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 have replied to several posts. I simply saw no reason to rehash the same sources over and over. Anonymous and a few others have done a great job of bringing information to this discusion. I understand that a few of you are getting a little hot under the collar sort of speak because you are getting frustrated. I however love a good debate. This is something that each person has a clear side that they stand on in this and will stick to it to the last. Great, good for you. I respect you better when you stick to your guns, right or wrong.
Each side of the argument has valid points. The problem is that most of you refuse to see those points and would rather resort to slander than admit that someone from the opposite side of the discusion has made a very good point. Yes there are clear lines having been drawn in the sand here. That doesnt mean that the discusion can not remain civil. If for example you feel the need to get angry and want to "reach through the screen and choke/slap the person", then calm down and come back and reply with a rational tone.
I would like to think that at least most of us talking about this are adults of sound mind. If we are then let keep things civil. Those of you who have been I thank you for that. I personaly try to keep my comments in that manner.
kanevaldier Wrote:I understand that a few of you are getting a little hot under the collar sort of speak because you are getting frustrated. I however love a good debate.
Debate (v.) consider: think about carefully; weigh; "They considered the possibility of a strike"; "Turn the proposal over in your mind"
I see no evidence you're weighing the sources equally. As far as I'm concerned, in order of trustworthiness, it goes something like
1. papers published in peer reviewed academic journals
2. mainstream news
3. wikipedia, where cited
4. alternate news (eg. natural news)
5. the web, in general
I refuse to believe in conspiracies that would require the active participation of an entire industry to cover up - that just doesn't happen in real life. So something published in Nature is gonna hold a lot more weight to me than something published on an anonymous website.
StringStrider Wrote: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.
I'm so glad someone finally brought this up. For those of you who are men and those of you who are women who have never been pregnant before, this is ONE of the things a doctor will tell you. Pregnant and nursing women should avoid seafood and fish, or at the very least, eat it in extreme moderation. Why? Because the mercury in fish and seafood is harmful to the unborn fetus or the nursing infant.
The EPA recommends no more than 0.1 micrograms of mercury consumed in the form of fish/seafood per kg of body weight per week. So if you have a 5 year old that weighs approximately 45 lbs., that eats a 6 oz. can of tuna per week, they are consuming 4 times the recommended dosage of mercury just by eating tunafish sandwiches.
Some of these vaccines that still contain "trace" amounts of thimerosal are definitely right on the border of the EPA's recommended dosage per kg of weight. Also take into account that this is for an "average" sized newborn baby. Some are born weighing less and some are born weighing more. You have to take each individual child as its own case. Since they are not born weighing the same amount and will not gain the same amount of weight in any given time, it should be considered on a case by case basis, not as an entire group. I do wonder if these studies have ever been done and researched by the weight of the child when they were given the vaccines.
I know by my own experiences that each and every child/human being is different. I have 4 children with 4 very distinct personalities. No two are alike. They ate/slept differently at similar ages. They talked/walked at different ages. They grew/lost their first teeth at different ages. I could go on and on about how different all 4 of mine are. All of the above things are the exact reason I choose to wait until they are of an older age to receive vaccines. Some of the newer vaccines I choose for them to not have at all at this time because I believe there hasn't been enough time to research the outcomes thoroughly. For me it's no different than companies coming out with a new drug. It all seems great at first and then a few years later you see all of the horrid side effects/diseases/deaths related to taking "said drug". I'd rather wait until enough time has elapsed to see if it's what best suits myself and/or my family's needs.
Stereo Wrote:I see no evidence you're weighing the sources equally.
I refuse to believe in conspiracies that would require the active participation of an entire industry to cover up - that just doesn't happen in real life.
I look at every piece of "evidence" posted. Am I going to comment on it all? No. If I see something that strikes me as worth my time to quote, then I will. Problem with the internet is that no matter what it is that is found, there is always something to refute or counter that and vice versa. Its a vicious circle. As for wikipedia, any trained monkey can put information on there so I trust nothing on that site.
You refuse to believe that "conspiracies" can take place. Ok, thats you right. I guess you would believe what the warren commission concluded about the JFK assassination in that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and was able to get off 3 shots in 6 seconds with an old italian bolt action rifle scoring 2 hits including a head shot. Let me tell you this, in the military he qualified as a marksman (the lowest rank you can get) and he was able to get that kind of speed and accuracy with a weapon that is clumbsy at best. I qualified as an expert (the highest rank you can get) and there is no way I could do it in that time. No one can, many have tried and failed. But that isnt a cover up is it?
Well, all I can say is that I will continue to read and will interject my comments as I deem necessary.
