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: 24
71
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Tucket
Pharma does not give a s#ht about our health. They are interested in death and profit.


And that right there is why I find it almost impossible to believe anything they have to say.




posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Pardon?
Risk of anaphylaxis following vaccination in children and adolescents.
It's a relatively old study but since the SV40 incident has been used in this thread I doubt if age matters.
pediatrics.aappublications.org...


So researchers could check to see if Thalidomide can cause anaphylaxis in pregnant mothers, they don't find a link, do we start giving Thalidomide to pregnant moms again? There are thousands of diseases which vaccines can cause, so finding that they don't cause anaphylaxis quite so much is not particularly reassuring. Let's check if MMR can cause Acne, oh only in 1 in 10 million cases, let's all have MMR's for breakfast then if they don't cause Acne.


Pardon?
A US study of post anaphylaxis after MMR
www.pediatricsdigest.mobi...


Again, anaphylaxis is just one of thousands of complications which vaccines can cause.


Pardon?

Serious adverse events after MMR
www.nccn.net...



Sorry, no use, it's McDonalds telling us their food is safe again

"The study was supported by a grant from Merck & Co., USA."



Pardon?
Anaphylaxis following single jabs
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


They admit they're calculations could be way out

"Our calculations were hampered by lack of immunisation reporting data from the private sector"


edit on 2-12-2013 by Rubinstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Rubinstein

So researchers could check to see if Thalidomide can cause anaphylaxis in pregnant mothers, they don't find a link, do we start giving Thalidomide to pregnant moms again? There are thousands of diseases which vaccines can cause, so finding that they don't cause anaphylaxis quite so much is not particularly reassuring. Let's check if MMR can cause Acne, oh only in 1 in 10 million cases, let's all have MMR's for breakfast then if they don't cause Acne.



I lolled.

I know I shouldnt but I lolled anyway.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Tucket

Pardon?

Tucket
c

Pardon?

Tucket

Sounds like his message is flying right over head..


Would you care to embellish that statement or are you one of the "gubment did it" clones?
Oh yes, you were the one who posted the video with the ultra-loon Andrew Moulden.
Well done.


What's with the name calling and offensive tone?

And with the video I was solely pointing out that there is a vaccine court.

What's left to embellish? You can't handle the truth..


My response befitted the nature of your cryptic one-liner.
And what's left to embellish?
What your definition of "the truth" is.


Cryptic one liner? It was simple metaphor. That's your justification??

My definition of truth is simple. Pharma does not give a s#ht about our health. They are interested in death and profit.


How do they profit in our death?



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Rubinstein

So researchers could check to see if Thalidomide can cause anaphylaxis in pregnant mothers, they don't find a link, do we start giving Thalidomide to pregnant moms again? There are thousands of diseases which vaccines can cause, so finding that they don't cause anaphylaxis quite so much is not particularly reassuring. Let's check if MMR can cause Acne, oh only in 1 in 10 million cases, let's all have MMR's for breakfast then if they don't cause Acne.

Typical ridiculous comment from you again.
Shows how seriously you take the health of children.
It's just a game to you isn't it?
Anaphylaxis is an immediate and serious potential side effect of any drug (or nut, or bee sting...) and pretty much the only cause of death from a vaccine.
1 in 10 million and no deaths doesn't fit in with your "belief" eh?
Let's put things in perspective here.

This is an excellent and very in-depth study of analphylaxis rates in the UK
archinte.jamanetwork.com...

Here's a snippet
"We reviewed all the computer records of the people who had a diagnosis of anaphylactic reaction to immunization. There were only 24 cases during the 6-year period of study. The most common cause was the diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccine, which accounted for 7 cases; the diphtheria and tetanus vaccine accounted for an additional 2 cases and tetanus toxoid alone for 1 case. There were 2 cases each associated with flu vaccine and measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. Single cases were attributed to hepatitis B or typhoid vaccine, hepatitis A or meningococcal vaccine, rabies vaccine, pneumococcal vaccine, and typhoid alone. In 5 cases, the vaccine was not specified. All of the DPT cases occurred in children. Most of the other cases occurred in adults. Two patients were hospitalized, one of whom had to be resuscitated in the emergency department immediately after receiving the flu vaccine. The numbers of people who received most of the vaccines during the study period were large (see table 2).

