Courts Quietly Confirm MMR Vaccine Causes Autism

Pardon?

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?

Yes you are right, Im not very well educated on the subject, and have never claimed to be.
I stated quite clearly that I only started investigating after jumping into this thread.
I have shown repeated evidence that contradicts your own claims, which would show that an "uneducated" person like myself can find flaws in your assertions, that tells me you arent as "educated" as you think you are.
And unless you have MD after your name or a Dr in front of your name, then you are as qualified as me.

As for children being killed by diseases, thats been happening as long as mankind has shared this world with microrganisms. Hygiene, better healthcare and better diets have done much to suppress the dangers of disease.
That is a fact.
The hundreds of thousands killed each year due to medical malpractice/negligence and medicinal side effects, not to mention those disabled or given life long illnesses as a result is also another fact. So before you cling to the moral highground, please dont disregard those facts.
AND lets not forget the ADHD or SSRI scandals, CHILDREN being prescribed meds for illnesses that dont exist, just so the pharmaceutical companies can make huge profits from the harm they cause to children through side effects.
So there you have it, talk all you like about "making money from bad science". The side which you defend COMPLETELY, is just as guilty(and much more profitable) as the "anti" side.
Thats not bad science, its not uneducated, its not the distant past, its reality right now my friend.

OneManArmy

Yes you are right, Im not very well educated on the subject, and have never claimed to be.
I stated quite clearly that I only started investigating after jumping into this thread.
I have shown repeated evidence that contradicts your own claims, which would show that an "uneducated" person like myself can find flaws in your assertions, that tells me you arent as "educated" as you think you are.
And unless you have MD after your name or a Dr in front of your name, then you are as qualified as me.

As for children being killed by diseases, thats been happening as long as mankind has shared this world with microrganisms. Hygiene, better healthcare and better diets have done much to suppress the dangers of disease.
That is a fact.
The hundreds of thousands killed each year due to medical malpractice/negligence and medicinal side effects, not to mention those disabled or given life long illnesses as a result is also another fact. So before you cling to the moral highground, please dont disregard those facts.
AND lets not forget the ADHD or SSRI scandals, CHILDREN being prescribed meds for illnesses that dont exist, just so the pharmaceutical companies can make huge profits from the harm they cause to children through side effects.
So there you have it, talk all you like about "making money from bad science". The side which you defend COMPLETELY, is just as guilty(and much more profitable) as the "anti" side.
Thats not bad science, its not uneducated, its not the distant past, its reality right now my friend.

You can state whatever you want but this thread hasn't sparked your "investigation" at all.
You've posted that you had been looking into MMR and autism previously so that lends itself to your current stance now. Without a doubt.

You really haven't shown contradictory evidence at all.

OneManArmy
"As for children being killed by diseases,thats been happening as long as mankind has shared this world with microrganisms. Hygiene, better healthcare and better diets have done much to suppress the dangers of disease."

You missed out some very important words at the and... "UP TO A POINT".
We also have the ability to reduce those numbers even further and eradicate those diseases.
From that you imply that those who don't have access to good hygiene, healthcare and good diets are expendable as something as cheap and simple as a vaccine could put them on a level playing field.

We've been through the next two points earlier in the thread.

And I completely agreed with you.

Even one person dying from the above is too many that's why constant research is being done to try to improve these medications and standards.
However, in certain areas, they've been hampered by having to go on wild-goose chases because of people like you.

Again though, how many people wouldn't be here if it wasn't for medical care?
How many people wouldn't be here if it wasn't for medication?
You lot always conveniently omit that side and I can guarantee that these numbers far and away eclipse any numbers from malpractice or negligent. By several factors of 10.


The reason I talk about there being profit in anti-vax is only because there is.
And it's easy money as you don't have to prove anything at all, just constantly spread bullsh*t but make sure you have "donate" button on your website.
And a book, don't forget the book.
But unlike pharma (who I'm sure I've agreed with virtually every corruption allegation against...) there is no other factor. There is no benefit.
What will they gain?
People stop taking vaccines and more people will become ill and undoubtedly more people will die.
A massive strain on the respective health services will cause a struggling system to collapse even further leading to even more problems.

