Courts Quietly Confirm MMR Vaccine Causes Autism

Antigod
reply to post by Rubinstein

 

And yet new work shows you can detect abnormal behaviour in babies that end uop autistic at two months of age.

The ones who are going to be harmed by MMR and DPT, have already been harmed to an extent by their Hep B jab at birth, very simple, those who are prone to vaccine damage have already been harmed by their first vaccine.

Pardon?
Not all vaccines have live viruses in them (and please note, viruSES is the plural of virus, at a push you could possibly use virii but definitely not virus').

Only semi-literate technophiles who get their learning from Slashdot use 'virii.' It is not the plural of virus. Not in English or Latin. Not even in the Jargon File. It is a meaningless, impossible word. I would not use 'virii' at a push. I would push back if someone tried to make me.

Here's the full video



What she's said is that a percentage of people are vulnerable to the vaccines, she accepts that in these people the vaccine can trigger Autism. So it's begs the question as to why they are not performing pre-vaccine screening? Why is it OK to make these 1 in 50 vulnerable children go Autistic for life? Total Madness! If they want to keep giving these vaccines they need to screen to see who will be harmed by the vaccines, they need to be exempted. Their lives count too.

Also, we don't need to pretend that these people would go Autistic anyway at some point, because we know that Autism rates are skyrocketing, we have to stop pretending that they've been here all along and it was just that nobody noticed.

FurvusRexCaeli
The CDC official claimed "anything" that causes stress could have triggered the autism spectrum symptoms. The official, who had not personally reviewed the case, hypothesized that the subject got a fever after the vaccine, and that aggravated the pre-existing condition. She did not say vaccines, specifically, cause autism -- she said any physical stress can cause autism-like symptoms in persons who have this pre-existing disorder. You may disagree with the CDC, but you shouldn't mischaracterize them.

Since all children will eventually come down with one illness or another, it was only a matter of time before this particular child suffered an aggravation of her pre-existing condition. Even if the vaccination was the specific factor behind this aggravation, it doesn't change the fact that it would have happened eventually. In the counterfactual, the child could have gotten a vaccine-preventable illness and suffered brain damage from that. (In that case, could we say a lack of vaccination causes autism?) This was not an excess case of autism.

I'm sure nobody will fall for that, shills are all pro-vaccine, as that's where the funding is.

DJW001
Is this a confession that you and your sock puppets are shills for Big Pharma? There's money in life threatening illnesses that vaccines can prevent, right?

edit on 7-12-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

Rubinstein
Here's the full video


What she's said is that a percentage of people are vulnerable to the vaccines, she accepts that in these people the vaccine can trigger Autism. So it's begs the question as to why they are not performing pre-vaccine screening? Why is it OK to make this 1 in 50 vulnerable children go Autistic for life? Total Madness! If they want to keep giving these vaccines they need to screen to see who will be harmed by the vaccines, they need to be exempted. Their lives count too.

Also, we don't need to pretend that these people would go Autistic anyway at some point, because we know that Autism rates are skyrocketing, we have to stop pretending that they've been here all along and it was just that nobody noticed.

Great points, and I would add that.. even if they might contract autism later in life, why force it on them as a child?
I was tested before my BCG, as my mother had had the disease and was treated in her teens, I was immune and didnt need the BCG, needless to say, they made me have it anyway.

Rubinstein
I'm sure nobody will fall for that, shills are all pro-vaccine, as that's where the funding is.

DJW001
Is this a confession that you and your sock puppets are shills for Big Pharma? There's money in life threatening illnesses that vaccines can prevent, right?

edit on 7-12-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

Actually you might be surprised that where there is profit, there is big business.
Just like how the Rothchilds fund both sides in a war, and in government.
The only way to guarantee a favorable outcome in any conflict is to fund both sides.
Its control politics 101.

OneManArmy

Rubinstein

Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media - Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda

www.theguardian.com...

And people wonder why I get "paranoid".

SMH.

It gets even worse than this where vaccines are involved, look at what Bill Gates has been giving out huge grants for.

An anti-vaccine surveillance and alert system Seth Kalichman of the www.uconn.edu... in the USA will establish an Internet-based global monitoring and rapid alert system for finding, analysing, and counteracting communication campaigns containing misinformation regarding vaccines to support global immunization efforts.

www.vaccinationcouncil.org...

I'd suggest you test this system, go to major social media, head to the middle of nowhere where nobody is likely to see, then post about the dangers of vaccines, I've tested that system and you'll find that propagandists are rapidly deployed to counter you with "There's more Mercury in tuna" and "Wakefield is evil" etc

That is a good point OneManArmy, many believe Alex Jones fits into that category of controlled opposition. The weakest link on the anti-vaxx side is Jenny McCarthy, not because she doesn't mean well, just because vaccine propagandists can try to pretend that anti-vaxxers follow a Playboy Model and get their ideas from her, they don't want the masses to know that there are thousands are doctors and researchers warning about the theory of vaccination.