From the table in the study there were 1,917,100 vaccines given and 2 hospitalisations in a six year period.

Here's the total adverse events from DTaP and MMR vaccines
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Here's the risk of severe adverse events from MMR
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Risk of developing ITP post MMR
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
This study states that the risk of developing ITP from a natural measles infection is 10 times higher than from MMR.

Risk of autism from vaccines (0)
www.jpeds.com...(13)00144-3/abstract

Risk of neurological problems with DTaP
jama.jamanetwork.com...

Risk of asthma from vaccinations
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


A bit more perspective.
In Italy in 2002 there were 594 hospitalisations with 95 deaths reported from measles.
www.cdc.gov...

In California in 1988/90 there were 3390 hospitalisations with 75 deaths reported from measles.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

In Japan in 2000 there were 88 deaths reported from measles.
www.smh.com.au...

In Germany in 2006 there were 160 hospitalised with 3 developing encephalitis reported from measles.
www.dw.de...

In Ireland in 2000 there were 350 hospitalised and 3 deaths reported from measles.
www.who.int...

In Bulgaria in 2009-10 there were over 21,000 cases resulting in 24 deaths reported from measles.
euvac.net...



Rubinstein

Again, anaphylaxis is just one of thousands of complications which vaccines can cause.

Thousands, really?
Any chance of showing the evidence of these "thousands of complications"?
No? Didn't think so.


Wrongenstein

Sorry, no use, it's McDonalds telling us their food is safe again

"The study was supported by a grant from Merck & Co., USA."


It's up to you what you wish to believe but you can read all of the references cited in the study which AREN'T funded by Merck.
Saying that, you don't read studies do you? Just copy & paste.


Hiddenstein

They admit they're calculations could be way out

"Our calculations were hampered by lack of immunisation reporting data from the private sector"


edit on 2-12-2013 by Rubinstein because: (no reason given)


They won't be out that much.
They're talking about the private sector in the UK which is quite small compared to the NHS. The private sector gives less than 0.5% of ALL vaccinations so I would estimate that they're not missing many jabs at all.


I suppose at least you tried to dissect the studies which is better than you ignoring them as you normally do but frankly, if that's the level of critique you can muster, you really shouldn't have bothered.
edit on 3/12/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   

OneManArmy

Rubinstein

So researchers could check to see if Thalidomide can cause anaphylaxis in pregnant mothers, they don't find a link, do we start giving Thalidomide to pregnant moms again? There are thousands of diseases which vaccines can cause, so finding that they don't cause anaphylaxis quite so much is not particularly reassuring. Let's check if MMR can cause Acne, oh only in 1 in 10 million cases, let's all have MMR's for breakfast then if they don't cause Acne.



I lolled.

I know I shouldnt but I lolled anyway.



Glad you found something as serious as child health so funny.
Says it all.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   

OneManArmy

Pardon?

Serious adverse events after MMR
www.nccn.net...



Thats hardly a comprehensive study, it only studies the effects of MMR ii(the safest form of the vaccination) and only Finland.
This is why I say you are carefully spreading misinformation.
Funny how there is no mention of GSK's version or Merieux UK's version of the vaccine.(I wonder why...No actually I dont)
Deliberately not mentioning facts is misinformation or misrepresentation at the very least.



edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmMon, 02 Dec 2013 14:40:35 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)


It's a 14 year-long study covering 1.8 MILLION people.
Doesn't matter whether they're from Finland or Ecuador or both.
1.8 MILLION humans were studied after having the current version of MMR.

Priorix compares better to MMR 2
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... my post above for adverse events in the UK.

The only difference between MMR2 and MMRvaxPro is the albumin used.
www.ema.europa.eu...

Deliberately being anti-vax is tantamount to child abuse.
edit on 3/12/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Pardon?

OneManArmy

Pardon?

Serious adverse events after MMR
www.nccn.net...



