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: 29
71
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Rubinstein
 


Well I dug up some stats. A survey of swiss drs showe 92% of them stuck to vaccination schedules.

Posfay-Barbe KM, et al. How do physicians immunize their own children? Differences among pediatricians and nonpediatricians. Pediatrics 2005 (Nov); 116:e623-e633

pediatrics.aappublications.org...

Your turn rube.




posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Rubinstein
How do you know if it effected their intelligence? A mother told me her kids were fine after vaccination yet one has Asthma and the other a life-threatening Peanut Allergy. (both are caused by vaccines) How do you know your kids won't come down with Non Hodgkin Lymphoma, or get Alzheimer's in their later years? You over-simplify, and even if you kids did get through the game of Russia Roulette that doesn't mean everyone's kids did; you got lucky.


Such a disrespectful and insulting post. I've actually sat here thinking about how I should reply for the last 10 minutes and this is the best I can do.

I'm off, the moments gone. Enjoy ruining this thread for others.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
2005 was a long time ago, vaccination rates have been plummeting, in particular since the well-publicized Swine Flu Scam


Antigod
reply to post by Rubinstein
 


Well I dug up some stats. A survey of swiss drs showe 92% of them stuck to vaccination schedules.

Posfay-Barbe KM, et al. How do physicians immunize their own children? Differences among pediatricians and nonpediatricians. Pediatrics 2005 (Nov); 116:e623-e633

pediatrics.aappublications.org...

Your turn rube.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
You're an emotional person, that makes it difficult for you to focus in on the facts. I can't worry about hurting people's feelings, I have to prioritize on protecting people's health as it has a far greater importance.


angryhulk

Rubinstein
How do you know if it effected their intelligence? A mother told me her kids were fine after vaccination yet one has Asthma and the other a life-threatening Peanut Allergy. (both are caused by vaccines) How do you know your kids won't come down with Non Hodgkin Lymphoma, or get Alzheimer's in their later years? You over-simplify, and even if you kids did get through the game of Russia Roulette that doesn't mean everyone's kids did; you got lucky.


Such a disrespectful and insulting post. I've actually sat here thinking about how I should reply for the last 10 minutes and this is the best I can do.

I'm off, the moments gone. Enjoy ruining this thread for others.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
My job involves talking to doctors everyday, I'm constantly meeting new doctors, they tell me if they vaccinate their kids or not, that doesn't mean they let other people know. To be fair some still go for 3 or 4 vaccines, they are selective, spread them out, but even the ones who are completely pro-vaccine, they still go for single Measles rather than MMR. It's many years since I met a doctor who would allow their own child to receive the MMR.


opopanax
reply to post by Rubinstein
 


Why do you think doctors don't vaccinate their children?

I always see anti-vaxxers say this, but I have yet to see proof that even a slight majority, let alone the vast majority, of doctors do not vaccinate their own children.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   

opopanax
reply to post by Rubinstein
 

And Natural News, Whale.to, "Dr." Carley, etc. are acceptable sources? Oh, what a world.



You should check the sources that these websites provide, just because you don't like Whale, follow their own sources, they're actually very well sourced.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Antigod
LMFAO.

as a response to your claim that the article was referring to disease preventing vaccines- it said nothing of the sort anywhere it in. It said that treating with an antigen triggered an autoimmune reponse.



Why are you continuing this act, it was already established that you didn't read or didn't understand the study, now you've tried again. You've lost all your credibility. It's becoming a waste of my time to have to debunk your posts. I'm sure I don't need to anymore as people here have already seen me dissect them, they know your posts do not have substance.

Come back with a new nick and try again
edit on 4-12-2013 by Rubinstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Rubinstein

Pardon?


This is now the third time you've posted this.
I've already told you twice why it is wrong, the author of the study fabricated data from another study and forgot to mention that the incidence of diabetes had been increasing long before the vaccine was even introduced.

You are a complete and utter fake.



Pardon,

Everytime you only talk about one of the studies, you ignore the rest, you don't like it because the guy is interested in vaccine safety. In reality you don't like his results because they go against your own agenda. The data is there for all to see, but even if we discount that study there's still more than enough evidence been posted to show that the Hib vaccine is causing Diabetes Type 1.