The autism rate will still be at least the same or if not more.
The amount of childhood cancer will not drop.
The amount of bowel-disease will not drop.
The incidence of Alzheimer's will continue to grow.
Etc etc etc.

So, looking at the above and excluding ignorance, what can rationally be THE only motive for being anti-vax?

(Although I'm perfectly sure Rubincode isn't a shill as if he was he wouldn't be getting paid very much with what he posts.)

Rubinstein
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?

If they are so susceptible to brain damage that a simple fever will induce autism-like symptoms, they are already effectively "autistic for life." It doesn't matter whether the precipitating stressor is a vaccine or infection with a wild pathogen. At least the vaccine has the benefit of conferring immunity with a much lower rate of complications. Would you prefer the child to have dealt with a fever and the other symptoms of measles?

The "1 in 50" number seems to be an exaggeration, at least for the US. The National Autism Association, which surely has no reason to undercount, says it's 1 in 88. And that's total autism numbers, not the number of autism-like symptoms caused by aggravation of a mitochondrial disorder. (Unless you're ready to say all autism-like symptoms are caused by aggravation of a mitochondrial disorder, which is not found in all autistic persons!)

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.

Who is "they?" How do they know the children will be harmed? How do they know which course of action will cause the least harm? When a simple fever is enough to cause brain damage, what causes more harm--vaccinating, or leaving them to the mercy of eight bajillion germs swarming around them?

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.

We already know why the rates of autism diagnoses are skyrocketing; mental health services are more accessible and the definition of autism has been changed. In fact, they changed it again last December. Get ready for another rocket trip.

And we know that, over large populations, there is no detectable link between vaccines and autism. That means vaccines cause no extra cases of autism. An unvaccinated control population and a vaccinated experimental population will have the same rate of autism.

Pardon?

The autism rate will still be at least the same or if not more.
The amount of childhood cancer will not drop.
The amount of bowel-disease will not drop.
The incidence of Alzheimer's will continue to grow.
Etc etc etc.

So, looking at the above and excluding ignorance, what can rationally be THE only motive for being anti-vax?

In my personal opinion, the ONLY rationale for being anti vax, is simply due diligence, being aware of and highlighting the mistakes of the past, in an effort to keep pressure on the pharma industry to not only make sure the same mistakes arent repeated, but that they are constantly under pressure to do the right thing, regardless of the profit margins being affected. Because ultimately, healthcare should be about us and our health, not corporations and their shareholders bank accounts. I have nothing against profit, but I do have something against profit at the expense of others, and I am very much against greed.

Cancer will not drop because the viruses are already out there, they can be transmitted sexually, so they are never going away.
As we keep eating crap food and living longer then of course Alzheimer's will continue to rise, and corporations are free to pollute our world the illness and sickness will never go away.
There are many causes of sickness in this world, vaccines are just one of them, but in no way are they the only cause.
I recall the UK foot and mouth outbreak being traced back to a research lab.
Sv-40 traced back to the Polio vaccine, aids back to the Hep B vaccine, as for SARS, that appears to be a man made virus.
I think with that, its only smart to question the whole damn industry. Especially when they start digging up 1918 spanish flu and the bubonic plague to "study" it. Alarm bells start ringing Im afraid.
Lets not forget the post 911 anthrax scare, which was US military grade anthrax, traced back to US military biolabs.
Can you not see a pattern emerging here?

OneManArmy

Pardon?

The autism rate will still be at least the same or if not more.
The amount of childhood cancer will not drop.
The amount of bowel-disease will not drop.
The incidence of Alzheimer's will continue to grow.
Etc etc etc.

So, looking at the above and excluding ignorance, what can rationally be THE only motive for being anti-vax?

In my personal opinion, the ONLY rationale for being anti vax, is simply due diligence, being aware of and highlighting the mistakes of the past, in an effort to keep pressure on the pharma industry to not only make sure the same mistakes arent repeated, but that they are constantly under pressure to do the right thing, regardless of the profit margins being affected. Because ultimately, healthcare should be about us and our health, not corporations and their shareholders bank accounts. I have nothing against profit, but I do have something against profit at the expense of others, and I am very much against greed.