Thats hardly a comprehensive study, it only studies the effects of MMR ii(the safest form of the vaccination) and only Finland.
This is why I say you are carefully spreading misinformation.
Funny how there is no mention of GSK's version or Merieux UK's version of the vaccine.(I wonder why...No actually I dont)
Deliberately not mentioning facts is misinformation or misrepresentation at the very least.



edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmMon, 02 Dec 2013 14:40:35 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)


It's a 14 year-long study covering 1.8 MILLION people.
Doesn't matter whether they're from Finland or Ecuador or both.
1.8 MILLION humans were studied after having the current version of MMR.

Priorix compares better to MMR 2
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... my post above for adverse events in the UK.

The only difference between MMR2 and MMRvaxPro is the albumin used.
www.ema.europa.eu...



Double post.
Please delete.
edit on 3/12/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Pardon?

OneManArmy

Pardon?

Serious adverse events after MMR
www.nccn.net...



Thats hardly a comprehensive study, it only studies the effects of MMR ii(the safest form of the vaccination) and only Finland.
This is why I say you are carefully spreading misinformation.
Funny how there is no mention of GSK's version or Merieux UK's version of the vaccine.(I wonder why...No actually I dont)
Deliberately not mentioning facts is misinformation or misrepresentation at the very least.



edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmMon, 02 Dec 2013 14:40:35 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)


It's a 14 year-long study covering 1.8 MILLION people.
Doesn't matter whether they're from Finland or Ecuador or both.
1.8 MILLION humans were studied after having the current version of MMR.

Priorix compares better to MMR 2
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... my post above for adverse events in the UK.

The only difference between MMR2 and MMRvaxPro is the albumin used.
www.ema.europa.eu...

Deliberately being anti-vax is tantamount to child abuse.
edit on 3/12/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)


And no doubt you will be up in arms about the HSA being replaced with the rHA in MMRvacPro and asking for safety studies so here's one to keep you calm.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Pardon?
Here's the total adverse events from DTaP and MMR vaccines
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Why would you say it was the 'total adverse events' from DTaP and MMR vaccines? Did you not look at the study? Are you hoping we don't bother looking at the study. You have been caught earlier in the thread using dirty tricks to make it seem like studies are something which they are not. Let's look at what you've just told us is the 'total adverse events' from DTaP and MMR vaccines.

The title of the paper is:-
"A new method for active surveillance of adverse events from diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis and measles/mumps/rubella vaccines."

So they're talking about a method for finding adverse events from the vaccines.

"We studied the association between diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis (DTP) vaccination and febrile convulsion, and between measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccination and febrile convulsion and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) in five district health authorities in England by linking vaccination records with computerised hospital admission records."

To test their method they used it to look for an association between MMR/DPT and Febrile Convulsion, and IdioPathic Thrombocytopenic Perpura. So no, they're not talking about 'TOTAL Adverse Events' at all, there are thousands of types of diseases and allergies which can be caused by vaccines, but they weren't being looked for in this study.

They then go on to say

"This finding emphasises the need for active surveillance of adverse events."

So they're saying that the current surveillance system is not good enough, they would recommend their own system which seems more logical and effective. However they won't have much luck with this, as Big Pharma never allow such accurate vaccine surveillance to be put in place for obvious reasons. The data is not made available by design, the system is designed to benefit Big Pharma, not to make vaccines safer.

You mustn't have even looked at that study, because you've just shot yourself in the foot.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Rubinstein

Pardon?
Here's the total adverse events from DTaP and MMR vaccines
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Why would you say it was the 'total adverse events' from DTaP and MMR vaccines? Did you not look at the study? Are you hoping we don't bother looking at the study. You have been caught earlier in the thread using dirty tricks to make it seem like studies are something which they are not. Let's look at what you've just told us is the 'total adverse events' from DTaP and MMR vaccines.

The title of the paper is:-
"A new method for active surveillance of adverse events from diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis and measles/mumps/rubella vaccines."

So they're talking about a method for finding adverse events from the vaccines.

"We studied the association between diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis (DTP) vaccination and febrile convulsion, and between measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccination and febrile convulsion and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) in five district health authorities in England by linking vaccination records with computerised hospital admission records."

To test their method they used it to look for an association between MMR/DPT and Febrile Convulsion, and IdioPathic Thrombocytopenic Perpura. So no, they're not talking about 'TOTAL Adverse Events' at all, there are thousands of types of diseases and allergies which can be caused by vaccines, but they weren't being looked for in this study.