Association between type 1 diabetes and Hib vaccine (Causal relation is likely)
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

A six-fold gradient in the incidence of type 1 diabetes at the eastern border of Finland.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Vaccine coverage maps, compare Russia V Finland for uptake of Hib
www.bbc.co.uk...

Before calling me a fake you should remember that everyone in this thread has watched me dissect the links you've been posting, you've been either deliberately or ignorantly mislabelling them and quoting the studies out of their original context and meaning. If you need to use such dirty tactics to be pro-vaccine, then it's because the real facts are not on your side. If you are just misunderstanding the studies, then you're out of your depth debating in this thread on the topic in the first place.


edit on 4-12-2013 by Rubinstein because: (no reason given)


For the third time.
Here's the response from DeStefano who Classen (the author of the study who you cite and the owner of Classen Immunotherapies which sells "alternatives" to vaccines) uses as reference in his study, where DeStefano points out all of the obvious fakery, misquoting and cherry-picking Classen has done. He also points out his lack of ability to understand statistics.
Look familiar?
pediatrics.aappublications.org...

Your second study merely points out the rise in diabetes in that area and does not suggest any cause.
Over the same period in eastern Finland, the sales of Coca Cola have increased year on year.
There is more chance of Coca Cola causing diabetes than vaccines.
Correlation does not impy causation.
Oh, guess what, diabetes has been increasing globally since well before the Hib vax.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The third one is a page from the BBC showing vaccine coverage.
And?
There's one which is a few stories on the NVIC.
Pointless and without a shred of evidence.
The only other study in that thread of any credence is this one which I debunked earlier in the thread.
www.plosone.org...:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008382
Aside from the fact that it's disorganised and badly written it gives ridiculously high amounts of substances to the rats every 5 days so there is absolutely no correlation with that and the vaccine schedule. That would be like giving litre doses of vaccines every week.



I repeat that you're a fake.
What everyone has watched you do is pick on tiny mistakes I've made in titling studies and then ignore the actual body of the study itself.

What everyone has watched you do is ignore where people have debunked pretty much all of your links only to post an even more ludicrous one from an even more ludicrous source (Rebecca Carley, really?) in lieu of a credible reply.

What everyone has watched you do is repost the same debunked diabetes links in quite a bizarre attempt to make them look credible.

What everyone has watched you do is post links which aren't even studies and announce them as evidence ( the HPV hypothesis one and the "report of case studies one").

What everyone has watched you do is regurgitate old and tired propaganda from known anti-vax sites without even the notion that you haven't a clue what they mean.

What everyone has watched you do is constantly embellish any half-truths and lies in an attempt to either save face of promote your dangerous and undeniably ignorant agenda.

What everyone has watched you do is slam pharma and the government for promoting their own studies then citing a faked study which promotes its own business (Classe, the one above). Hypocritical in extremis.

What everyone has watched you do is consistently dismissing and ignoring the harm non-vaccinating is demonstrably doing to people.

What everyone has watched you do is consistently lie in this thread.



Here's a description of a nice new study coming out.
www.skepticalraptor.com...



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Rubinstein

opopanax
reply to post by Rubinstein
 

And Natural News, Whale.to, "Dr." Carley, etc. are acceptable sources? Oh, what a world.



You should check the sources that these websites provide, just because you don't like Whale, follow their own sources, they're actually very well sourced.



At last!
You've provided your "list".
Oh, it's from Whale

And it's hardly the "thousands" you claim is it (but since you can't even count to three....)

Still, let's see the evidence.I'll start from the beginning and work down and across as per the table shown.

First claim about disease onset age cites pages from a popular book (as opposed to scientific literature) written by a prominent anti-vaxxer, Neil Miller. Nothing else there to back up the claims.
Not evidence.

Atuoimmune: Second claim and the only relevant reference is this one
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
They use "hyperimmunization using different adjuvants (glycerol or aluminium hydroxide), and different adjuvant pretreatments (glycerol or Complete Freund's Adjuvant (CFA))".
Completely different to the vaccine given as part of the schedule so I'm afraid it's not evidence of Whale's claim.

The third only references two different and individual case reports without relevant documentation and proof.
Not evidence.

