kanevaldier Wrote:I hear you brother. I dont think most of them are reading the entire post. More like skimming through and just picking the parts they want to use to try and make a point.
I don't think you're backing up your points, but however, I do feel like I'm backing up mine. If you could please show me the post where I don't do so, I'll go fix it as soon as I can.
Kalovale Wrote:So let's assume something in MMR actually DOES cause autism, would it be sensical to keep spreading a -belief- that mercury-based thimerosal preservative is the cause?
Not at all. The MMR vaccine has NEVER, EVER contained thiomersal. The MMR vaccine contains a live virus, so the thiomersal would kill it off (that's what the thiomersal is there for, remember - killing off live bugs in the vaccine), rendering the vaccine useless. Besides, the reason the MMR vaccine was accused in the first place was because Wakefield claimed that this live virus was making bowel disease in autistic children. Turns out he falsified his results, and the children either weren't autistic, or didn't have bowel disease, and he basically experimented on children without the consent of neither the parents nor the ethics committee.
Devil's Sunrise Wrote:Not at all. The MMR vaccine has NEVER, EVER contained thiomersal. The MMR vaccine contains a live virus, so the thiomersal would kill it off (that's what the thiomersal is there for, remember - killing off live bugs in the vaccine), rendering the vaccine useless. Besides, the reason the MMR vaccine was accused in the first place was because Wakefield claimed that this live virus was making bowel disease in autistic children. Turns out he falsified his results, and the children either weren't autistic, or didn't have bowel disease, and he basically experimented on children without the consent of neither the parents nor the ethics committee.
Quote:fourteen months before Dr Wakefield's paper was published, two other researchers -- Professor Walker-Smith and Dr Amar Dhillon -- independently documented the same problems in these children, including symptoms of autism.
Quote:The British Medical Journal's accusations against Dr Wakefield -- that he fabricated his findings -- are therefore false. The mainstream media accusation that Dr Wakefield's findings have "never been replicated" is also blatantly false.
Second, Thimerosal is not the only dangerous substance within vaccines, and many scientists debate over the full effects of vaccines as a whole.
Regarding the MMR, it is a vaccine I havent focused on enough to know why it would cause autism, but the accusations of fraud here disturb me, especially with obvious disregard for the facts (particularly the fact that accusations against Wakefield are based on the BMJ article which ignored vital facts).
Also, the studies done by Wakefield and the several scientists that replicated his results (some even predating his studies) suggests that there are more toxic substances in vaccines that can cause autism and other mental disorders than just thimerosal and aluminum, perhaps the entire vaccine is potentially toxic.
Devil's Sunrise Wrote:I don't think you're backing up your points, but however, I do feel like I'm backing up mine. If you could please show me the post where I don't do so, I'll go fix it as soon as I can.
I have read every response. I dont think you are getting my point. Most if not all vaccines have not been studied enough to be able to detrmine that they truely are safe and dont cause problems that are equal to or greater than the very things they are supposed to be preventing. Many of them a rushed through the testing phase so the FDA and CDC will approve them for use well before the full effects are known.
TaliaNCo Wrote:I really hate to use this as an example but I will anyway. In my generation, and many before, our mothers smoked while pregnant with us. With the exception of one of my grandmothers, every single woman in my family smoked while pregnant. None of us had any of the complications that they've now found to be associated with smoking during pregnancy. However, decades later, the claims and the "proof" are that smoking while pregnant is harmful to the unborn fetus. So just because you say that 99% of southperry have been vaccinated but aren't autistic, doesn't mean the two can't possibly be related. It's still a matter of injecting harmful substances into the body and it's "possible" that in some, not all, could cause autism.
Genetics, my dear. The people in your family probably had a high resistance to the toxic substances within the cigarettes, and weren't affected by it. The people on Southperry, on the other hand, come from all walks of life and have very different kinds of immunities. Furthermore, there's the issue of sample size; anecdotal evidence is hardly reliable.
Uh, I don't get it completely, so please enlighten me. How did discovering a however-you-look-at-it accomplice in crime turn out to be a void-all-accusation warranty? Just because he shares the conclusion with another group of researchers doesn't mean he's automatically earnest. Yes, it does void the mainstream media's accusation, but uh, hello, mainstream media? What is it doing here in a scientific controversial issue? Controlling the people's minds? That's what you care about, isn't it? Else, why would you attack the media there?