They then go on to say

"This finding emphasises the need for active surveillance of adverse events."

So they're saying that the current surveillance system is not good enough, they would recommend their own system which seems more logical and effective. However they won't have much luck with this, as Big Pharma never allow such accurate vaccine surveillance to be put in place for obvious reasons. The data is not made available by design, the system is designed to benefit Big Pharma, not to make vaccines safer.

You mustn't have even looked at that study, because you've just shot yourself in the foot.


Apologies. I mistakenly left the words "risk of" out between "total" and "adverse".

The reason I used that is because of the part you didn't decide to quote.
i.e. "The estimated absolute risk of 1 in 24,000 doses was 5 times that calculated from cases passively reported by clinicians.

There is one (or are you two) person using dirty tricks in this thread and it's not me.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Pardon?
Here's the risk of severe adverse events from MMR
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Wrong again on this one, it's only examining the risk of MMR causing convulsion and aseptic meningitis, their not checking for Cancers, Asthma, MS etc. Why do you keep mislabelling the studies? Either you're hoping that nobody checks or you don't have an adequate science background.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Rubinstein

Pardon?
Here's the risk of severe adverse events from MMR
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Wrong again on this one, it's only examining the risk of MMR causing convulsion and aseptic meningitis, their not checking for Cancers, Asthma, MS etc. Why do you keep mislabelling the studies? Either you're hoping that nobody checks or you don't have an adequate science background.


Look a bit further down and you'll see the one for asthma.

The study looks at those specific events as they're pretty much the only ones associated with MMR.
As for the others, since the MMR vaccine doesn't cause them there will be no studies related to them will there?

I'm also still waiting for a full list of "thousands of complications" from your statement below and fully verifiable proof for each and every one. You'll probably need to use several replies because of the word limit here.
This is what you said

Rubinstein
"Again, anaphylaxis is just one of thousands of complications which vaccines can cause.


Are you going to provide this or can we take your inability to show anything of the sort as deliberate misinformation and scare-tactics?




edit on 3/12/13 by Pardon? because: Formatting



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Pardon?

Tucket

Pardon?

Tucket
c

Pardon?

Tucket

Sounds like his message is flying right over head..


Would you care to embellish that statement or are you one of the "gubment did it" clones?
Oh yes, you were the one who posted the video with the ultra-loon Andrew Moulden.
Well done.


What's with the name calling and offensive tone?

And with the video I was solely pointing out that there is a vaccine court.

What's left to embellish? You can't handle the truth..


My response befitted the nature of your cryptic one-liner.
And what's left to embellish?
What your definition of "the truth" is.


Cryptic one liner? It was simple metaphor. That's your justification??

My definition of truth is simple. Pharma does not give a s#ht about our health. They are interested in death and profit.


How do they profit in our death?


I never said they did profit in our death. But with over 100000 deaths each year attributed to prescription drugs use, and who knows how many more attributed to vaccines etc, I rest assured that they are interested in it.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Tucket

Pardon?

Tucket

Pardon?

Tucket
c

Pardon?

Tucket

Sounds like his message is flying right over head..


Would you care to embellish that statement or are you one of the "gubment did it" clones?
Oh yes, you were the one who posted the video with the ultra-loon Andrew Moulden.
Well done.


What's with the name calling and offensive tone?

And with the video I was solely pointing out that there is a vaccine court.

What's left to embellish? You can't handle the truth..


My response befitted the nature of your cryptic one-liner.
And what's left to embellish?
What your definition of "the truth" is.


Cryptic one liner? It was simple metaphor. That's your justification??

My definition of truth is simple. Pharma does not give a s#ht about our health. They are interested in death and profit.


How do they profit in our death?


I never said they did profit in our death. But with over 100000 deaths each year attributed to prescription drugs use, and who knows how many more attributed to vaccines etc, I rest assured that they are interested in it.


Make yourself more clear.
You said they're interested in death and profit and your reply doesn't make anything clearer.
What exactly are you saying, that pharma are deliberately trying to kill people?
If so that would decrease their profits wouldn't it?

As for the vaccine element, take some time to read this thread and you might get an idea of just how few deaths there have been which can be attributed to vaccines.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Pardon?