The fourth cites Wakefield's study (say no more), Geier and his son (Geier lost his medical licence some years ago for malpractice and his son has never held one although that doesn't stop them pretending to be doctors...)
justthevax.blogspot.co.uk...
www.stltoday.com... 4bd-5fe5-9162-32d80d8140c9.html
www.harpocratesspeaks.com...
Also as part of it's "proof" it cites a study which was used to withdraw a vaccine from the market (but this never happens does it? They just make something up and keep on selling them if they're "bad", which this one wasn't, it just wasn't as good as they first though).
No evidence.

The fifth, neurological shows studies and case reports which have been discussed earlier in the thread.
I.e. the encephalitis aspect of serious adverse events and demyelisation.
Not evidence.

The sixth, skin disorders, shows individual case reports which are indicative of allergic reactions.
Not evidence.

The seventh, abortion, uses unsubstantiated case report and VAERS diving.
Definitely not evidence.

The eighth, ADD, cites popular book by Buchwald and Scheibner as evidence.
There's no definition of the word evidence that I can find to describe this.

The ninth, ADEM, tries to prove shaken baby syndrome is caused by vaccines(!?)
How sick is that?
The only evidence for the encephalitis aspect is that encephalitis is a known extremely rare adverse event.
Evidence but as likely as winning the lotto whilst being struck by lightning (definitely not evidence of SBS though, sickos).

The tenth, AIDS, shows only accounts and written reports. No studies, no scientific evidence just pure conjecture.
No evidence.

Eleventh, allergies, again, reports and excerpts from non-scientific books.
Reports saying that peanut oil is used which is nonsense as peanut oil has never been used in vaccines. It was developed as a potential adjuvant but never trialled and never released.
More nonsense.
No evidence.

Twelfth, goes through the possible link with aluminium which I've discussed earlier in the thread for Alzheimer's. It only cites reports, no science at all.
No evidence.

Thirteenth is Alzheimer's which I've discussed.
No evidence.

The fourteenth is the same as number 2 only with a different name (to add to the list count no doubt).
No evidence.

Fifteenth, anaphylaxis, I did a whole post on this.
Not evidence against vaccines.

Sixteenth, apnoea (I use the English spelling). On first look it seems like they may have something as the main article is peppered with references. However when you drill down and actually look at these references you quickly find that none of them link to studies which cement their premise.
Also, a little bit of digging shows that the main author, Buttram, works for the IMCV and is a professional witness for anti-vaccination cases, specifically one's which try to blame abusive parents harming their children on vaccines.
Words fail me.
No evidence whatsoever. Nada. Zilch.

Seventeenth is a case report.
Not evidence.



Would you like me to carry on?









edit on 5/12/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Pardon?

Here's the response from DeStefano who Classen (the author of the study who you cite and the owner of Classen Immunotherapies which sells "alternatives" to vaccines) uses as reference in his study, where DeStefano points out all of the obvious fakery, misquoting and cherry-picking Classen has done. He also points out his lack of ability to understand statistics.
Look familiar?
pediatrics.aappublications.org...



You do realize DeStefano is CDC right? CDC = Big Pharma, by default they will disagree as Big Pharma profit greatly from Diabetes Type 1, I can't believe you're still trying to debate this when the evidence that the Hib jab caused Diabetes Type 1 is so solid. Every country where the Hib vaccine was introduced showed a huge increase in the rate of Diabetes Type 1.



Pardon?
Your second study merely points out the rise in diabetes in that area and does not suggest any cause.


Stop viewing the study on it's own, bring it into context with the other studies, the second study shows that there is an environmental cause which is causing the different rates of Diabetes Type 1 over the borders of Finland and Russia.


Pardon?
Over the same period in eastern Finland, the sales of Coca Cola have increased year on year. There is more chance of Coca Cola causing diabetes than vaccines.


The study has gone completely over your head, it was a comparison between the rates of two bordering countries, it wasn't a study just saying "The rate of Diabetes Type 1 has gone up in one country". The fact you're talking about Coca Cola shows confusion between Diabetes Type 1 and Diabetes Type 2, we're talking about the autoimmune Diabtes Type 1.