It also means his findings are not fabricated. Uh, what? That's assuming Dr. John Angus Walker-Smith is anything but questionable, which I don't think is the case.
So it's illogical to assume that Dr. Walker-Smith can vouch for Wakefield. What's more, it also makes more sense to hypothesize that Wakefield copied the work, whose authenticity I won't discuss because it'll just be repeating the Brian Deer's articles you are so familiar with. But I digress. I make clear lines between what is logical, and what is logically hypothetical.
Genetics, my dear. The people in your family probably had a high resistance to the toxic substances within the cigarettes, and weren't affected by it. The people on Southperry, on the other hand, come from all walks of life and have very different kinds of immunities. Furthermore, there's the issue of sample size; anecdotal evidence is hardly reliable.
I beleive the point of the post was to show an example. I myself have much the same thing. My family does not have any adverse effects from smoking. Although I do not smoke, I have been around it my whole life taking in what is considered the worst type, second hand. I am perfectly healthy and have been most of my life. Is it just dumb luck? Maybe, might even be genetics. I believe it could also be one more thing. I believe in the human body's ability to adapt to its environment, diet, ect. It all comes down to the amount of time being exposed to it. Thats just my take on it.
Uh, no they haven't. Natural News isn't a scientific, reliable source. If you want to show that the results are ACTUALLY duplicated, you link the actual scientific study. Go find it on pubmed, it shouldn't be hard to find, because pubmed includes pretty much everything. (Unless you're going to claim it's a conspiracy they're not on there. And that 9/11 was an inside job. And that the Queen is a reptile.) I did check Natural News, that burning hell-hole of stupid, to see if anyone had hidden the source somewhere. Imagine my total lack of surprise when there wasn't one.
The second one - did you even bother to read the pdf linked? Do you even know how to read that kind of stuff? - didn't even mention a connection to measles, but is rather a study of autistic spectrum children with bowel symptoms. We already know that bowel symptoms are common in autistic children. But it still doesn't replicate Wakefield's "findings" of measles viruses in the gut, and so it ISN'T a duplication of Wakefield's findings. Wakefield keeps claiming his results are duplicated, as well, but somehow never manages to give actual examples.
Anonymous Moose Wrote:Second, Thimerosal is not the only dangerous substance within vaccines, and many scientists debate over the full effects of vaccines as a whole.
Heard the story before. Find the actual dangerous substances before making this argument, and then look at the actual amounts. There's a tiny amount of sugar in vaccines, so the antivaxers claimed this was super dangerous because sugar causes obesity and cavities. There is a tiny amount of formaldehyde in some vaccines, but you antivax nutters completely ignore the fact that this amount is equal to less than one fiftieth part the amount of formaldehyde in a single pear. Yet antivaxers aren't advocating not eating vegetables, are you?
Antivaxers are continually moving the goalposts. When yet another claimed "toxin" is proved harmless, you move onto another. In the end, will you be badmouthing the evil dihydrogen monoxide for disrupting the electrolyte balance? (Ignoring the other "toxins" added to vaccine to rectify this, of course.)
Anonymous Moose Wrote:Regarding the MMR, it is a vaccine I havent focused on enough to know why it would cause autism, but the accusations of fraud here disturb me, especially with obvious disregard for the facts (particularly the fact that accusations against Wakefield are based on the BMJ article which ignored vital facts).
I'm sorry, but have you missed the little news story that Wakefield has had his medical licence revoked over his extremely dubious "study" and his unethical behaviour? And that every other co-author has withdrawn their name from the "study", and that the Lancet itself has withdrawn it? Just because you don't believe in the BMJ or the other facts, that doesn't mean they're wrong.
Anonymous Moose Wrote:Also, the studies done by Wakefield and the several scientists that replicated his results (some even predating his studies) suggests that there are more toxic substances in vaccines that can cause autism and other mental disorders than just thimerosal and aluminum, perhaps the entire vaccine is potentially toxic.
