For You Anti-Vaxxers...

[shank hawk]

Google 'em yourself. The info's been posted many many times.
Try the AMA or Am Assoc Pediatrics if you need help.

People are done with your Gish Gallops

Why would I go to ethically and financially compromised institutions when I'm looking for facts?

Should I believe your beloved 'Dr.' Profit from C.H.O.P. when he says no child can be harmed by aluminum or should I believe a study from PubMed that says aluminum can be 'insidiously' unsafe?

Gish Gallops again? Try newcatchphrase.com if you need help.

 

[Joes Place]

Why would I go to ethically and financially compromised institutions when I'm looking for facts?

Oh, forgot: "conspiracy theory", whereby nearly ALL of the physicians "in on the conspiracy" are in SO DEEP they even vaccinate their OWN kids as "cover".

That's simply Evil Genius on their part, ain't it?

 

[mstp1992]

Why would I go to ethically and financially compromised institutions when I'm looking for facts?

Should I believe your beloved 'Dr.' Profit from C.H.O.P. when he says no child can be harmed by aluminum or should I believe a study from PubMed that says aluminum can be 'insidiously' unsafe?

Gish Gallops again? Try newcatchphrase.com if you need help.

Here's the latest Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on the HPV vaccine:
Arbyn, Xu, Simoens, Martin-Hirsch (2018)

Please take note to the highlighted portion in the AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS section.


Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Persistent infection with high-risk human papillomaviruses (hrHPV) types is causally linked with the development of cervical precancer and cancer. HPV types 16 and 18 cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers worldwide.

OBJECTIVES:
To evaluate the harms and protection of prophylactic human papillomaviruses (HPV) vaccines against cervical precancer and HPV16/18 infection in adolescent girls and women.

SEARCH METHODS:
We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Embase (June 2017) for reports on effects from trials. We searched trial registries and company results' registers to identify unpublished data for mortality and serious adverse events.

SELECTION CRITERIA:
Randomised controlled trials comparing efficacy and safety in females offered HPV vaccines with placebo (vaccine adjuvants or another control vaccine).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We used Cochrane methodology and GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for protection against cervical precancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and above [CIN2+], CIN grade 3 and above [CIN3+], and adenocarcinoma-in-situ [AIS]), and for harms. We distinguished between the effects of vaccines by participants' baseline HPV DNA status. The outcomes were precancer associated with vaccine HPV types and precancer irrespective of HPV type. Results are presented as risks in control and vaccination groups and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals in brackets.

MAIN RESULTS:
We included 26 trials (73,428 participants). Ten trials, with follow-up of 1.3 to 8 years, addressed protection against CIN/AIS. Vaccine safety was evaluated over a period of 6 months to 7 years in 23 studies. Studies were not large enough or of sufficient duration to evaluate cervical cancer outcomes. All but one of the trials was funded by the vaccine manufacturers. We judged most included trials to be at low risk of bias. Studies involved monovalent (N = 1), bivalent (N = 18), and quadrivalent vaccines (N = 7). Most women were under 26 years of age. Three trials recruited women aged 25 and over. We summarize the effects of vaccines in participants who had at least one immunisation.Efficacy endpoints by initial HPV DNA statushrHPV negativeHPV vaccines reduce CIN2+, CIN3+, AIS associated with HPV16/18 compared with placebo in adolescent girls and women aged 15 to 26. There is high-certainty evidence that vaccines lower CIN2+ from 164 to 2/10,000 (RR 0.01 (0 to 0.05)) and CIN3+ from 70 to 0/10,000 (RR 0.01 (0.00 to 0.10). There is moderate-certainty evidence that vaccines reduce the risk of AIS from 9 to 0/10,000 (RR 0.10 (0.01 to 0.82).HPV vaccines reduce the risk of any CIN2+ from 287 to 106/10,000 (RR 0.37 (0.25 to 0.55), high certainty) and probably reduce any AIS lesions from 10 to 0/10,000 (RR 0.1 (0.01 to 0.76), moderate certainty). The size of reduction in CIN3+ with vaccines differed between bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines (bivalent: RR 0.08 (0.03 to 0.23), high certainty; quadrivalent: RR 0.54 (0.36 to 0.82), moderate certainty). Data in older women were not available for this comparison.HPV16/18 negativeIn those aged 15 to 26 years, vaccines reduce CIN2+ associated with HPV16/18 from 113 to 6 /10,000 (RR 0.05 (0.03 to 0.10). In women 24 years or older the absolute and relative reduction in the risk of these lesions is smaller (from 45 to 14/10,000, (RR 0.30 (0.11 to 0.81), moderate certainty). HPV vaccines reduce the risk of CIN3+ and AIS associated with HPV16/18 in younger women (RR 0.05 (0.02 to 0.14), high certainty and RR 0.09 (0.01 to 0.72), moderate certainty, respectively). No trials in older women have measured these outcomes.Vaccines reduce any CIN2+ from 231 to 95/10,000, (RR 0.41 (0.32 to 0.52)) in younger women. No data are reported for more severe lesions.Regardless of HPV DNA statusIn younger women HPV vaccines reduce the risk of CIN2+ associated with HPV16/18 from 341 to 157/10,000 (RR 0.46 (0.37 to 0.57), high certainty). Similar reductions in risk were observed for CIN3+ associated with HPV16/18 (high certainty). The number of women with AIS associated with HPV16/18 is reduced from 14 to 5/10,000 with HPV vaccines (high certainty).HPV vaccines reduce any CIN2+ from 559 to 391/10,000 (RR 0.70 (0.58 to 0.85, high certainty) and any AIS from 17 to 5/10,000 (RR 0.32 (0.15 to 0.67), high certainty). The reduction in any CIN3+ differed by vaccine type (bivalent vaccine: RR 0.55 (0.43 to 0.71) and quadrivalent vaccine: RR 0.81 (0.69 to 0.96)).In women vaccinated at 24 to 45 years of age, there is moderate-certainty evidence that the risks of CIN2+ associated with HPV16/18 and any CIN2+ are similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated women (RR 0.74 (0.52 to 1.05) and RR 1.04 (0.83 to 1.30) respectively). No data are reported in this age group for CIN3+ or AIS.Adverse effectsThe risk of serious adverse events is similar between control and HPV vaccines in women of all ages (669 versus 656/10,000, RR 0.98 (0.92 to 1.05), high certainty). Mortality was 11/10,000 in control groups compared with 14/10,000 (9 to 22) with HPV vaccine (RR 1.29 [0.85 to 1.98]; low certainty). The number of deaths was low overall but there is a higher number of deaths in older women. No pattern in the cause or timing of death has been established.Pregnancy outcomesAmong those who became pregnant during the studies, we did not find an increased risk of miscarriage (1618 versus 1424/10,000, RR 0.88 (0.68 to 1.14), high certainty) or termination (931 versus 838/10,000 RR 0.90 (0.80 to 1.02), high certainty). The effects on congenital abnormalities and stillbirths are uncertain (RR 1.22 (0.88 to 1.69), moderate certainty and (RR 1.12 (0.68 to 1.83), moderate certainty, respectively).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
There is high-certainty evidence that HPV vaccines protect against cervical precancer in adolescent girls and young women aged 15 to 26. The effect is higher for lesions associated with HPV16/18 than for lesions irrespective of HPV type. The effect is greater in those who are negative for hrHPV or HPV16/18 DNA at enrolment than those unselected for HPV DNA status. There is moderate-certainty evidence that HPV vaccines reduce CIN2+ in older women who are HPV16/18 negative, but not when they are unselected by HPV DNA status.We did not find an increased risk of serious adverse effects. Although the number of deaths is low overall, there were more deaths among women older than 25 years who received the vaccine. The deaths reported in the studies have been judged not to be related to the vaccine. Increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes after HPV vaccination cannot be excluded, although the risk of miscarriage and termination are similar between trial arms. Long-term of follow-up is needed to monitor the impact on cervical cancer, occurrence of rare harms and pregnancy outcomes.