Pardon?
Correlation does not impy causation.


Nobody said it did, first we spotted a correlation and then we found the causation, that's why I posted the information showing the causation.


Pardon?
Oh, guess what, diabetes has been increasing globally since well before the Hib vax.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


This is because other vaccines can cause Diabetes Type 1 too, but the main culpret is the Hib. The more vaccines the more Diabetes Type 1.


Pardon?
The third one is a page from the BBC showing vaccine coverage.
And?

Have you actually bothered to compare the Hib vaccination rates on the coverage maps for Finland and Russia? Nope, clearly not. Now go and check.


Pardon?
The only other study in that thread of any credence is this one which I debunked earlier in the thread.
www.plosone.org...:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008382
Aside from the fact that it's disorganised and badly written it gives ridiculously high amounts of substances to the rats every 5 days so there is absolutely no correlation with that and the vaccine schedule. That would be like giving litre doses of vaccines every week.


You're completely wrong, stop making stuff up, the quantities in the study were in the same region as the average vaccine. Why do you keep lying? Your previous comments suggest you wouldn't have a clue where to look in the study for this information.



Pardon?
I repeat that you're a fake.


Why are you even still coming back here? All the posts of me dissecting your nonsense are available for all to read here, do you not realize that your credibility has long gone? You're debating with someone who knows this topic inside out so your feeble attempts to cover up the harm that vaccines can do are not working, in fact you're doing more harm than good to the pro-vaccine side by illustrating to us your lack of understanding of this topic which for some reason you are so desperate to spend all day debating digging a deeper hole.



Pardon?
Here's a description of a nice new study coming out.
www.skepticalraptor.com...


Shill website is obvious, please use proper sources.


You've been completely exposed, you can come back and try again if you wish but you'll only dig your hole deeper.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


As I say, you've been discredited, I'll only spend more time with you if you actually make some good points worth debating, I'm not responding to anymore junk. Use your brain if you have one and maybe I'll reply to you.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Rubinstein

You do realize DeStefano is CDC right? CDC = Big Pharma, by default they will disagree as Big Pharma profit greatly from Diabetes Type 1, I can't believe you're still trying to debate this when the evidence that the Hib jab caused Diabetes Type 1 is so solid. Every country where the Hib vaccine was introduced showed a huge increase in the rate of Diabetes Type 1.

Aside from your obvious denialist paranoia, DeStefano is pointing out glaringly obvious faults in Classen's study, a study only written to promote his business.
Ironic that you're defending that isn't it?


Rubinstein
Stop viewing the study on it's own, bring it into context with the other studies, the second study shows that there is an environmental cause which is causing the different rates of Diabetes Type 1 over the borders of Finland and Russia.

There's no reason to link it to another study as no link is suggested.
But it doesn't suggest any SPECIFIC cause does it?
Try to understand how science works a bit better.


Rubinstein
The study has gone completely over your head, it was a comparison between the rates of two bordering countries, it wasn't a study just saying "The rate of Diabetes Type 1 has gone up in one country". The fact you're talking about Coca Cola shows confusion between Diabetes Type 1 and Diabetes Type 2, we're talking about the autoimmune Diabtes Type 1.

Wrong again, I used Coca Cola as an example of incorrect correlation and causation.
I could have easily used the increase in car sales.
The possible differentiation in environmental factors would be purely down to the difference in lifestyles and/or genetics of the two regions as they are very different.


Rubinstein
Nobody said it did, first we spotted a correlation and then we found the causation, that's why I posted the information showing the causation.

Yes you did. as the correlation and causation in this example are completely unrelated


Rubinstein]

This is because other vaccines can cause Diabetes Type 1 too, but the main culpret is the Hib. The more vaccines the more Diabetes Type 1.

Rubbish.
Since that was the only "proof" you could offer that statement is invalid.


Rubinstein
Have you actually bothered to compare the Hib vaccination rates on the coverage maps for Finland and Russia? Nope, clearly not. Now go and check.


Correlation and causation again.



Rubinstein
You're completely wrong, stop making stuff up, the quantities in the study were in the same region as the average vaccine. Why do you keep lying? Your previous comments suggest you wouldn't have a clue where to look in the study for this information.