Cancer will not drop because the viruses are already out there, they can be transmitted sexually, so they are never going away.
As we keep eating crap food and living longer then of course Alzheimer's will continue to rise, and corporations are free to pollute our world the illness and sickness will never go away.
There are many causes of sickness in this world, vaccines are just one of them, but in no way are they the only cause.
I recall the UK foot and mouth outbreak being traced back to a research lab.
Sv-40 traced back to the Polio vaccine, aids back to the Hep B vaccine, as for SARS, that appears to be a man made virus.
I think with that, its only smart to question the whole damn industry. Especially when they start digging up 1918 spanish flu and the bubonic plague to "study" it. Alarm bells start ringing Im afraid.
Lets not forget the post 911 anthrax scare, which was US military grade anthrax, traced back to US military biolabs.
Can you not see a pattern emerging here?

edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmSun, 08 Dec 2013 12:56:47 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

There have been a few incidences posted in this thread where there have been issues with vaccines which have been discovered and actioned upon.
SV40 in polio, Urabe strain MMR and RotaSheild for rotavirus were the main examples.
Was it the anti-vax industry that discovered these issues and conducted proper tests and "due diligence" on them?
Nope. No input from them whatsoever. Zero. Nothing. Zilch.
All of these issues were discovered by physicians and scientists working for hospitals, pharma and government health departments.
All the people you distrust.
(By the way, SV40 hasn't caused cancer in humans
robslink.com...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... )
The pressure on them doesn't come from anti-vaxxers, that's without a doubt.

In fact, can you tell me one positive thing the anti-vax industry has done to improve health or to combat disease?
In fact, can you tell me one positive thing the anti-vax industry has done full stop?
I really can't think of anything at all.

Yet you don't question the anti-vax industry at all?
Yes, as that's what it is, an industry except they don't produce ANYTHING (other than mis-information, fear and outbreaks of previously well-controlled disease).
They provide NOTHING useful at all (if anything, they actually BENEFIT PHARMA as pharmaceutical treatment for these preventable diseases is far more costly than vaccines).

The upper echelons of anti-vax are populated by doctors with dubious practices, failed and/or disgraced "doctors", naturopaths and lots of people who have no experience in the field of medicine whatsoever who just regurgitate the nonsense fed to them.
And celebrities, don't forget the celebrities.
If they can't push their nonsense using science they'll do it the Hollywood way.


There are hundreds of different types of cancers and only a very small portion of them are caused by viruses.
Which cancers are you talking about?

The AIDS/Hep B conspiracy, as that's what it is, it's not factual, I believe was started by our friend Lenny Horowitz, the dentist or if not started by him, definitely made more popular by him.
(Just as an aside in case others haven't heard of him, this is how he describes himself on his own website
"Humanitarian, Clinician, Prophet, Scholar and Natural Healer"
He forgot to add "Deluded Narcissist" though...)
The Heb B vaccine was released in 1981 and made available in 1982.
AIDS takes quite some time to develop after being infected with HIV and whilst it's true that the first cases of AIDS were discovered in 1981 it's far more likely that these cases had been infected years earlier.
Although given that the first case was in March 1981, this was already prior to the Hep B even being released.
As for SARS, well that's anyone's guess but the fact the first known case was in a farmer in China lends me to believe it wasn't man-made (it's also not really that prevalent, only around 9000 cases have been reported worldwide since it was discovered).

I don't know anything about foot and mouth although I did hear the rumours.
Not really heard anything confirming these rumours though.
No doubt there's been a massive cover-up...

They're not "digging up 1918 spanish flu and the bubonic plague to "study" it[sic]" at all.
They know exactly what the virus that caused the flu was, H5N1, they're researching into WHY it was so deadly and why there were so many secondary bacterial infections from it so if there's an ever an outbreak of it again they can deal with it properly.

Bubonic plague has never been eradicated and there have been outbreaks of it all through history up until the present day.
Being a bacterial illness it's not preventable by vaccines but it's quite readily treatable using antibiotic therapy.

I fail to see how the anthrax "scare" was to do with pharma since, in your words, (it can be) "traced back to US military biolabs".
Sorry, don't get the connection between anthrax and vaccines.


So yes, I can see a pattern here.
I can see a pattern telling me the reason that you don't trust vaccines is nothing to do with vaccines at all.

