Autism And Cancer Related To Human Fetal DNA In Vaccines.New Study In Journal Of Public Health

It's at least got some interesting, possibly falsifiable aspects to it.

I suspect you could make it into a real study with valid statistics and data. I'd give it a half a thumbs up for interesting premise at the least. And it ought to be straightforward to assay the fetal cell remnants and viral content.

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Unity_99

If people are vaccinated and believe they work, they should not fear the unvaccinated.

I fear for the immune suppressed child with leukemia who can be murdered by an uncaring luddite anti-vaxxer. Such a child can not be vaccinated.

I fear you are not very rational.

There are several proven cancer remedies that have shown to cure cancer in labs and in humans but the exact same drug companies that sell you vaccines also cover up such substances.

Who really is the bad guy the drug company or the patient being lied too.

a reply to: Aquariusdude

I also found another article on that site about the CDC director admitting that there is a chance that vaccines can cause autism.

In this portion of the interview, Dr. DeStefano admits that vaccines can “rarely” trigger autism, but admits that the CDC is not planning to research why this happens in some children.

source

a reply to: ML8715
The story (you have to follow a link from your link to get to it) is about a child with a mitochondrial disorder who suffered brain damage after a vaccination. The brain damage was a complication of the disorder, evidently aggravated by her immune response to the vaccination. If she didn't have the vaccination, would she live the rest of her life without ever having an immune response to anything? Probably not. Kids frequently get sick. Short of raising her in a bubble, there was no way to prevent this. Do all or most cases of autism have the same mitochondrial disorder? I don't know, but probably not. If this kid wasn't vaccinated, and she got measles, and that caused her developmental delays, do you think all the anti-vaxers would instantly decide that measles is the cause of autism, and rush out to get vaccinated against it? Probably not.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Aquariusdude

Can you tell me why this "paper" was "published" in an unscientific, non peer reviewed vanity press trying to pass itself off as a proper scientific publication instead of a credible peer-reviewed journal?

Attack the content of the report..Not the medium it was published on..Just because a study is peer reviewed does not mean its true as I have already posted..

originally posted by: Bedlam
It's at least got some interesting, possibly falsifiable aspects to it.

I suspect you could make it into a real study with valid statistics and data. I'd give it a half a thumbs up for interesting premise at the least. And it ought to be straightforward to assay the fetal cell remnants and viral content.

For some reason I cannot copy and paste from the report.But It does show much higher levels of fetal cell remnants then allowable levels in different vaccines..

a reply to: Aquariusdude

Actually, the medium is very important. A supposedly scientific paper published in a vanity press pretending to be a journal can be dismissed out of hand as it's not a peer reviewed piece of academic work, it's just pretending to be.

If that doesn't raise big red flags to you and you are content with the blatant deception then why even bother to pretend your position is scientific and evidence-based? Clearly you dont care about intellectual honesty and academic standards, only cherry picking the sience (no matter how crappy) that can fit your agenda and ignoring the rest.

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
But It does show much higher levels of fetal cell remnants then allowable levels in different vaccines..

While I'm pretty much discounting their data (obviously they did as well or they wouldn't have published it that way), it strikes me as being interesting, enough so that measuring that properly would probably be in order.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Aquariusdude

Actually, the medium is very important. A supposedly scientific paper published in a vanity press pretending to be a journal can be dismissed out of hand as it's not a peer reviewed piece of academic work, it's just pretending to be.

If that doesn't raise big red flags to you and you are content with the blatant deception then why even bother to pretend your position is scientific and evidence-based? Clearly you dont care about intellectual honesty and academic standards, only cherry picking the sience (no matter how crappy) that can fit your agenda and ignoring the rest.

Plenty of cases of peer reviewed studies where people created false data..I posted a link earlier..People need to let go of the old school gatekeepers of information that protect the big corporations...Gatekeepers like the mainstream media that has a near monopoly on information that only benefits the major corporations..I suggest you read the report and find something wrong with the report and then let us know..

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
I suggest you read the report and find something wrong with the report and then let us know..

Apparently the authors thought they'd never make it past review with their data.

So even THEY don't think they can defend it.

a reply to: Aquariusdude

That's a convenient narrative for avoiding ever having to substantiate any claims with rigorous method and evidence.

a reply to: Bedlam


Peer reviewed studies depend on other doctors\scientists that blindly believe in what the medical establishment is telling them..So you are most likely right this paper would not have survived a traditional peer reviewed journal..Meanwhile there is a criminal indictment of a former CDC employee that helped create many peer reviewed papers saying that there was no autism\vaccine link..He was charged with defrauding research institutions of grant money among other charges..www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... list of all peer reviewed papers he was involved in..

www.naturalnews.com...

