The Cost of Not Vaccinating

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ENrgLee
 



Your shaming language has no power over me.


Then why did you bother to reply?




posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Truedoc1
Really your going to hold dollars up as a reason to vaccinate? God forbid anyone should have to stay home and care for your child instead of going to work. What about the 3.2 million it cost to care for an autistic child. There is plenty of evidence showing vaccines are not what they seem they are neither safe nor effective.



Since vaccines have been proven time and time again to not cause and not to have any association whatsoever with autism the example you use is pointless.
Hospital costs for treating people with preventable illnesses and their complications costs an absolute fortune though.

www.safeminds.org...

Care to cite the "evidence" which your alternative belief is based upon?



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   
All I had to do was read some of the packages insert where it list's autism as an adverse reaction. I mean, you did read all of the different insert for the vaccines right, not to mention the almost 3 billion $ vaccine court has paid out. civil courts in other countries have determined that some cases of autism was caused by the shots. You are about to see probably before the 2nd quarter of this year that autism will be classified into different categories, with vaccine induced autism accounting for about 60-70%. How do I know this? Because I am involved with a company that just finished a phase 3 clinical trial regarding this. The results will be out very soon and it is going to be very clear what's up with these kids. clinicaltrials.gov Curemark is the company. Good luck to you



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Perhaps you should rely on studies that were not authored by a scientist who isn't on the justice department's most wanted list for fraud and embezzlement for your information



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Truedoc1
All I had to do was read some of the packages insert where it list's autism as an adverse reaction. I mean, you did read all of the different insert for the vaccines right, not to mention the almost 3 billion $ vaccine court has paid out. civil courts in other countries have determined that some cases of autism was caused by the shots. You are about to see probably before the 2nd quarter of this year that autism will be classified into different categories, with vaccine induced autism accounting for about 60-70%. How do I know this? Because I am involved with a company that just finished a phase 3 clinical trial regarding this. The results will be out very soon and it is going to be very clear what's up with these kids. clinicaltrials.gov Curemark is the company. Good luck to you



So that's your "evidence"?
A reported adverse event on packaging? (And it's "adverse event" not "adverse reaction").
You do understand what a reported adverse event is don't you?
Just to make it clear for you as you obviously don't, a reported event is one which has happened in a certain amount of time after a medication has been administered.
IT DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THAT MEDICATION TO HAVE BEEN REPORTED.
These events can be reported by anyone to VAERS
Autism isn't caused by vaccinations, as the real scientific testing shows us that there is no association.
That's using real studies and obtaining real evidence which is reproducible and verifiable.
That's what counts.

As for the US courts, not one has accepted that autism was caused by the vaccine. Check up on them please.
The ONE case in Italy which did refused any evidence from an independent medical advisor and just accepted the plaintiff's argument without reproach. Check up on this please.
I'd like to add that would you accept a medical diagnosis from a lawyer?
No?
Didn't think so.
So why would you accept a medical finding from them?

I have to assume that you're not involved in any of the R&D aspect at Curemark as the phase II and III studies are about safety and efficacy of a specific compound in treating some forms of autism and nothing to do with a vaccine/autism link.
How these studies would prove an association with vaccine and autism is completely beyond any realm of wonder.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Truedoc1
Perhaps you should rely on studies that were not authored by a scientist who isn't on the justice department's most wanted list for fraud and embezzlement for your information


NOW I see where you're getting your belief from!

Talk about hyperbole and misinformation.

If you're talking about Paul Thorsen you will see that he's not the lead researcher on that paper.
He's not the main author either.
He took part in the research and was a co-author.

The fraud and embezzlement happened after the paper was published.

It was alleged to have taken place at least a year after the paper was published so how has this got anything to do with that study?
If the incident was directly connected with that study then it wouldn't have been accepted would it yet it is.
Why don't you try to counter the results of the paper rather than attacking a researcher on it for something he did a year later?
www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...


Here's another study for you.
jpeds.com...