I don't think you read Wakefield's study in the first place. He never said anything about the toxic substances in vaccines. He said that the combination of MMR was dangerous, and that they should be replaced by single shots (which he conveniently had juuust developed a patent for). There's more aluminium in your food than there is in a vaccine. If you really believe aluminium is dangerous, by the way, you should stop using aluminium cookware, and you should probably avoid a lot of other food as well since aluminium is quite abundant on earth. Can I guess, are you also convinced that water fluoridation is a government mind control scheme?
kanevaldier Wrote:I have read every response. I dont think you are getting my point. Most if not all vaccines have not been studied enough to be able to detrmine that they truely are safe and dont cause problems that are equal to or greater than the very things they are supposed to be preventing. Many of them a rushed through the testing phase so the FDA and CDC will approve them for use well before the full effects are known.
I asked you what points I haven't backed up. Am I to assume that you can't find any? Also, you're wrong about vaccine research, by the way. Go HERE. Type in "vaccine safety", then go to the last page. That's just the safety testing and everything, and the records go back to 1950. It's very, very hard to get drugs rushed through testing, vaccines or not. Occasionally a drug is so helpful they stop testing because the benefit is so great, but usually that doesn't happen, and you're still quite a few years into the research to be able to spot that. Sometimes studies have to be stopped earlier because the study group seems to have poorer outcomes. An excellent example of the first kind is Gardasil, a vaccine against human papillomavirus, which causes among other things, cervical cancer. Gardasil was rushed slightly in the last testing phase for ethical reasons because the independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board did not want the girls in the placebo group to be unprotected when the test group was doing so well (it was unethical to withhold the vaccine from the placebo group when the benefit and safety was so clear, after all), and the first research on Gardasil started well over TWENTY years ago. The FUTURE II study ended in 2006, having started in 2002. That's "just" four years. Most vaccines spend significantly longer in testing.
Anonymous Moose Wrote:I agree that it is a strong provokative word, but such blatant misrepresentation of statistics deserves a strong response.
Since no one addressed this:
You're an idiot, and I'm not a lier - the CDC link I posted cites a 10.6 incidence rate in a population of 100,000. By definition, an incidence rate is literally the percentage of the sampled population that had contracted the particular disease.
I'm so over this thread. You sit here and try and make strong contentions when you don't even know the basic definitions of what you're talking about in the first place. You don't post any reputable sources (sorry, but sensational blogs and obscure web papers are not scientifically backed), and are quick to discredit any reputable sources as "big, corrupt, puppet government agencies of top dollar pharmaceutical companies pushing their evil agendas." You're impossible to argue with for this reason, and are quite literally the very definition of a conspiracy theorist. I'm done wasting my time debating with you and kanevaldier.
Good luck in life, you two. I'll make sure I keep taking my vaccines so I can personally offer my condolences at your funerals.
EDIT: +9001 bravo points to Devil's Sunrise's above post. Brilliantly said, strongly supported.
Oh wow. Like half of what was posed as questions is there.
It's funny how they put up claims by "pro-vaccine" people which are really completely absurd. Who would claim that vaccines are completely safe? Of course not, but that doesn't make them bad either.
6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the intended goal of preventing disease?
Since not all diseases target nerves and nerve tissues, this point is invalid.
9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?
This is by far the stupidest, most narrowsighted, and outright WRONG thing I have ever seen on the internet... Was this article written for hilbillies who never took a day of highschool biology in their life?
Foreign body recognition is done by shape. Unless the virus mutates to an extent where the shape of the virus changes (which by the way, 99.9% of the time, viral mutation is an RNA mutation). The mutations that occur are typically so slight that you immune system won't just go "Derp! Where'd he go?"... If a tiny change in the physical structure of a virus lead to the inability to recognize, then the human species would have been wiped out a VERY long time ago...
To put this in laymans terms, a 1/2'' wrench will still turn a 3/8'' screw, it just won't do as effective of a job at it.
Vague article is vague...
If I can shut down 2/9 of their points in the brief skim I took, then I completely discredit this link...
kanevaldier Wrote:How many of you pro-vaccine people have children? Now let me give you a little scenario. Those of you that are pro-vaccine say that its ok to sacrifice those unfortunate few who have adverse reactions to the vaccines because the greater whole is safe. Well here is the scenario. Lets say you have a child and said child get vaccinated, developes a reaction and dies. Do you now still feel the same or are you instead outraged and upset because if you had not done that your child would still be alive? This is how I look at it because I do have children.