I thought I'd dig out all the work supporting the non increase in actual autism cases.

Autism and diagnostic substitution: evidence from a study of adults with a history of developmental language disorder.

“Some children who would nowadays be diagnosed unambiguously with autistic disorder had been diagnosed with developmental language disorder in the past. This finding has implications for our understanding of the epidemiology of autism.”

Pervasive developmental disorders in preschool children: confirmation of high prevalence.

“The rate of pervasive developmental disorders is higher than reported 15 years ago. The rate in this study is comparable to that in previous birth cohorts from the same area and surveyed with the same methods, suggesting a stable incidence”

Epidemiology of autistic disorder and other pervasive developmental disorders.

Epidemiology of Pervasive Developmental Disorders

There is evidence that the broadening of the concept, the expansion of diagnostic criteria, the development of services, and improved awareness of the condition have played a major role in explaining this increase, although it cannot be ruled out that other factors might have also contributed to that trend. …. Although it is clear that prevalence estimates have gone up over time, this increase most likely represents changes in the concepts, definitions, service availability, and awareness of autistic-spectrum disorders in both the lay and professional public.

Epidemiology and possible causes of autism

“A major cause of the recent large increase in the number of boys diagnosed with autism probably is due to changing diagnostic practices.”

Incidence of autism spectrum disorders: changes over time and their meaning.

“The true incidence of autism spectrum disorders is likely to be within the range of 30-60 cases per 10 000, a huge increase over the original estimate 40 years ago of 4 per 10000. The increase is largely a consequence of improved ascertainment and a considerable broadening of the diagnostic concept. However, a true risk due to some, as yet to be identified, environmental risk factor cannot be ruled out. There is no support for the hypothesis for a role of either MMR or thimerosal in causation, but the evidence on the latter is more limited”

The Contribution of Diagnostic Substitution to the Growing Administrative Prevalence of Autism in US Special Education

Prevalence findings from special education data do not support the claim of an autism epidemic because the administrative prevalence figures for most states are well below epidemiological estimates. The growing administrative prevalence of autism from 1994 to 2003 was associated with corresponding declines in the usage of other diagnostic categories.

Vaccines and the changing epidemiology of autism.

“The recorded prevalence of autism has increased considerably in recent years. This reflects greater recognition, with changes in diagnostic practice associated with more trained diagnosticians; broadening of diagnostic criteria to include a spectrum of disorder; a greater willingness by parents and educationalists to accept the label (in part because of entitlement to services); and better recording systems, among other factors. The cause(s) of autism remains unclear. There is a strong genetic component which, along with prenatally determined neuro-anatomical/biochemical changes, makes any post-natal ’cause’ unlikely.”

The validity of the autism spectrum disorders-diagnosis for intellectually disabled adults

Prevalence of autism and related conditions in adults in a mental handicap hospital.

Epidemiology of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Adults in the Community in England

“To our knowledge, there is no published information on the epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) in adults.
Conclusions Conducting epidemiologic research on ASD in adults is feasible. The prevalence of ASD in this population is similar to that found in children. The lack of an association with age is consistent with there having been no increase in prevalence and with its causes being temporally constant.”

Three Reasons Not to believe in an Autism Epidemic

ABSTRACT—According to some lay groups, the nation is experiencing an autism epidemic—a rapid escalation in the prevalence of autism for unknown reasons. However, no sound scientific evidence indicates that the increasing number of diagnosed cases of autism arises from anything other than purposely broadened diagnostic criteria, coupled with deliberately greater public awareness and intentionally improved case finding. Why is the public perception so disconnected from the scientific evidence? In this article we review three primary sources of misunderstanding: lack of awareness about the changing diagnostic criteria, uncritical acceptance of a conclusion illogically drawn in a California-based study, and inattention to a crucial feature of the ‘‘child count’’ data reported annually by the U.S. Department of Education.

Increase in autism due to change in definition, not MMR vaccine

Social Influence Plays Role in Surging Autism Diagnoses, Study Finds

the study, by researchers from the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy at Columbia University, found that children living near a child who has been previously diagnosed with autism have a much higher chance of being diagnosed themselves in the following year. The increased likelihood of being diagnosed is not due to environmental factors or contagious agents, the study found. Rather, it is due mainly to parents learning about autism from other parents who have a child diagnosed with the disorder.