Here's another.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

And another.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

And another.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

And another.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

There are plenty more too.
I suggest that instead of reading package inserts which you clearly don't understand, get someone to read the above studies to you. Just focus on the results and conclusions if you wish.
But I'd do that before pretending you know there is an association between vaccines and autism as by doing that you don't seem particularly well-informed.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
If you cant put 2 + 2 together discount these.
www.facebook.com...



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Truedoc1
If you cant put 2 + 2 together discount these.
www.facebook.com...


So no real reply to my previous post then?
Just throwing different things out until your whale.to list becomes exhausted in the hope one of them IS actually real evidence eh?
You're wasting your time.

I've rebutted that list of "evidence" before before.
Typical of anti-vaxxers. No new evidence but just regurgitating the same old nonsense time and time again.
The only proof they are is that anti-vaxxers don't understand what constitutes a robust study.
And in a style that you'll be more familiar with, here's a complete rebuttal of them in a regurgitated fashion.
angryautie.wordpress.com...

Here's a nice piece for you about your hero, Andrew Wakefield.
www.benthamscience.com...

And if you want to know just how vaccines cause autism, everything you need to know is at this link (THE NEXT LINK CONTAINS STRONG LANGUAGE AND IS NSFW)

How do Vaccines Cause Autism?



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Pardon?

Truedoc1
If you cant put 2 + 2 together discount these.
www.facebook.com...


So no real reply to my previous post then?
Just throwing different things out until your whale.to list becomes exhausted in the hope one of them IS actually real evidence eh?
You're wasting your time.

I've rebutted that list of "evidence" before before.
Typical of anti-vaxxers. No new evidence but just regurgitating the same old nonsense time and time again.
The only proof they are is that anti-vaxxers don't understand what constitutes a robust study.
And in a style that you'll be more familiar with, here's a complete rebuttal of them in a regurgitated fashion.
angryautie.wordpress.com...

Here's a nice piece for you about your hero, Andrew Wakefield.
www.benthamscience.com...

And if you want to know just how vaccines cause autism, everything you need to know is at this link (THE NEXT LINK CONTAINS STRONG LANGUAGE AND IS NSFW)

How do Vaccines Cause Autism?



Just as a hint for anyone else reading this; if you wish to have some credence in discussing medical issues, don't use something posted on a Facebook wall as a citation.
It makes you look silly.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I see, so 83 referenced paper gets thrown out because the page they were so nicely collated on is silly? I understand now, thanks for this discourse it's fun to see others programing. This all becomes moot because neither one of us is right until the study comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated health is done. The one study no one in that industry wants done. In 30yrs of working in the medical field I've seen both sides up close and personal, it's devastating to those involved and it is never cut and dried as you present it. Thanks again, time will tell.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Truedoc1
I see, so 83 referenced paper gets thrown out because the page they were so nicely collated on is silly? I understand now, thanks for this discourse it's fun to see others programing. This all becomes moot because neither one of us is right until the study comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated health is done. The one study no one in that industry wants done. In 30yrs of working in the medical field I've seen both sides up close and personal, it's devastating to those involved and it is never cut and dried as you present it. Thanks again, time will tell.


In answer to your first sentence, no.
They get "thrown out" as per the rebuttals in the link in my previous post to that.
So no, you certainly don't see. I'd be very surprised if you did, as if so, you wouldn't be regurgitating crap from FB pages without checking the source material first.
Here it is again as you so obviously missed it the first time.
angryautie.wordpress.com...
Here's the original pdf of it too just for completion's sake.
lizditz.typepad.com...

Prey tell with your "30 years working in the medical field" (being a cleaner or receptionist doesn't really count) how exactly would you conduct such a study?
Would you randomly select children to receive vaccinations and some not to then expose both groups to the disease or just let them get on with it?
Do you see any ethical problem with that? You know, with your "30 years in the medical field" and all?

Or would you do this
www.aerzteblatt.de...
(Oh look, a vax vs unvaxxed study, how quaint!)


Time has told actually and that's the fact that vaccines save lives.
Vaccinations aren't a recent thing you know, they've been happening for decades.
And guess what?
They work.
Have a read of this.
www.febrilnotropeni.net...