So far I haven't seen signs of any controlled opposition within the anti-vaxx community, but I suspect it won't be long until someone shows up and starts up the games.

OneManArmy

Rubinstein
I'm sure nobody will fall for that, shills are all pro-vaccine, as that's where the funding is.

DJW001
Is this a confession that you and your sock puppets are shills for Big Pharma? There's money in life threatening illnesses that vaccines can prevent, right?

edit on 7-12-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

Actually you might be surprised that where there is profit, there is big business.
Just like how the Rothchilds fund both sides in a war, and in government.
The only way to guarantee a favorable outcome in any conflict is to fund both sides.
Its control politics 101.

reply to post by Rubinstein

Why is it OK to make these 1 in 50 vulnerable children go Autistic for life? Total Madness!

How cute and disingenuous of you. It's almost like you're implying in this post that only children who have been vaccinated develop Autism. If your position is so strong why does it seem like every single one of your posts contains misinfo like this?

OneManArmy

Great points, and I would add that.. even if they might contract autism later in life, why force it on them as a child?
I was tested before my BCG, as my mother had had the disease and was treated in her teens, I was immune and didnt need the BCG, needless to say, they made me have it anyway.

Absolutely, so even if it were true that the child would go down with Autism at some point, yes, let them live another happy 10 years. For example, we will all get old, weak and fragile eventually, but it doesn't mean that we might as well go old early, let's enjoy some good times before.

Of course, once a child is Autistic in come the lifelong drugs, Autism is another cash-cow for Big Pharma. They love these highly profitable disorders.

That's interesting what you said about BCG, I remember screening where I live too, I haven't heard of screening before vaccination since then. They want people who've already have Chicken Pox to have the Chicken Pox vaccine, the crazy thing is the vaccine was only ever meant to be for immunocompromised people, that's the only way that could justify vaccinating against such a mild childhood illness, but once the vaccine was ready the Big Pharma execs drew up a scaremongering plan and decided to push the jab on every child.

Unvaccinated children do not regress into Autism, this is known. That is why the pharmaceuticals keep refusing to study unvaccinated children, if such a study would help their business they'd jump right onto it.

Xcalibur254
How cute and disingenuous of you. It's almost like you're implying in this post that only children who have been vaccinated develop Autism. If your position is so strong why does it seem like every single one of your posts contains misinfo like this?

Xcalibur254
reply to post by Rubinstein

 

Why is it OK to make these 1 in 50 vulnerable children go Autistic for life? Total Madness!

How cute and disingenuous of you. It's almost like you're implying in this post that only children who have been vaccinated develop Autism. If your position is so strong why does it seem like every single one of your posts contains misinfo like this?

Its almost like you are putting words into his mouth.
He said nothing of the sort.

Rubinstein
Unvaccinated children do not regress into Autism, this is known. That is why the pharmaceuticals keep refusing to study unvaccinated children, if such a study would help their business they'd jump right onto it.

Xcalibur254
How cute and disingenuous of you. It's almost like you're implying in this post that only children who have been vaccinated develop Autism. If your position is so strong why does it seem like every single one of your posts contains misinfo like this?

edit on 7-12-2013 by Rubinstein because: (no reason given)

Oh, then he went and pretty much did say it.

I take that back.

Unvaccinated children HAVE regressed into autism for decades.

reply to post by OneManArmy


So the fact that he used the statistic 1 in 50, which is the current incidence rate of Autism in children, is just a coincidence?

Xcalibur254
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

So the fact that he used the statistic 1 in 50, which is the current incidence rate of Autism in children, is just a coincidence?

Which is why I amended my post.

It's important to note that Autism includes a wide range of different problems; from mild to serious, with all kinds of different causes. Think along the lines of Diabetes Type 1 and Diabetes Type 2, both have completely different causes, but they are still both called Diabetes.

It's time to clarify the difference between Regressive Autism and other types which you can be born with. You are not born with Regressive Autism, your learning goes into reverse after vaccination, you regress. There are also types of Autism you are born with, these individuals do not regress, some are very smart people, but it's completely different to Regressive Autism which is triggered vaccines (when mixed with Tylenol aka Paracetamol). Unvaccinated populations do not have children regressing into Autism, however what they do have is some children being born with a form of Autism which can actually make you quite smart (e.g at Maths/Computer Programming). The Regressive Autism from vaccines does not make you smart, it's difficult for one to function properly in society with vaccine-induced Regressive Autism.

Rubinstein
I'm sure nobody will fall for that, shills are all pro-vaccine, as that's where the funding is.