The Changing Prevalence of Autism in California

These data suggest that improvements in detection and changes in diagnosis account for the observed increase in autism; whether there has also been a true increase in incidence is not known.

Analysis of prevalence trends of autism spectrum disorder in Minnesota

We could not assess changes in actual disease incidence with these data, but federal and state administrative changes in policy and law favoring better identification and reporting of autism are likely contributing factors to the prevalence increases and may imply that autism spectrum disorder has been underdiagnosed in the past.

Is autism more common now than ten years ago?

Even though the prevalence rates refer to slightly different age cohorts, it was concluded that the apparent increase is in part due to better detection, but also to new cases born to immigrant parents. Typical cases of autistic disorder accounted for 75% of cases, and 20% had normal or near-normal IQs.

Reevaluating the incidence of pervasive developmental disorders: impact of elevated rates of detection through implementation of an integrated system of screening in Toyota, Japan.

An approximately 11-fold increase was noted in prevalence of PDD compared to a previous survey two decades ago, and two main factors were believed to account for this apparent sharp increase. First, inclusion of high-functioning subjects detected during infancy, and second, higher rates of diagnosis resulting from an integrated process of screening

I found one single study supporting an increase. It would seem that the 'autism' epidemic is not real, but due to changed definitions of what ASD is.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

Rubinstein
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?

If they are so susceptible to brain damage that a simple fever will induce autism-like symptoms, they are already effectively "autistic for life." It doesn't matter whether the precipitating stressor is a vaccine or infection with a wild pathogen. At least the vaccine has the benefit of conferring immunity with a much lower rate of complications. Would you prefer the child to have dealt with a fever and the other symptoms of measles?

EXACTLY.

If they are born fragile they are timebombs, and the virus in the vaccines is way less agressive than the wild one. There would probably be a lower rate of damaged kids from vaccinating the vulnerable then just leaving them to take their chances with the wild viruses which are way nastier.

I've just posted a job lot of research into the frequency of autism that concludes it's the same in older generations and increased diagnosis is the reason for the current 'epidemic'.

The first hurdle for the the vaccines-cause-autism theory is to show an increase in the base frequency in the condition. Fallen at the first hurdle, as far as I'm concerned. It's simple logic. If there aren't any more cases than there used to be, how can introducing a new factor be the cause of the condtion? Duh.

The antivax crowd conveniently forget that we used to just hide away 'mentally defective' people in special facilities. Makes it seem that more are around now that we have them in amongst us. Plenty of kids who would now be 'autistic' used to be called 'backwards' or 'retarded', in fact one of the studies I posted points out as more kids get diagnosed with autism in the American school system fewer are in the 'other' developmental problems category.

Pardon?

OneManArmy

Pardon?

The autism rate will still be at least the same or if not more.
The amount of childhood cancer will not drop.
The amount of bowel-disease will not drop.
The incidence of Alzheimer's will continue to grow.
Etc etc etc.

So, looking at the above and excluding ignorance, what can rationally be THE only motive for being anti-vax?

In my personal opinion, the ONLY rationale for being anti vax, is simply due diligence, being aware of and highlighting the mistakes of the past, in an effort to keep pressure on the pharma industry to not only make sure the same mistakes arent repeated, but that they are constantly under pressure to do the right thing, regardless of the profit margins being affected. Because ultimately, healthcare should be about us and our health, not corporations and their shareholders bank accounts. I have nothing against profit, but I do have something against profit at the expense of others, and I am very much against greed.

Cancer will not drop because the viruses are already out there, they can be transmitted sexually, so they are never going away.
As we keep eating crap food and living longer then of course Alzheimer's will continue to rise, and corporations are free to pollute our world the illness and sickness will never go away.
There are many causes of sickness in this world, vaccines are just one of them, but in no way are they the only cause.
I recall the UK foot and mouth outbreak being traced back to a research lab.
Sv-40 traced back to the Polio vaccine, aids back to the Hep B vaccine, as for SARS, that appears to be a man made virus.
I think with that, its only smart to question the whole damn industry. Especially when they start digging up 1918 spanish flu and the bubonic plague to "study" it. Alarm bells start ringing Im afraid.
Lets not forget the post 911 anthrax scare, which was US military grade anthrax, traced back to US military biolabs.
Can you not see a pattern emerging here?

edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmSun, 08 Dec 2013 12:56:47 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

There have been a few incidences posted in this thread where there have been issues with vaccines which have been discovered and actioned upon.
SV40 in polio, Urabe strain MMR and RotaSheild for rotavirus were the main examples.
Was it the anti-vax industry that discovered these issues and conducted proper tests and "due diligence" on them?
Nope. No input from them whatsoever. Zero. Nothing. Zilch.
All of these issues were discovered by physicians and scientists working for hospitals, pharma and government health departments.
All the people you distrust.
(By the way, SV40 hasn't caused cancer in humans
robslink.com...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... )
The pressure on them doesn't come from anti-vaxxers, that's without a doubt.

In fact, can you tell me one positive thing the anti-vax industry has done to improve health or to combat disease?
In fact, can you tell me one positive thing the anti-vax industry has done full stop?
I really can't think of anything at all.

Yet you don't question the anti-vax industry at all?
Yes, as that's what it is, an industry except they don't produce ANYTHING (other than mis-information, fear and outbreaks of previously well-controlled disease).
They provide NOTHING useful at all (if anything, they actually BENEFIT PHARMA as pharmaceutical treatment for these preventable diseases is far more costly than vaccines).

The upper echelons of anti-vax are populated by doctors with dubious practices, failed and/or disgraced "doctors", naturopaths and lots of people who have no experience in the field of medicine whatsoever who just regurgitate the nonsense fed to them.
And celebrities, don't forget the celebrities.
If they can't push their nonsense using science they'll do it the Hollywood way.


There are hundreds of different types of cancers and only a very small portion of them are caused by viruses.
Which cancers are you talking about?

The AIDS/Hep B conspiracy, as that's what it is, it's not factual, I believe was started by our friend Lenny Horowitz, the dentist or if not started by him, definitely made more popular by him.
(Just as an aside in case others haven't heard of him, this is how he describes himself on his own website
"Humanitarian, Clinician, Prophet, Scholar and Natural Healer"
He forgot to add "Deluded Narcissist" though...)
The Heb B vaccine was released in 1981 and made available in 1982.
AIDS takes quite some time to develop after being infected with HIV and whilst it's true that the first cases of AIDS were discovered in 1981 it's far more likely that these cases had been infected years earlier.
Although given that the first case was in March 1981, this was already prior to the Hep B even being released.
As for SARS, well that's anyone's guess but the fact the first known case was in a farmer in China lends me to believe it wasn't man-made (it's also not really that prevalent, only around 9000 cases have been reported worldwide since it was discovered).

I don't know anything about foot and mouth although I did hear the rumours.
Not really heard anything confirming these rumours though.
No doubt there's been a massive cover-up...

They're not "digging up 1918 spanish flu and the bubonic plague to "study" it[sic]" at all.
They know exactly what the virus that caused the flu was, H5N1, they're researching into WHY it was so deadly and why there were so many secondary bacterial infections from it so if there's an ever an outbreak of it again they can deal with it properly.

Bubonic plague has never been eradicated and there have been outbreaks of it all through history up until the present day.
Being a bacterial illness it's not preventable by vaccines but it's quite readily treatable using antibiotic therapy.

I fail to see how the anthrax "scare" was to do with pharma since, in your words, (it can be) "traced back to US military biolabs".
Sorry, don't get the connection between anthrax and vaccines.


So yes, I can see a pattern here.
I can see a pattern telling me the reason that you don't trust vaccines is nothing to do with vaccines at all.

edit on 9/12/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)

No, Im quite done in this thread, banging my head against a wall repeatedly has given me a headache.
I cant take anymore.

Have fun.

OneManArmy

Pardon?

OneManArmy

Pardon?

The autism rate will still be at least the same or if not more.
The amount of childhood cancer will not drop.
The amount of bowel-disease will not drop.
The incidence of Alzheimer's will continue to grow.
Etc etc etc.

So, looking at the above and excluding ignorance, what can rationally be THE only motive for being anti-vax?