I find it funny how the rest of you expect us to answer your questions and respond in a manner that you deem necesary when none of you even replied to this. Everyone just ignored it and it is a very valid point. It is easy to say what you do when it is affecting others, but when something happens to you or someone you care about, it becomes the perverbial double standard.
kanevaldier Wrote:I find it funny how the rest of you expect us to answer your questions and respond in a manner that you deem necesary when none of you even replied to this. Everyone just ignored it and it is a very valid point. It is easy to say what you do when it is affecting others, but when something happens to you or someone you care about, it becomes the perverbial double standard.
If I give my child a vaccine:
-I know that there are possible side-effects including a certain chance for complications leading to death.
-I also know that not giving the vaccine there are possible effects including a certain chance for complications leading to death.
Now, you have to choose either one and both can lead to death in the end. What good does it make to grieve about your choice after you've made it? If you've made the choice you believe (after a certain ammount of research) is the one with the best statistical outcomes and in the end your child dies you will be sad that your child is dead but you won't have anyone to blame, just luck.
kanevaldier Wrote:I find it funny how the rest of you expect us to answer your questions and respond in a manner that you deem necesary when none of you even replied to this. Everyone just ignored it and it is a very valid point. It is easy to say what you do when it is affecting others, but when something happens to you or someone you care about, it becomes the perverbial double standard.
It is a goddamm valid point because it can apply to so many situations. (These were all made up but can be based on truth).
Should we build a bridge that links these two cities so it helps out a lot more people? Wait a second, I'm a hobo living under the bridge! You can't do that!
Hey let's build that Wal-Mart over there! I doubt people will complain about our child labor since so many people will get cheap prices!
Hey let's start another company that makes Chicken McNuggets at a much cheaper price! Only thing is, the chicken are now pumped with 301513095 more antibiotics and painkillers and live in 3x3 inch cubes! It doesn't matter because people won't complain about the cheap prices, and they're animals!
Hey man I'm going to goddamm sacrifice my goddamm life to frigging stop 9/11. Wait, you can't do that! Your parents will be outraged and upset because if you had not done that your child would still be alive? This is how I look at it because I do have children.
There's a fine line between what's good for the "greater good" and "personal good." I believe vaccines fall under "the greater good" because the risk of death is incredibly low.
kanevaldier Wrote:I find it funny how the rest of you expect us to answer your questions and respond in a manner that you deem necesary when none of you even replied to this. Everyone just ignored it and it is a very valid point. It is easy to say what you do when it is affecting others, but when something happens to you or someone you care about, it becomes the perverbial double standard.
No, because youdidn'trespondtoour replies. And mind you, every single one of them, apart from the last one I quoted, is before your comment about this. What you just do is ignoring our comments and just ramble on like our opinions and our replies do not mean anything. We do in fact reply to most of your comments, yet you don't reply to ours. You're just jumping to a new "fact" or a new "stance" where you can defend yourself to a certain degree until we've debunked it, then move on to another and just ignore our comments. And now you're saying that we, the ones who actually bother to reply to your comments, the ones who actually check some facts before replying to your comments, the ones who actually decide that "hey, we're going to inform this guy about what's proven and what's not proven", have double standards because we maybe, just maybe overlooked or didn't see your little comment with no facts at all, while you're ignoring our comments where we've worked hard to actually find scientific articles we can show you?
And, to avoid being a "double standard"-guy, let me tell you this: If I could choose, I would like to let my child live over 10 others. However, if I don't know whether my child will die or get hurt from a vaccine, but I know that there's scientific and statistical evidence, which we've clearly proven to you several times through this thread, that if I give my child a certain vaccine it will have a much greater chance of surviving than without the vaccine, I would gladly give my child that vaccine. If my child dies from the vaccine (unlikely as it sounds, because this is VERY rare), I would be okay with having given my child the vaccine. Do you know why? Because if I hadn't given my child the vaccine, statistically and scientifically, a lot of other children would have suffered and died in its place. Do you think I would be happy if I knew that I had blood on my hands because I didn't give my child a simple vaccine? Of course I wouldn't, and so shouldn't you.
Again. what you're saying about this vaccine is weird: You say that we should be angry because we decided to vaccinate our children. However, as we've mentioned several times in this thread, there is a higher chance of developing chronic illness or dying if you don't vaccinate your children than if you do. You're saying that if the vaccine somehow kills our child, we should be mad at the vaccines because we increased our child's possibility to survive and live a normal life. It is just wrong on so many levels.
