Mandatory Vaccinations

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.

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:

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.

"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.

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.

http://www.politicolnews.com/bmj-fiona-g...interests/

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.

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/

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.

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.

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?

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.

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:

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

Now who are you calling an idiot?

To further solidify the fact that I'm not an idiot, other official sources specifically state "10.6 cases per 100000." Not 10.6%. 10.6 Cases.
http://www.michigancancer.org/PDFs/MDCHF...arch10.pdf

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.

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.

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.