In my personal opinion, the ONLY rationale for being anti vax, is simply due diligence, being aware of and highlighting the mistakes of the past, in an effort to keep pressure on the pharma industry to not only make sure the same mistakes arent repeated, but that they are constantly under pressure to do the right thing, regardless of the profit margins being affected. Because ultimately, healthcare should be about us and our health, not corporations and their shareholders bank accounts. I have nothing against profit, but I do have something against profit at the expense of others, and I am very much against greed.

Cancer will not drop because the viruses are already out there, they can be transmitted sexually, so they are never going away.
As we keep eating crap food and living longer then of course Alzheimer's will continue to rise, and corporations are free to pollute our world the illness and sickness will never go away.
There are many causes of sickness in this world, vaccines are just one of them, but in no way are they the only cause.
I recall the UK foot and mouth outbreak being traced back to a research lab.
Sv-40 traced back to the Polio vaccine, aids back to the Hep B vaccine, as for SARS, that appears to be a man made virus.
I think with that, its only smart to question the whole damn industry. Especially when they start digging up 1918 spanish flu and the bubonic plague to "study" it. Alarm bells start ringing Im afraid.
Lets not forget the post 911 anthrax scare, which was US military grade anthrax, traced back to US military biolabs.
Can you not see a pattern emerging here?

edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmSun, 08 Dec 2013 12:56:47 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

There have been a few incidences posted in this thread where there have been issues with vaccines which have been discovered and actioned upon.
SV40 in polio, Urabe strain MMR and RotaSheild for rotavirus were the main examples.
Was it the anti-vax industry that discovered these issues and conducted proper tests and "due diligence" on them?
Nope. No input from them whatsoever. Zero. Nothing. Zilch.
All of these issues were discovered by physicians and scientists working for hospitals, pharma and government health departments.
All the people you distrust.
(By the way, SV40 hasn't caused cancer in humans
robslink.com...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... )
The pressure on them doesn't come from anti-vaxxers, that's without a doubt.

In fact, can you tell me one positive thing the anti-vax industry has done to improve health or to combat disease?
In fact, can you tell me one positive thing the anti-vax industry has done full stop?
I really can't think of anything at all.

Yet you don't question the anti-vax industry at all?
Yes, as that's what it is, an industry except they don't produce ANYTHING (other than mis-information, fear and outbreaks of previously well-controlled disease).
They provide NOTHING useful at all (if anything, they actually BENEFIT PHARMA as pharmaceutical treatment for these preventable diseases is far more costly than vaccines).

The upper echelons of anti-vax are populated by doctors with dubious practices, failed and/or disgraced "doctors", naturopaths and lots of people who have no experience in the field of medicine whatsoever who just regurgitate the nonsense fed to them.
And celebrities, don't forget the celebrities.
If they can't push their nonsense using science they'll do it the Hollywood way.


There are hundreds of different types of cancers and only a very small portion of them are caused by viruses.
Which cancers are you talking about?

The AIDS/Hep B conspiracy, as that's what it is, it's not factual, I believe was started by our friend Lenny Horowitz, the dentist or if not started by him, definitely made more popular by him.
(Just as an aside in case others haven't heard of him, this is how he describes himself on his own website
"Humanitarian, Clinician, Prophet, Scholar and Natural Healer"
He forgot to add "Deluded Narcissist" though...)
The Heb B vaccine was released in 1981 and made available in 1982.
AIDS takes quite some time to develop after being infected with HIV and whilst it's true that the first cases of AIDS were discovered in 1981 it's far more likely that these cases had been infected years earlier.
Although given that the first case was in March 1981, this was already prior to the Hep B even being released.
As for SARS, well that's anyone's guess but the fact the first known case was in a farmer in China lends me to believe it wasn't man-made (it's also not really that prevalent, only around 9000 cases have been reported worldwide since it was discovered).

I don't know anything about foot and mouth although I did hear the rumours.
Not really heard anything confirming these rumours though.
No doubt there's been a massive cover-up...

They're not "digging up 1918 spanish flu and the bubonic plague to "study" it[sic]" at all.
They know exactly what the virus that caused the flu was, H5N1, they're researching into WHY it was so deadly and why there were so many secondary bacterial infections from it so if there's an ever an outbreak of it again they can deal with it properly.