Now, I suggest you to reply to our comments, because we actually worked to find some data around it, and we replied to your comments. I've replied to this comment as well, so you should be happy.
Devil's Sunrise Wrote:Now, I suggest you to reply to our comments, because we actually worked to find some data around it, and we replied to your comments. I've replied to this comment as well, so you should be happy.
Seems we have a Provaccine > Antivaccine situation here. Your post will be hard to rebute.
So it's illogical to assume that Dr. Walker-Smith can vouch for Wakefield. What's more, it also makes more sense to hypothesize that Wakefield copied the work, whose authenticity I won't discuss because it'll just be repeating the Brian Deer's articles you are so familiar with. But I digress. I make clear lines between what is logical, and what is logically hypothetical.
Got any dirt on Dr Amar Dhillon, Arthur Krigsman, Marvin Boris, Alan Goldblatt and Carol Stott? You did a nice job of ignoring them ad they all came up with results supporting wakefield.
Also, you assume wakefield copied someone's work, but offer no proof on that accusation.
Also, I was attempting to find out what the problem with this guy's study was according to your source:
Quote:With regard to Child 2, 1, 3, 9, 5, 12 and 8, Professor Walker-Smith caused all seven of them to undergo colonoscopies that were not clinically indicated.
In respect of Child 2, 1, 3, 9, 5, 12 and 8 Professor Walker-Smith caused all seven to undergo barium meals and follow-throughs which were not clinically indicated.
In respect of Child 3 and 9, Professor Walker-Smith caused these two children to undergo lumbar punctures which were not clinically indicated.
In respect of Child 4, 9, 12 and 8, Professor Walker-Smith failed to record in the medical records the basis upon which their histological diagnoses were changed. He also failed to record the reason for a prescription in respect of Child 8, when the clinical histology report did not indicate a need for this medication. Good Medical Practice emphasises the need to record accurate and contemporaneous clinical findings and keep other colleagues well informed when sharing the care of patients. The Panel considered that this was a failing on Professor Walker-Smith’s part which could lead to confusion in respect of the children’s subsequent treatment.
In respect of seven of the Lancet children, 2, 1, 3, 9, 5,12 and 8, Professor Walker-Smith’s conduct was contrary to their clinical interests. The Panel is concerned that Professor Walker-Smith repeatedly breached fundamental principles of research and clinical medicine. It concluded that his actions in these areas were sufficient to amount to serious professional misconduct.
This article was the longest form of "we discredited the guy for giving an LP, colonoscopies, and food to the patients" I have ever read. While I agree that the guy may not be perfect, this is not a reason to revoke his privledges to practice medicine.
Also, how was his actions not in the patients' interest? Part of their accusations rest on whethere LP's are necessary in this case.
Quote:"to study a child who has regressed from normal development into an autistic syndrome by lumbar puncture is not in the least abusive, it is thoroughly warranted on clinical grounds"
- Dr Marcel Kinsbourn, paedatric neurologist , expert in childhood developmental disorders, Oxford Univeristy, Guy's hospital, Emeritus Professor of Paediatric Neurology Tufts Unveristyi Boston.
"lumbar puncture is there to exclude progressive enchephalitis and encephalopathy...the evidence concerning the association even of so called classical autism cases, with a wide variety of specific medical conditions....is now such that it must be considered clinically unacceptable not to perform a work up of this kind"
Gilberg & Coleman, professor of child pyschiatry and autism expert, & pediatric neuorologist
But back to Wakefield. One of the main reasons he was attacked was for potential conflicts of interest along with some technical issues. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/hewitt.html
But the investigations where based on Deer's uncanny ability to omitt data and he isnt so great at disclosing potential conflicts of interest himself.
Quote:In the case of one Brian Deer, he did not complete the Unified Competing Interest Form nor did he disclose his financial support for his articles, his business, his articles, the promotion of his articles, an that he fulfilled the four questions of haven no financial relationships with commercial entities that may have an interest in the submitted work.
Devil's Sunrise Wrote:Uh, no they haven't. Natural News isn't a scientific, reliable source. If you want to show that the results are ACTUALLY duplicated, you link the actual scientific study. Go find it on pubmed, it shouldn't be hard to find, because pubmed includes pretty much everything. (Unless you're going to claim it's a conspiracy they're not on there. And that 9/11 was an inside job. And that the Queen is a reptile.) I did check Natural News, that burning hell-hole of stupid, to see if anyone had hidden the source somewhere. Imagine my total lack of surprise when there wasn't one.