Or if that's too technical for your specific "medical field" here's a summary.
bits.blogs.nytimes.com...



Don't mention it, you're welcome.

edit on 29/1/14 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)
edit on 29/1/14 by Pardon? because: Added links



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
You just keep denying the problem buddy.
www.prweb.com...



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
You are either so lost or you are just a vaccine troll
origin.library.constantcontact.com...



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Truedoc1
You just keep denying the problem buddy.
www.prweb.com...



Oft Debunked Is CDC hiding data?
edit on 6-3-2014 by blargo because: fix URL



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Pardon?

Truedoc1
Really your going to hold dollars up as a reason to vaccinate? God forbid anyone should have to stay home and care for your child instead of going to work. What about the 3.2 million it cost to care for an autistic child. There is plenty of evidence showing vaccines are not what they seem they are neither safe nor effective.



Since vaccines have been proven time and time again to not cause and not to have any association whatsoever with autism the example you use is pointless.
Hospital costs for treating people with preventable illnesses and their complications costs an absolute fortune though.

www.safeminds.org...

Care to cite the "evidence" which your alternative belief is based upon?


Funny that anti-vaxxers use the "vaccines cause autism" line as a scare tactic while measles is known to cause actual brain damage and cognitive problems.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 09:54 PM
link   
The reason is crying anti vaccine or anti fluoride is a cop out to the real horrors around them.

Much better to "stand up" for something that can be talked about at dinner time. With the nice self entitled white middle class family .


These people need to travel a bit more.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
You bought a lie, pure and simple, come back from the dark side



www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Truedoc1
 


Err.. Do you realize that those graphs ARE the hoax? They are so intellectually dishonest words cannot describe. They have been discredited. It has been shown that he filled in 10 years of missing information with completely fabricated numbers. They have been debated over and over again in threads such as these and every time it has been shown those graphs are fraudulent.



So goes one heading over at the No Compulsory Vaccination blog, leading to a screed of disturbingly accusatory silliness borne of the confidence from one graph.
Dr Raymond Obomsawin is one of the few to knock up a bogus graph that cites decreasing incidence of measles infection rather than the boring old general mortality we’ve come to expect from antivaxxers. The obvious conclusion of course is that lethal viruses were being tamed by clean water, less wandering poo and yummy food.
Robert Webb succinctly explains where the problems lie here and also points to a further mincing of Obomsawin by David Gorski at Science Based Medicine. I quite like Gorski’s sub-heading. Intellectual dishonesty at it’s most naked.
What surprises me still however, is just how many angles these purveyors of fiction will try. As I touched on in some satire recently, Meryl Dorey’s hilarious poker face revelation on Radio 3CR whilst chatting (or rather, lying) to Helen Lobato pre Woodford was a beauty.
A lot of the credit that’s been given to vaccines for the decline in deaths and infectious diseases has nothing to do with vaccines. Because it all happened before the shots were introduced. Engineers did more to improve the health of Australians than doctors ever have.

Whilst antivaxxers have been a little more vocal of late, they seem to have really only dug their hole deeper. If not attacking those who ask questions of them, engaging in a bit of fraud or libel, it seems to be silliness as usual. Judy Wilyman is a splendid offender with this myth, claiming there is “no historical evidence” for the success of any vaccine schedule. Her trick is to use mortality rates. Usually Judy just plonks up infant fatality rates from 1900 onwards and uses the rapid decline up till 1950 to mount her case.
Let’s ignore what two World Wars did to the birth rate and consequently infant fatalities in English speaking nations over that period, and just focus on the absurdity of mortality alone. There’s no doubt improvements in sanitation, hygiene and quality of food improved our health vastly. But did it also impact on viral behaviour and immunity as is being suggested?LINK

Vaccine Awareness Week begins: Raymond Obomsawin is still spreading the same misinformation

“Vaccines didn’t save us” (a.k.a. “vaccines don’t work”): Intellectual dishonesty at its most naked


The link above will take you some of the graphs and show you the real numbers and point out the fraudulence.

Yup you bought into a lie.





top topics
 
8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join