DJW001
Is this a confession that you and your sock puppets are shills for Big Pharma? There's money in life threatening illnesses that vaccines can prevent, right?

edit on 7-12-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

You've fallen for the other side of the coin though, so people WILL fall for it.
Add to that the MASSIVE amounts of money that the law firms are pumping in to it and you've got a very lucrative job being an anti-vaxxer.

Rubinstein
This study is extremely poor, it's just a phone survey asking parents questions about their children from years ago. It wasn't a random study, they selected specific people to enter into the study. This is completely open for manipulation.

Another McStudy I'm afraid

Antigod
reply to post by Antigod

 

A study on regressive autism.

Is there a 'regressive phenotype' of Autism Spectrum Disorder associated with the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine? A CPEA Study.
Richler J, Luyster R, Risi S, Hsu WL, Dawson G, Bernier R, Dunn M, Hepburn S, Hyman SL, McMahon WM, Goudie-Nice J, Minshew N, Rogers S, Sigman M, Spence MA, Goldberg WA, Tager-Flusberg H, Volkmar FR, Lord C.
Source
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 48109-2054, USA.
Abstract
A multi-site study of 351 children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and 31 typically developing children used caregiver interviews to describe the children's early acquisition and loss of social-communication milestones. For the majority of children with ASD who had experienced a regression, pre-loss development was clearly atypical. Children who had lost skills also showed slightly poorer outcomes in verbal IQ and social reciprocity, a later mean age of onset of autistic symptoms, and more gastrointestinal symptoms than children with ASD and no regression. There was no evidence that onset of autistic symptoms or of regression was related to measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. The implications of these findings for the existence of a 'regressive phenotype' of ASD are discussed

But you used phone studies and questionnaire studies earlier on in the thread, one from a homeopath (or as I like to call them, pointlessopaths) and one from a New Zealand anti-vaccine group who only asked their own members and their families so what's the problem?

OneManArmy

Pardon?

OneManArmy

Pardon?

OneManArmy

Pardon?


You asked for autism, you got autism.

No, what I asked for and have repeatedly asked for is studies relating to the disorders associated with vaccinations.
Not one specific disorder, but of all the disorders and also mortality rates.
Do I have to say...YET AGAIN?, I have not claimed a definitive link between autism and mmr.
I for one dont believe that just because MMR doesnt cause autism, that it doesnt cause anything else.

Yes you did.
Read the thread, it's on the previous page to this, you were replying to a statement about autism.

Rubincode showed a Whale.to link listing alleged "disorders" from vaccines.
That's probably the list which would best fit your "beliefs".
I've been through the first however many of that list though and refuted the references they cited but I'm happy to look at any or all of them if you wish.

If you "believe" that MMR cause something then it is up to you to turn that belief into factual knowledge by way of evidential proof.
That's how science works.
If you are unable for any reason to do that then by default it stays in the realm of belief.

As for mortality rates, the adverse events incidence has been cited in this thread.
The fact there's very little or no data for mortality means that the actual mortality is obviously very little or none.
If you wish to add mortality from "disorders" not proven to be associated with vaccines then it is up to you to prove that association as it would be you making the claim as mentioned above.

Put your claims and alleged evidence on here and we can discuss them otherwise re-read the thread as it's pretty conclusive again any major (or even relatively minor) problem with vaccines.

No, Im not injecting children with live virus'. Its up to independent research(not the companies making the drugs) to prove that they are safe.
And they havent, because they havent even checked properly.
Saying there is insufficient evidence doesnt mean that they are safe, it means THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmSat, 07 Dec 2013 17:58:10 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

Not all vaccines have live viruses in them (and please note, viruSES is the plural of virus, at a push you could possibly use virii but definitely not virus').

How do you believe they haven't checked or don't check for safety?
Can you prove they haven't or don't check for safety?
Do you have a specific safety rate in mind?
Have you any clue about how a vaccine gets to market?
Do you understand how a scientific study works?

And the $64,000 question.....
What exactly do you wish to know that will cause you to believe that vaccines are safe?

MMR contains 3 live "viruses"(Sorry didnt realise you were a spelling nazi as well as a pharma nazi)
How a vaccine gets to market...

Pharma creates vaccine,
Pharma creates its own "scientific" data saying its safe,
Pharma pays politicians lots of money,
government creates a scare,
vaccine is released,
everyone is saved. HURRAH!!

Kids start getting ill, and unless they can definitively prove that the virus caused it they get nothing, but a lifetime of illness and sometimes death. And when up against the behemoth of pharma legal firms, thats very hard to do.

As for the $64,000 question...
Drumroll please....