Yes natural news is less reliable than sources like the CDC or Deer in spite of their obvious cozy relationships with Drug companies.
Please dont say things like "claim it's a conspiracy they're not on there. And that 9/11 was an inside job. And that the Queen is a reptile." Its blatant demagogy, comparing apples to oranges.
Quote:The second one - did you even bother to read the pdf linked? Do you even know how to read that kind of stuff? - didn't even mention a connection to measles, but is rather a study of autistic spectrum children with bowel symptoms. We already know that bowel symptoms are common in autistic children. But it still doesn't replicate Wakefield's "findings" of measles viruses in the gut, and so it ISN'T a duplication of Wakefield's findings. Wakefield keeps claiming his results are duplicated, as well, but somehow never manages to give actual examples.
I'll get back to you on this after I review Wakefield's testimony, and interviews. Besides, from the disinformation you've already posted, I barely feel the need to reply to this portion at this time, because of your fallicious statements. For futiure reference, I suggest you study these and learn to avoid using these in arguments. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Quote:Heard the story before. Find the actual dangerous substances before making this argument, and then look at the actual amounts. There's a tiny amount of sugar in vaccines, so the antivaxers claimed this was super dangerous because sugar causes obesity and cavities. There is a tiny amount of formaldehyde in some vaccines, but you antivax nutters completely ignore the fact that this amount is equal to less than one fiftieth part the amount of formaldehyde in a single pear. Yet antivaxers aren't advocating not eating vegetables, are you?
Antivaxers are continually moving the goalposts. When yet another claimed "toxin" is proved harmless, you move onto another. In the end, will you be badmouthing the evil dihydrogen monoxide for disrupting the electrolyte balance? (Ignoring the other "toxins" added to vaccine to rectify this, of course.)
I dont like your straw man arguement and here and attempt to associate legitimate concerns with assinine statements. Once again full blown demagogy. No one is saying that Sugar in vaccines is causing obesity, and no one is claiming dihydrogen monoxide (Water) needs to be banned.
Then for the legitimate concerns, you are comparing apples to oranges. Basic toxicology knows that ingesting a toxic substance is almost always less toxic than avoiding almost every part of your immune system and injecting the substances into your blood.
Quote:I'm sorry, but have you missed the little news story that Wakefield has had his medical licence revoked over his extremely dubious "study" and his unethical behaviour? And that every other co-author has withdrawn their name from the "study", and that the Lancet itself has withdrawn it? Just because you don't believe in the BMJ or the other facts, that doesn't mean they're wrong.
Depends on what some facts show. Deer's uncanny ability to omit facts leads me to believe there was some fraud, explained earlier in the post.
Quote:I don't think you read Wakefield's study in the first place. He never said anything about the toxic substances in vaccines. He said that the combination of MMR was dangerous, and that they should be replaced by single shots (which he conveniently had juuust developed a patent for). There's more aluminium in your food than there is in a vaccine. If you really believe aluminium is dangerous, by the way, you should stop using aluminium cookware, and you should probably avoid a lot of other food as well since aluminium is quite abundant on earth. Can I guess, are you also convinced that water fluoridation is a government mind control scheme?
You are misinterpreting my post. I was interjecting with my own opinion for the potential of more toxins other than mercury and aluminum.
Also, the route of entry of the poison is important, also in the case of the aluminum, the form of it and the exact chemical compound is important as well.
Regarding Flouride, I'm at least smart enough to know that it is rat poison, used to fumigate houses, causes dental flourosis, and even the CDC recently stated that Americans are drinking too much flouride and reduced the recommended amount in drinking water.
I also have to mention that putting sodium flouride into the drinking water is an irrational and unethical method of medicating the public (under the pretence of cavity prevention), because placing flouride into the water will not allow for portion control and especially when the substance is recognized for adverse affects on the public a lack of portion control is dangerous.
Also, do you even know the history of flouride?