Bubonic plague has never been eradicated and there have been outbreaks of it all through history up until the present day.
Being a bacterial illness it's not preventable by vaccines but it's quite readily treatable using antibiotic therapy.

I fail to see how the anthrax "scare" was to do with pharma since, in your words, (it can be) "traced back to US military biolabs".
Sorry, don't get the connection between anthrax and vaccines.


So yes, I can see a pattern here.
I can see a pattern telling me the reason that you don't trust vaccines is nothing to do with vaccines at all.

edit on 9/12/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)

No, Im quite done in this thread, banging my head against a wall repeatedly has given me a headache.
I cant take anymore.

Have fun.

Ah the easy way of not having to respond.

Fortunately, the headache will go.
Unfortunately, your misinformed beliefs will remain.

reply to post by OneManArmy

No, Im quite done in this thread, banging my head against a wall repeatedly has given me a headache.
I cant take anymore.

Have fun.

aka... 'That's a lot of information I've no way to counter'.

Antigod
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

No, Im quite done in this thread, banging my head against a wall repeatedly has given me a headache.
I cant take anymore.

Have fun.

aka... 'That's a lot of information I've no way to counter'.

Just go back over thread, I have countered so much already, to do so again would be a waste of my time.
It would seem there is a new vaccine thread, why repeat here what I can repeat there?
If you had read the whole thread, there is loads of information already presented.
Have fun reading it.

OneManArmy

Antigod
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

No, Im quite done in this thread, banging my head against a wall repeatedly has given me a headache.
I cant take anymore.

Have fun.

aka... 'That's a lot of information I've no way to counter'.

Just go back over thread, I have countered so much already, to do so again would be a waste of my time.
It would seem there is a new vaccine thread, why repeat here what I can repeat there?
If you had read the whole thread, there is loads of information already presented.
Have fun reading it.

You're becoming like Rubinhiddensteincode now.
Stating that you've countered an argument without actually doing it.

This is a very interesting article. It shows a possible reason for autism. Could some vaccines be triggering a response as explained in the cells? www.sciencedaily.com...

The drug is an old drug, full of Sulfur and nitrogen compounds. It could possibly reverse the Autism miscommunication. Maybe other diseases also. I suppose they will have to make a new and improved drug that can be patented with a high price tag.

originally posted by: angryhulk
reply to post by Akragon

 

Dr. Wakefield is a liar and has been charged and sued following his research. He put children at risk during his research and in my opinion he is a psychopath.

Source

Source

Source

That's only 3 source's but there are literally hundreds to choose from.

Yes, when the Medical/Pharmaceutical/Industrial Complex decides to destroy someones reputation and career, you will find lots of MSM sources in support.

While I haven't read the actual paper to confirm, from what I've read from others who say they have, most if not all of the claims about the nature of Dr. Wakefields research are false/hit-pieces, intended solely to discredit his name and reputation.

The gist is, his paper never claimed there was a link between MMR and autism, he merely said it 'warranted further study'. Also, apparently he did include some reports from some of the parents of the children involved that made observations that there child's symptoms started after getting the MMR shot, but there was nothing wrong with including these anecdotal reports in and of itself.

So, it appears to be highly likely that, in fact, the claim that 'the claim that MMR causes Autism was proven to be a fraud' is itself a fraud, if indeed that is not what was claimed in the paper.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: angryhulk
reply to post by Akragon

 

Dr. Wakefield is a liar and has been charged and sued following his research. He put children at risk during his research and in my opinion he is a psychopath.

Source

Source

Source

That's only 3 source's but there are literally hundreds to choose from.

. . . some of the parents of the children involved that made observations that there child's symptoms started after getting the MMR shot, but there was nothing wrong with including these anecdotal reports in and of itself.

I've been following this stuff for 30+ years. My daughter was ADD ---- way back in 1968 when it was barely known. My grandson is on the Autism spectrum. It seems to be heredity in my family.

There is a specific type Autism that strikes between the ages of 3 & 5. A child may be talking, and seem normal. Then slowly starts losing these abilities, showing signs of Autism. It is association of age and when this specific type Autism strikes that make some believe it is vaccinations. It isn't the vaccinations.

After 30 years of research --- you get a feel of what's legit and what isn't. IMO