Tucket

Pardon?

Tucket

Pardon?

Tucket
c

Pardon?

Tucket

Sounds like his message is flying right over head..


Would you care to embellish that statement or are you one of the "gubment did it" clones?
Oh yes, you were the one who posted the video with the ultra-loon Andrew Moulden.
Well done.


What's with the name calling and offensive tone?

And with the video I was solely pointing out that there is a vaccine court.

What's left to embellish? You can't handle the truth..


My response befitted the nature of your cryptic one-liner.
And what's left to embellish?
What your definition of "the truth" is.


Cryptic one liner? It was simple metaphor. That's your justification??

My definition of truth is simple. Pharma does not give a s#ht about our health. They are interested in death and profit.


How do they profit in our death?


I never said they did profit in our death. But with over 100000 deaths each year attributed to prescription drugs use, and who knows how many more attributed to vaccines etc, I rest assured that they are interested in it.


Make yourself more clear.
You said they're interested in death and profit and your reply doesn't make anything clearer.
What exactly are you saying, that pharma are deliberately trying to kill people?
If so that would decrease their profits wouldn't it?

As for the vaccine element, take some time to read this thread and you might get an idea of just how few deaths there have been which can be attributed to vaccines.


It is estimated that there is over 300000 births each day in the world. There's always a market for death. Yes, I think they are deliberately trying to kill people.
You know my stance on the vaccine element. Its not changing.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Pardon?
Risk of neurological problems with DTaP
jama.jamanetwork.com...


Let's look at the conclusion

"This study did not find any statistically significant increased risk of onset of serious acute neurological illness in the 7 days after DTP vaccine exposure for young children."


So after a child receives their DPT vaccine, for the next 7 days they're fairly safe from neurological problems. That's nice to know, however the majority of us also care about what happens on the 8th day and the 9th, and for months and years after. MS will take approx 60 days to appear after a vaccination. Imagine if Subway say that their sandwiches are guaranteed not to cause Alzheimer's for at least 7 days after you've eaten one? Is this a great selling point? Something to include in the TV adverts perhaps? We can still enjoy our good neurological health for 7 days after a footlong Big Beef Melt; why have Subway never thought of doing these wonderful studies?

These studies are useless, they exist only as a protective smokescreen for Big Pharma, they don't like it when people start looking closer and seeing through the lies and half-truths.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Rubinstein

Pardon?
Risk of neurological problems with DTaP
jama.jamanetwork.com...


Let's look at the conclusion

"This study did not find any statistically significant increased risk of onset of serious acute neurological illness in the 7 days after DTP vaccine exposure for young children."


So after a child receives their DPT vaccine, for the next 7 days they're fairly safe from neurological problems. That's nice to know, however the majority of us also care about what happens on the 8th day and the 9th, and for months and years after.

These studies are useless, they exist only as a protective smokescreen for Big Pharma, they don't like it when people start looking closer and seeing through the lies and half-truths.



From your reply I take it you don't understand why the 7 days was used from a clinical perspective.
There's a bit of research for you to do.


How about after 3 years then?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

What's your cut off time and how do you exclude any other external factors?

You still haven't provided that list nor any supporting evidence for the "thousands of complications" have you?

Rubinstein
"Again, anaphylaxis is just one of thousands of complications which vaccines can cause.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Tucket

It is estimated that there is over 300000 births each day in the world. There's always a market for death. Yes, I think they are deliberately trying to kill people.
You know my stance on the vaccine element. Its not changing.


Well with a belief like that nothing will change your mind no matter how wrong you are.
Facts and evidence won't change a belief, no matter how ludicrous.
If they did then there would be no religion etc etc etc but that's another thread entirely...

Thanks for your input.
edit on 3/12/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Pardon?

Tucket

It is estimated that there is over 300000 births each day in the world. There's always a market for death. Yes, I think they are deliberately trying to kill people.
You know my stance on the vaccine element. Its not changing.


Well with a belief like that nothing will change your mind no matter how wrong you are.
Facts and evidence won't change a belief, no matter how ludicrous that belief may be.
If they did then there would be no religion etc etc etc but that's another thread entirely...

Thanks for your input.
edit on 3/12/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join