"Where is the comprehensive independent safety study data that confirms that vaccination is safer than non vaccination. Both mortality and other side effects from long term studies."

edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmSat, 07 Dec 2013 18:26:14 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmSat, 07 Dec 2013 18:30:48 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

Ah the godwin! Thank you!
I've got my full-house in my rhetological fallacy bingo game!
I'm not a spelling nazi, I've just noticed over the years that people who make repetitive spelling mistakes related to a crucial word in an argument (and such a simple word too) are generally not very well educated on the subject.
Just trying to help you out there.

And then you fail to answer three crucial questions but focus on the "big pharma bad" conspiracy.
Not that I would have expected anything else from you.

OneManArmy
"Kids start getting ill, and unless they can definitively prove that the virus caused it they get nothing, but a lifetime of illness and sometimes death."

Now it's definitely up to you to prove that statement.
In depth, using your criteria of being completely independent.
I will carry on asking you until you provide this.


As for your "one ring to rule them all" study (the eternal fall-back question from the anti-vaxxers).
How do you suggest we go about this?

Do we run individual case-control studies against EVERY vaccine and combination of vaccines against completely unvaccinated children?
How do we decide who to vaccinate and who not to?
What end-points do we apply?
Over how long should the study take?
How are external environmental factors accounted for?
How are pre-existing but latent conditions accounted for?

Are you starting to see just how ridiculous your demand is?
And, after all of these hundreds of studies were done and find what we know already, that vaccines are safe, who would address the issue of kids injured or killed who hadn't been vaccinated due to them being in the unvaccinated bin?
The anti-vax lot?

Compared to a trillion-$ industry a few lawyers have very little money, certainly not enough to fund posters on the Internet. Don't forget, Big Pharma use their government links to get taxpayers money paying for their Internet sockpuppets, they use people in US military bases. In fact some people in this thread will know more than me about this for obvious reasons.

Lawyers would be best funding direct advertising, which they do on a few websites, but a whole social media campaign? No the sheer size of the Internet would be too great, even if they could afford to pay 1000 posters it would be such a small drop in the ocean of the Internet that they'd lose more money through such an investment. Whereas Big Pharma using their profits and taxpayers money can afford hundreds of thousands, it's easy to switch their marketing budget into this, as that's essentially what this is, it's marketing and public relations.

What I always wonder is after these paid posters have posted their propaganda for a few years and seen that the counter-arguments are far stronger (they clearly know the counter-arguments are stronger otherwise they wouldn't lie, make stuff up and be disingenuous), I wonder after these people finish their jobs, surely they are anti-vaccine too, some of them will have a complete turn-around and return to the Internet to make up for their mistakes.

As for me, I lose money when I come here as I'm actually meant to be working each time I post. However I'm an altuist, that's what drives me on, I care for the greater good of humanity.

Anyway, there's enough evidence here now for anyone who wants to learn more to do so. I will sign off as I've done my bit and have my own life to get back to.

Pardon?

Rubinstein
I'm sure nobody will fall for that, shills are all pro-vaccine, as that's where the funding is.

DJW001
Is this a confession that you and your sock puppets are shills for Big Pharma? There's money in life threatening illnesses that vaccines can prevent, right?

edit on 7-12-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

You've fallen for the other side of the coin though, so people WILL fall for it.
Add to that the MASSIVE amounts of money that the law firms are pumping in to it and you've got a very lucrative job being an anti-vaxxer.

Rubinstein
Compared to a trillion-$ industry a few lawyers have very little money, certainly not enough to fund posters on the Internet. Don't forget, Big Pharma use their government links to get taxpayers money paying for their Internet sockpuppets, they use people in US military bases. In fact some people in this thread will know more than me about this for obvious reasons.

Lawyers would be best funding direct advertising, which they do on a few websites, but a whole social media campaign? No the sheer size of the Internet would be too great, even if they could afford to pay 1000 posters it would be such a small drop in the ocean of the Internet that they'd lose more money through such an investment. Whereas Big Pharma using their profits and taxpayers money can afford hundreds of thousands, it's easy to switch their marketing budget into this, as that's essentially what this is, it's marketing and public relations.

What I always wonder is after these paid posters have posted their propaganda for a few years and seen that the counter-arguments are far stronger (they clearly know the counter-arguments are stronger otherwise they wouldn't lie, make stuff up and be disingenuous), I wonder after these people finish their jobs, surely they are anti-vaccine too, some of them will have a complete turn-around and return to the Internet to make up for their mistakes.

As for me, I lose money when I come here as I'm actually meant to be working each time I post. However I'm an altuist, that's what drives me on, I care for the greater good of humanity.

Anyway, there's enough evidence here now for anyone who wants to learn more to do so. I will sign off as I've done my bit and have my own life to get back to.

You are probably many things, an altruist certainly isn't one of them though.
As for you caring for the greater good....why have you been constantly posting lies then?

And as for the evidence, yes it speaks for itself.
Conclusively against the anti-vax stance.