Where am I wrong?
The evidence of what they did is in the study itself?
And what does "in the region" mean? If it's not the same then it's completely pointless.


Rubinstein
Why are you even still coming back here? All the posts of me dissecting your nonsense are available for all to read here, do you not realize that your credibility has long gone? You're debating with someone who knows this topic inside out so your feeble attempts to cover up the harm that vaccines can do are not working, in fact you're doing more harm than good to the pro-vaccine side by illustrating to us your lack of understanding of this topic which for some reason you are so desperate to spend all day debating digging a deeper hole.

Wow, you have some serious problems.
You've not dissected (using my words now, do I take that as a compliment?) anything at all.
You've just ranted and posted non-evidence which you've copy & pasted from anti-vax sites.
Can you tell me which poster I'm debating with knows this topic inside out please as it's certainly not you.
You don't know it at all, you're just a copy & paste merchant.


Rubinstein
Shill website is obvious, please use proper sources.


You've been completely exposed, you can come back and try again if you wish but you'll only dig your hole deeper.


Refute the study itself rather than the website it's linked from.
And you can say what you want, the only person you'll convince is yourself (or one of your alter-egos).



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Rubinstein
reply to post by Pardon?
 


As I say, you've been discredited, I'll only spend more time with you if you actually make some good points worth debating, I'm not responding to anymore junk. Use your brain if you have one and maybe I'll reply to you.


Aaah.
Have you ran out of nonsense to copy & paste have you?
Good.

"Dissect" and refute this if you've got nothing else to do then.
103 Million Cases of Disease Averted



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Rubinstein
 





Why are you continuing this act, it was already established that you didn't read or didn't understand the study, now you've tried again. You've lost all your credibility. It's becoming a waste of my time to have to debunk your posts. I'm sure I don't need to anymore as people here have already seen me dissect them, they know your posts do not have substance.

Come back with a new nick and try again


So you fail to provide any eviednce that doctors aren't vaccinating then. What a surprise.

Much amused:I suggested they used peanut oil as an antigen in that paper (for a lark) and you ran with it.

You obviously hadn't read the full paper, which I then posted a link to. It was quite amusing watching you go on about peanut oil and vaccines, when the paper , which I had read and you obviously didn't, had ovalbumin as the antigen.

Seriously, do you think anyone is believing what you are posting here? It's easy enough for me to post the whole damn paper. It names measles as an environmental antigen that causes autoimmune illness. How is that anti vaccination?



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Rubinstein
 





Not true, ATS wouldn't allow me to link to the original study, so I sent you a high quality website which discusses the study in a language which many will have a better chance of understanding. There's also a link to the study on the page


Funny how I managed to get a link to the study on this site. Funny how it contradicted you.

The sad thing is, I think you may actually believe you know what you are talking about. May I give you a clue, if you don't even know what the antigen used is, it's blatantly obvious to me and Pardon that you didn't read the study as you claimed. You couldn't even find a link to the complete paper, which took me all of one google search.

Of course, there's always the possiblity you didn't want anyone reading the study. But nothing you've posted suggests joined up thinking of that order. You make claims, fail to provide any real evidence, get rude when asked to provide it then just say you know better because you're a better researcher: which is quite frankly laughable given your failure to spot that they used ovalbumin not peanut oil. You show no familiarity with genuine science sites and appear to harvest your opinions from alternative news sites.I'm going to give you a hint, no one will take you seriously with the sites you post links to, and no one who does scientific research for real would ever even look at them.This is the biggest tell that you don't have a science background or the ablity to dissect a paper. An experienced researcher sources their information way better than that.

Possibly you think that all this posturing and deception is for the greater good. I assume you think people looking for information who don't haved a science background will think you know what you are talking about and believe you.

The tragedy is a few uneducated will. Not Pardon and I, as we both seem to have a background in science (which you seem to lack).

I'm going to give you a parting piece of advice. Claiming you are a much better researcher/cleverer/better informed (you started it) and then failing to provide data to back you up, or display even the most basic critcal analysis skills, may make you feel like you are winning but makes you look like a nutty ego-maniac. If the basis of your argument is 'every piece of evidence that contradicts me is faked' then you seriously need meds. You've stiil failed to provide any data to back up the 'doctors don't vaccinate claim'. You also don't come up with coherent arguments against points raised; you just rant on that it's all propanda when confronted with data you don't understand or pretend it doesn't exist.