TaliaNCo Wrote:The EPA recommends no more than 0.1 micrograms of mercury consumed in the form of fish/seafood per kg of body weight per week. So if you have a 5 year old that weighs approximately 45 lbs., that eats a 6 oz. can of tuna per week, they are consuming 4 times the recommended dosage of mercury just by eating tunafish sandwiches.
Quote:These vaccines with 'trace' amounts of Thimerosal are specified to contain 1 microgram or less of mercury per dose common disorders of the Blood.
So your 45 lbs (20 kg) baby would be able to get 2 doses of vaccines (with Thimerosal, which is only the inactivated influenza anyway) in any given same week. I don't think anyone, however dire the situation, would need to rush more than 2 shots within 7 days' span.
Of course, this is assuming the parents have the knowledge to cut down on his portion of fish for the week.
Kalovale Wrote:So your 45 lbs (20 kg) baby would be able to get 2 doses of vaccines (with Thimerosal, which is only the inactivated influenza anyway) in any given same week.
Ummm, I think you need to look up what thimerosal is. Thimerosal, is an organomercury compound not an inactivated influenza.
kanevaldier Wrote:You refuse to believe that "conspiracies" can take place. Ok, thats you right. I guess you would believe what the warren commission concluded about the JFK assassination in that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and was able to get off 3 shots in 6 seconds with an old italian bolt action rifle scoring 2 hits including a head shot. Let me tell you this, in the military he qualified as a marksman (the lowest rank you can get) and he was able to get that kind of speed and accuracy with a weapon that is clumbsy at best. I qualified as an expert (the highest rank you can get) and there is no way I could do it in that time. No one can, many have tried and failed. But that isnt a cover up is it?
Apples to oranges. Lee Harvey Oswald shooting the president is an isolated event, completely unreplicable, and not subject to scientific standards.
In order to hide the conspiracy, the members of the conspiracy have to uniformly agree not to talk about it. In the JFK shooting, who is that? Well, LHO (who was killed), the other gunman, and anyone else involved in arranging for the two men to be in position. Possibly whoever testified to the Warren commission that it was possible to fire 3 shots with the rifle Oswald used, and the person or team who identified the bullets as belonging to his gun. Assuming it was arranged by an agency used to covert operations, that's probably a total of fewer than ten people.
If vaccinations were a fraud, anyone capable of performing statistical analyses would see it. Anyone who works in the medical industry, and handles vaccines, would see it. Researchers who test drugs, the staff who hires those researchers, insurance industry workers who decide what medicine is covered would see it. Ballpark estimate? At least a hundred thousand, probably more like a million people would be in on the conspiracy.
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.
You completely ignore one of the basics of toxicology, the route of entry of the toxic material is important. Consuming the material is far less toxic as it would have to bypass the defenses of the digestive system before getting to the blood stream. Injecting is far more toxic because it bypasses most of our immune system. Then of course the type of aluminum matters as well.
Regarding filings, I've seen studies linking them to an increased level of miscarriages and I'm convinced more studies regarding mercury in fillings is required.
Quote: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.
This is the classic burden of proof fallacy. The burden of proof in this case should rest with the government and drug companies pushing the vaccines. If they want the vaccines to be mandatory, then they should prove their case. If they want complete and absolute immunity from prosecution, to be above the law, then they better damn well prove that they deserve such immunity.
The of course, the reason these questions are asked by that site, and by many other people, is because their is a lack of research into vaccine safety. As I've mentioned earlier, the CDC claims that no research has been done into the connection between autism and vaccines (however, many run off to twist this as "there is definitly no connection").
Then many parent's concerns need to be answered. Parent's that have had perfectly healthy children that completely changed after vaccination deserve answers. Parent's of children that suffered from SIDS shortly after vaccination deserve answers. The women that suffered from seizures, paralyzation, and death from gardasil deserve answers.
And some scientists are working on studing potential negative side effects of vaccines. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sick_monkeys.html
But as I recall, the University of Pittsburg was working on testing the full vaccine schedule vs saline solution (the most commonly accepted placebo for injections)
Quote: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.
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.
First, logical fallacy: Strawman. You assume a lot of things about me here. Although I prefer to avoid medicine, I'm not stupid enough to completely dismiss the proven forms of medicine. In fact, I'm not even against vaccines in general. What i'm against is pushing vaccines on upon the public, and potential poisoning of the public through vaccines, especially with a lack of proof of their safety, effectiveness and necessity. A great example of a vaccine that lacks and proof of necessity, and is suspected of being unsafe is the Hep B. vaccine. It is given to children at birth regardless of the risks of the vaccine and regardless of the child's own risk of contracting an STD. At the very least the vaccine should wait several years to minimize the risks of vaccines, especially during the most crucial and volnerable stages of life.