Quote:I asked you what points I haven't backed up. Am I to assume that you can't find any? Also, you're wrong about vaccine research, by the way. Go HERE. Type in "vaccine safety", then go to the last page. That's just the safety testing and everything, and the records go back to 1950. It's very, very hard to get drugs rushed through testing, vaccines or not. Occasionally a drug is so helpful they stop testing because the benefit is so great, but usually that doesn't happen, and you're still quite a few years into the research to be able to spot that. Sometimes studies have to be stopped earlier because the study group seems to have poorer outcomes. An excellent example of the first kind is Gardasil, a vaccine against human papillomavirus, which causes among other things, cervical cancer. Gardasil was rushed slightly in the last testing phase for ethical reasons because the independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board did not want the girls in the placebo group to be unprotected when the test group was doing so well (it was unethical to withhold the vaccine from the placebo group when the benefit and safety was so clear, after all), and the first research on Gardasil started well over TWENTY years ago. The FUTURE II study ended in 2006, having started in 2002. That's "just" four years. Most vaccines spend significantly longer in testing.
So you continue to say that it is perfectly fine to not finish testing the vaccine, and test an unproven vaccine on the public?
Also, Gardasil did have a fraudulent placebo controlled test. The problem was that the placebo was basically the vaccine, minus the virus. Meaning the full side effects of the vaccine would go unnoticed.
FrozNlite Wrote:Since no one addressed this:
You're an idiot, and I'm not a lier - the CDC link I posted cites a 10.6 incidence rate in a population of 100,000. By definition, an incidence rate is literally the percentage of the sampled population that had contracted the particular disease.
I'm so over this thread. You sit here and try and make strong contentions when you don't even know the basic definitions of what you're talking about in the first place. You don't post any reputable sources (sorry, but sensational blogs and obscure web papers are not scientifically backed), and are quick to discredit any reputable sources as "big, corrupt, puppet government agencies of top dollar pharmaceutical companies pushing their evil agendas." You're impossible to argue with for this reason, and are quite literally the very definition of a conspiracy theorist. I'm done wasting my time debating with you and kanevaldier.
Good luck in life, you two. I'll make sure I keep taking my vaccines so I can personally offer my condolences at your funerals.
EDIT: +9001 bravo points to Devil's Sunrise's above post. Brilliantly said, strongly supported.
The CDC web page you cited says this:
Quote:Cancer incidence rates and death rates are measured as the number of cases or deaths per 100,000 people per year and are age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population
StringStrider Wrote:6. What to ask: Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the intended goal of preventing disease?
Since when were they deemed "neurotoxins"...
Since not all diseases target nerves and nerve tissues, this point is invalid.
Mercury and Aluminum. The question is regarding the neurotoxins within the vaccine itself.
Quote:9. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific justification as to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?
This is by far the stupidest, most narrowsighted, and outright WRONG thing I have ever seen on the internet... Was this article written for hilbillies who never took a day of highschool biology in their life?
Foreign body recognition is done by shape. Unless the virus mutates to an extent where the shape of the virus changes (which by the way, 99.9% of the time, viral mutation is an RNA mutation). The mutations that occur are typically so slight that you immune system won't just go "Derp! Where'd he go?"... If a tiny change in the physical structure of a virus lead to the inability to recognize, then the human species would have been wiped out a VERY long time ago...
To put this in laymans terms, a 1/2'' wrench will still turn a 3/8'' screw, it just won't do as effective of a job at it.
Vague article is vague...
If I can shut down 2/9 of their points in the brief skim I took, then I completely discredit this link...
However, with mutations in retroviruses, this is a rather valid point regarding pointless vaccines like the flu vaccines out there.
Then regarding HPV, gardasil only supposedly works on, iirc, 6 strains out of a about a few dozen.
And no, you discredited nothing. Perhaps you should start by answering question one.
Quote: I know that there's scientific and statistical evidence, which we've clearly proven to you several times through this thread, that if I give my child a certain vaccine it will have a much greater chance of surviving than without the vaccine
Source? Studies? Placebo? Oh right, its more ethical to test vaccines on the public rather than in a lab.
Also, earlier I showed the possibility of Gardasil causing more deaths than it "potentially" could prevent. Also, I'd rather get certain diseases like the chicken pox, rely on natural almost always life time immunity, etc rather than rely on vaccines that contain known toxic materials that require shot every few years because the immunities provided are inferior to a fully natural immune response.
Then of course many diseases that vaccines prevent like Hep B, cancer from HPV, and even the flu are easily avoided, easy to cure if with regular pap smears, and a non-fatal disease, respectively.
kanevaldier Wrote:I find it funny how the rest of you expect us to answer your questions and respond in a manner that you deem necesary when none of you even replied to this. Everyone just ignored it and it is a very valid point. It is easy to say what you do when it is affecting others, but when something happens to you or someone you care about, it becomes the perverbial double standard.
