Children


journal.livingfood.us...


Lol, you post a link to a German study that shows...

Result: the death rate in vaccinated children against diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough is twice as high as the unvaccinated children (10.5% versus 4.7%).

And you think that supports your argument?



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

OneManArmy

boncho

Going completely against the anti-vax claims that no vaccines = stronger immune system:


Notice on U.S Vaccination Survey / and a German Study: Vaccinated Children Have More Than Twice the Diseases and Disorders Than Unvaccinated Children


journal.livingfood.us...


Lol, you post a link to a German study that shows...

Result: the death rate in vaccinated children against diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough is twice as high as the unvaccinated children (10.5% versus 4.7%).

And you think that supports your argument?



Oops, meant to add this:

A survey administered by a German anti-vaccine homeopath backfires spectacularly

scienceblogs.com...


The parents stated that their preferred treatment was naturopathic and homeopathic. Less than 10% said they preferred conventional medicine. Treatment in the “other” column was mainly chiropractic and supplemental.

So, right away, this survey demonstrates that the parents who filled it out were a self-selected, biased sample, the vast majority of whom favor alternative medicine and are hostile to scientific medicine. Indeed, 99.69% of the respondents report being happy that they did not vaccinate their children


And from the survey I posted (actual responses from the internet survey to "collect data"):

"She(17 years) is very healthy, and most are shocked that she never had an ear infection in her lifetime."

Here's a link to the actual survey.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


You can go further by looking at the Amish, since they don't vaccinate, and since they still get sick. Completely throwing out the idea that no vaccines = no sickness.


In the spring of 2005, UPI reporter Dan Olmsted wrote that autism is rare among the Amish of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. “Where are the autistic Amish?” he asked. “I have come here to find them, but so far my mission has failed, and the very few I have identified raise some very interesting questions about some widely held views on autism.”[/stike]



autism-news-beat.com...
Okay okay, I'll stop. I was going to bait you into this one too but I have to be on my way doing real world stuff now. In short, I posted a factual statement about the difference of two different viruses, and you chose to jump on a statement I made which involves anti-vax thinking, completely ignoring the mistake you made earlier.

Then I posted the clarification, but I chose an anti-vax "study" that uses internet responses and self admit tingly takes it's data from people who believe vaccines are killing them, (hosted on a vaccine site.) Which is the ultimate definition of cherry picking…

And still you didn't admit the mistake.

I was just going to continue this game but I'm done trolling.

For the above, you can go here,
Anecdotal Amish-don’t-vaccinate claims disproved by fact-based study


I really wanted to wait for you to say, "hahaha you are so stupid boncho your study proves autism - vaccines!!!)

But alas I have more important things to do.


edit on 23-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join