I couldnt agree more on h1n1, but this goes along with what I have stated earlier. The burden of proof is on the government and drug companies to prove the vaccine is safe, effective, and - especially when they push for forced innoculation - necessary.
TaliaNCo Wrote:I'm so glad someone finally brought this up. For those of you who are men and those of you who are women who have never been pregnant before, this is ONE of the things a doctor will tell you. Pregnant and nursing women should avoid seafood and fish, or at the very least, eat it in extreme moderation. Why? Because the mercury in fish and seafood is harmful to the unborn fetus or the nursing infant.
The EPA recommends no more than 0.1 micrograms of mercury consumed in the form of fish/seafood per kg of body weight per week. So if you have a 5 year old that weighs approximately 45 lbs., that eats a 6 oz. can of tuna per week, they are consuming 4 times the recommended dosage of mercury just by eating tunafish sandwiches.
Some of these vaccines that still contain "trace" amounts of thimerosal are definitely right on the border of the EPA's recommended dosage per kg of weight. Also take into account that this is for an "average" sized newborn baby. Some are born weighing less and some are born weighing more. You have to take each individual child as its own case. Since they are not born weighing the same amount and will not gain the same amount of weight in any given time, it should be considered on a case by case basis, not as an entire group. I do wonder if these studies have ever been done and researched by the weight of the child when they were given the vaccines.
I know by my own experiences that each and every child/human being is different. I have 4 children with 4 very distinct personalities. No two are alike. They ate/slept differently at similar ages. They talked/walked at different ages. They grew/lost their first teeth at different ages. I could go on and on about how different all 4 of mine are. All of the above things are the exact reason I choose to wait until they are of an older age to receive vaccines. Some of the newer vaccines I choose for them to not have at all at this time because I believe there hasn't been enough time to research the outcomes thoroughly. For me it's no different than companies coming out with a new drug. It all seems great at first and then a few years later you see all of the horrid side effects/diseases/deaths related to taking "said drug". I'd rather wait until enough time has elapsed to see if it's what best suits myself and/or my family's needs.
As I'm not a parent, I cant comment or relate to most of your statements, but I'd like to point out exactly how much mercury infants are getting from flu vaccines, and how far over the recommended levels of the CDC. Also, I must mention it once again, injection is the absolute worse route of entry for any toxic or potentiallly harmful substance. (as a quick reference, it generally goes in this order from least to worse severity: topical, ingestion, inhalation, injection).
The flu vaccine normally contains 25micrograms of mercury.
One thing that sickened me was that they recommended the h1n1 flu vaccine for pregnat women. I wonder what potential health problems could result from having over 3 times the maxium amount of mercury in the body could have for the developing unborn child.
Then I need to mention that the half life for processing ethylmercury put of the body is 18 days. This means that, assuming no change in weight, it would take an adult about a month to reach a "safe" level of mercury, and even then they still need to avoid sources of mercury.
For a child of about 6 months (not factoring in potential differences in the rate at which ethyl mercury leaves the body) it would take between 54 and 72 days for mercury levels to become safe.
As a final note, Aluminum is cited for increasing the half life of ethylmercury, giving it more time to be converted into the toxic form mercury(II)
Quote:If vaccinations were a fraud, anyone capable of performing statistical analyses would see it. Anyone who works in the medical industry, and handles vaccines, would see it. Researchers who test drugs, the staff who hires those researchers, insurance industry workers who decide what medicine is covered would see it. Ballpark estimate? At least a hundred thousand, probably more like a million people would be in on the conspiracy.
This assumes blackmail does not exist and that everyone working in the vaccine industry sees the full production process, but in reality the majority of them only see a small part of the entire process.
And most statistics have a few small issues. For one, the CDC resists comparing statistics of the general population to the amish, citing that they are genetically different, and there is a lack of statistics of communities that are unvaccinated to compare statistics to.
We both know that without a valid reference point the statistical evidence is easily dismissed, and even potetnially valid reference points are dismissed like the Amish.
Anonymous Moose Wrote:This assumes blackmail does not exist and that everyone working in the vaccine industry sees the full production process, but in reality the majority of them only see a small part of the entire process.
Occams razor - Which is the easier answer - That every single one of the hundreds of thousands of people in the medical & scientific industries of every single country are keeping quiet about a known danger, despite themselves and their families being subject to those risks, or that their is no actual credible evidence and this is all a hoax preying on the fear of the populace? The bigger and more damning a secret the more impossible it becomes to contain. Phillip Morris proved that pretty well despite all they tried. As The Pierces sing "two can keep a secret if one of them is dead" and there's just far too many living parts for this secret to exist.
Thread is closed. It's devolved beyond actual debate into entrenched conspiracy theories and lack of proof itself being claimed as proof.
It's not having what you want - It's wanting what you've got.