I am pretty much done here.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


Pardon...

I've had an argument of this nature with someone with a schizophrenia diagnosis who was also into this conspiracy theory stuff. This is all horribly familiar. Insisting only he can understand things, paranoia, incoherent thought processes , and anger at being confronted with evidence that contradicts. Or just blanking information that contradicts. Repeating verbatim those crank sites then claiming he'd read the studies.

I'm done here, the guy is obvious non compos. He's not even spotted I've been calling him rube the whole time.

Arguing with him just makes him feel validated



You don't know it at all, you're just a copy & paste merchant


Pretty much yeah. Take my advice and argue this with your hamster. It will be more polite and make more sense than this rube.
edit on 5-12-2013 by Antigod because: typo and I'm uptight.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Antigod
reply to post by Pardon?
 


Pardon...

I've had an argument of this nature with someone with a schizophrenia diagnosis who was also into this conspiracy theory stuff. This is all horribly familiar. Insisting only he can understand things, paranoia, incoherent thought processes , and anger at being confronted with evidence that contradicts. Or just blanking information that contradicts. Repeating verbatim those crank sites then claiming he'd read the studies.

I'm done here, the guy is obvious non compos. He's not even spotted I've been calling him rube the whole time.

Arguing with him just makes him feel validated



You don't know it at all, you're just a copy & paste merchant


Pretty much yeah. Take my advice and argue this with your hamster. It will be more polite and make more sense than this rube.
edit on 5-12-2013 by Antigod because: typo and I'm uptight.


There's a few of them like that on here (or are they the same one) whose modus operandi are exactly the same.
I've asked some of them if they've been on a conspiracy 101 course (naturally an on-line one) as their debating style (if you can call it that) is exactly the same as each other's and follows the classic pattern.
As I've said a couple of times now, I'm not debating with him/her personally as it's completely pointless but for others who may be reading the thread (although I think they may have become bored by now).



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


I wonder what the effects of having two sets of MMR jabs could have on a person? the reason I say this is that I was horrified by a poster I saw on the wall of the toilets in my local Sainsburys supermarket a couple of months back.

It was a poster offering a second dose of the MMR jab, I can't remember how it was worded exactly because when I read it I just saw red, when I get like that I don't remember details. I just remember walking out shaking my head in total bewilderment.

I wish now that i'd taken a picture of it.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 





There's a few of them like that on here (or are they the same one) whose modus operandi are exactly the same.
I've asked some of them if they've been on a conspiracy 101 course (naturally an on-line one) as their debating style (if you can call it that) is exactly the same as each other's and follows the classic pattern.
As I've said a couple of times now, I'm not debating with him/her personally as it's completely pointless but for others who may be reading the thread (although I think they may have become bored by now).


My relative who's into conspiracy theories does this face to face; anything that contradicts he just shakes his head and say's 'all propaganda', and when challenged with logic he can't beat swtches track effortlessly so as not to face being wrong. It became obvious recently he's got mental health issues. Makes me wonder if that's common here as I see the same behaviour over and over. He quotes the same websites too. I know he posts here. I suspect I've reamed him at least once, as we don't know each others user names. Kinda funny.

Did you notice, rube didn't have a clue what antigen that study was using , but insisted he'd read it.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Minnie1985
reply to post by Akragon
 


I wonder what the effects of having two sets of MMR jabs could have on a person? the reason I say this is that I was horrified by a poster I saw on the wall of the toilets in my local Sainsburys supermarket a couple of months back.

It was a poster offering a second dose of the MMR jab, I can't remember how it was worded exactly because when I read it I just saw red, when I get like that I don't remember details. I just remember walking out shaking my head in total bewilderment.

I wish now that i'd taken a picture of it.


I wouldn't be too bothered about the poster as it's a probably a reminder about kids getting their boosters before going to school.
Two lots of MMR, one at three months then another one just before they start nursery or school is part of the standard UK vaccine schedule.
It tends to be the one most kids don't get as their parents forget hence the poster.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join