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Aquariusdude

That's a convenient narrative for avoiding ever having to substantiate any claims with rigorous method and evidence.

Please dispute the data on the report.By all means find something false.. Instead of depending on yourself to do the research you depend on others to do it for you.Blindly trusting the medical establishment and science institutions is just plain stupid because they have been proven wrong many many times..Remember when cigarettes were healthy? Remember when they were sold by doctors? Yeah history has proven again and again not to trust these institutions yet you trust you sons and daughters to them..Wow

Understand what is being alleged here: That Thorsen stole taxpayer dollars intended for medical research, then pocketed them in his own private bank accounts and used the money to buy luxury items for his personal use. This is a man with a history of strong ties to the CDC, research universities and medical journals. This is a person whose research has been widely quoted by the vaccine apologists who say vaccines are safe. And now, in the midst of all this, how many mainstream newspapers do you see covering Thorsen's indictment and his ties to the CDC? Virtually none.

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

a reply to: Aquariusdude

Peer review for publication is checking the i's are dotted and the t's crossed, the research novel, the existing research has been acknowledged, the methodology sound and everything presented correctly. It's actually pretty easy to get passed peer review if it's a well written and robust study. Avoiding peer review is a copout for people who know it would never get passed this stage (the by FAR easiest stage of peer review). The hard part is the real peer review with your fellow experts where your results and methodology are challenged and you have to respond appropriately, altering your method and findings if need be to address expert criticism. THAT is how real scientific research is conducted. No one is going to give a toss about a paper published in a vanity press that pretends to be an actual journal.

If you were off sick and your boss asked you to provide a doctor's note and you gave him a badly forged one, t doesn't matter whether or not you really were sick, the blatant red flag is enough to dismiss what you say at face value.

a reply to: Aquariusdude

Yup, you still didn't read my previous replies that refute your ad hominem attack on the study in question.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Aquariusdude

Peer review for publication is checking the i's are dotted and the t's crossed, the research novel, the existing research has been acknowledged, the methodology sound and everything presented correctly. It's actually pretty easy to get passed peer review if it's a well written and robust study. Avoiding peer review is a copout for people who know it would never get passed this stage (the by FAR easiest stage of peer review). The hard part is the real peer review with your fellow experts where your results and methodology are challenged and you have to respond appropriately, altering your method and findings if need be to address expert criticism. THAT is how real scientific research is conducted. No one is going to give a toss about a paper published in a vanity press that pretends to be an actual journal.

If you were off sick and your boss asked you to provide a doctor's note and you gave him a badly forged one, t doesn't matter whether or not you really were sick, the blatant red flag is enough to dismiss what you say at face value.

You have yet to show me something wrong with the study..And how is it that an Ad hominem attack ? If someone helped write several papers(and was in charge of the funds of those papers) is bought up on serious criminal charges your not going to question his research? Really? talk about blind trust ..Wow..Is it an ad hominem attack if you apply for a law license and are denied due to having lied before on the application? Or when applying for an interview your potential employer reviews your past criminal history and denies you employment..Is that also an attack? Its called common sense buddy something many people lack unfortunately..

a reply to: Aquariusdude

There is a direct correlation to Autism and aging parents, and this generation has seen the highest median age of first time parents in recorded history which puts the second and possibly third child at even older parental ages.

Older mothers have a higher than expected risk of having a child with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
.............

We conclude that epigenetic dysregulation occurring in gametes or early embryonic life may be one of the contributors to the development of ASD.

link

Article

Study found that fathers aged 40 and above are 3.3 times more likely than under-40 fathers to have children with autism spectrum disorder (in study led by Jacobine Buizer-Voskamp of the Rudolf Magnus Institute of neuroscience at the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands)

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


So I find this study of yours strange indeed as vaccinations would have nothing to do with the age of a parent. It contradicts all of the most recent peer reviewed studies.

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
a reply to: Bedlam


Peer reviewed studies depend on other doctors\scientists that blindly believe in what the medical establishment is telling them..So you are most likely right this paper would not have survived a traditional peer reviewed journal..

Oh, please, not the "educated stupid" line on one side while you try to invoke science for proof on the other.

If these guys had a paper that would pass, they'd have tried it. It wouldn't, they didn't.

a reply to: deadeyedick

There are several proven cancer remedies that have shown to cure cancer in labs and in humans but the exact same drug companies that sell you vaccines also cover up such substances.

Name three of the several, and post some evidence or a link or something, if you're not lying.