No lol. I don't know about other people, but I deliberately ignored it because I deemed it beyond stupid.
And I was not trying to prove or even accuse Andrew Wakefield of plagiarism. We got from the point where he was a complete fraud to where his work obviously was not a standalone product of fairy tales, at which point it awaits evidence to further show whether he:
- Actually conducted a genuine studies with completely honest results; or
- Copied it off Walker-Smith and God-knows-who-else; or
- Collaborated with Walker-Smith; or
- Let Walker-Smith use it 2 years prior to test the water
After all, we only know for sure that Andrew Wakefield is not the only one coming up with those "shady" (to be determined) results. Anything further is only guest-work without proof, unless otherwise presented.
Also, I was going by the article. Half of Wakefield's saviors (as mentioned, and I presume, one would choose the most effective way to make themselves look good - a.k.a listing every scientist that can save Wakefield and their mother) had their credibility questioned, and that, to me, is enough to cast more than a shadow of doubt over the whole bunch.
WARNING: Aluminumized baking powder is now being used in many foods that were formerly prepared without baking powder, such as pizza crust, raised doughnuts, pie crusts, cookies, waffles, prepared meats, cheeses, and other products that were once aluminum-free.
Haven't searched for specific numbers, but I'm quite certain we can agree theres a pineappleload more mercury/aluminum going into your body from fish and other foods you eat on a DAILY basis.
With respect to aluminum, since we, having backgrounds in science, know that every second, different reactions are occuring all the time with something even as simple as a drip of water falling on a page, whenever you wrap your food in aluminum foil, you are increasing it's aluminum content.
And how about fillings? You have any of them in your pearly whites? Got any Amalgam based fillings?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgam_(dentistry)
Composition
Currently, dental amalgams are composed of 43% to 54% by weight of mercury and the remaining powder is made up of mainly silver (~20-35%)[2] and some tin, copper (~10%), and zinc (~2%).
Guess we shouldn't get fillings either for fear the dentist might make us autistic.
Anonymous Moose Wrote:However, with mutations in retroviruses, this is a rather valid point regarding pointless vaccines like the flu vaccines out there.
Then regarding HPV, gardasil only supposedly works on, iirc, 6 strains out of a about a few dozen.
And no, you discredited nothing. Perhaps you should start by answering question one.
1. What to ask: Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can disprove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
2. What to ask: Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
Could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can refute the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
See what happens when we ask a question, and expect to get a reply from someone without actually backing up our side of the argument.
That site is useless. It's full of "What if's", which scientifically speaking means jack pomegranate.
Anonymous Moose Wrote:Source? Studies? Placebo? Oh right, its more ethical to test vaccines on the public rather than in a lab.
I agree that we need to test all vaccines in a lab, which is why I haven't received the H1N1 shot. It was rushed to market, and I don't trust it.
Anonymous Moose Wrote:Also, earlier I showed the possibility of Gardasil causing more deaths than it "potentially" could prevent. Also, I'd rather get certain diseases like the chicken pox, rely on natural almost always life time immunity, etc rather than rely on vaccines that contain known toxic materials that require shot every few years because the immunities provided are inferior to a fully natural immune response.
Then of course many diseases that vaccines prevent like Hep B, cancer from HPV, and even the flu are easily avoided, easy to cure with regular pap smears, and a non-fatal disease, respectively.
I agree with the chicken pox part, but what about small pox or polio? Would you want your body to fight those on it's own?
Since you're so pro-natural selection, you may as well cancel your health insurance, and let life take its course. Since your entire debate around vaccinations relies on letting the human body fight it off itself, you'd be a complete hypocrite if you took any kind of medicine, proven or disproven.
Let's just fucking stop arguing in this thread. Both parties are ignoring some of each other's posts that conveniently destroys their arguement, shi[SIZE="2"]tt[/SIZE]y sources are being used, terrible logic is being proclaimed, no one is going to fucking change sides, and I'm actually fucking cursing. L>goddamm moderator to goddamm lock this thread because we're going absolutely nowhere. I also think I convinced Eos to use implement the "Listens to Crackpot Theories" meter.
