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.
Tucket
Pharma does not give a s#ht about our health. They are interested in death and profit.
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...
Pardon?
A US study of post anaphylaxis after MMR
www.pediatricsdigest.mobi...
Pardon?
Serious adverse events after MMR
www.nccn.net...
Pardon?
Anaphylaxis following single jabs
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
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.
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.
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.
Rubinstein
Again, anaphylaxis is just one of thousands of complications which vaccines can cause.
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."
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)
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.
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)
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...
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)
Pardon?
Here's the total adverse events from DTaP and MMR vaccines
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
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.
Pardon?
Here's the risk of severe adverse events from MMR
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
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.
Rubinstein
"Again, anaphylaxis is just one of thousands of complications which vaccines can cause.
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?
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.
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.
Pardon?
Risk of neurological problems with DTaP
jama.jamanetwork.com...
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.
Rubinstein
"Again, anaphylaxis is just one of thousands of complications which vaccines can cause.
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.
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)