 

[Joes Place]

I wonder how many other healthcare issues the Antivax morons in this thread ignore their medical doctors on....

• Is "cancer treatment" all fake, too? Because they're just 'making money off of all of it'?
• How about 'strokes'?
• High blood pressure?
• Heart bypass procedures, for clogged arteries?
• Bacterial infections?
• Erectile dysfunction (or is that one "for REALz, man"!!??)

 

[Rifler]

I wonder how many other healthcare issues the Antivax morons in this thread ignore their medical doctors on....

• Is "cancer treatment" all fake, too? Because they're just 'making money off of all of it'?
• How about 'strokes'?
• High blood pressure?
• Heart bypass procedures, for clogged arteries?
• Bacterial infections?
• Erectile dysfunction (or is that one "for REALz, man"!!??)

If that list is fairly complete I would suspect that the Antivaxer problem will eventually resolve itself.....

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Hmmm...I never received the measles vaccine...or the mumps vaccine...or the chicken pox vaccine. Guess I'm part of that at-risk population. Except, of course, I HAD measles...and mumps...and chicken pox as a child. My wife was hospitalized for three weeks as a child due to chicken pox. So she's never been vaccinated for that, either. She did get the measles vaccine and mumps vaccine. Guess what she never had.

Darn, I saw you comment on the Handley article and I thought you might actually have a criticism or something

And...hospitalized for chicken pox? That's a very different experience for most.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Why would I go to ethically and financially compromised institutions when I'm looking for facts?

Should I believe your beloved 'Dr.' Profit from C.H.O.P. when he says no child can be harmed by aluminum or should I believe a study from PubMed that says aluminum can be 'insidiously' unsafe?

Gish Gallops again? Try newcatchphrase.com if you need help.

Shankhawk I posted this one earlier in the thread, not sure if you've seen it or not but if you have some free time take a look at this. Based on your past comments this is one you'd like. Others should view it too and comment. 01:45 to 29:40

 

[naturalbornhawk]

LOLWUT?

Hmmm....JBHandleyBlog.....or 70+ medical societies and institutions.....

WHO TO BELIEVE!!!???

I still haven't gotten a straight answer from the from the first quote. You seemed to have gotten a bit off track. You say we should just blindly trust the regulatory agency position on vaccines, but not the FDA or FCC on cell phones? That's a bit contradictory don't you think? I'll dig up the cell phone thread if I have to Joe.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

So, you're convoluting "medicines", which are actually TESTED for side effects before they are marketed to the general public, with "other chemicals", which are NOT. Am I reading that correctly?

I'm not convoluting anything. Though we disagree fundamentally about whether vaccines are thoroughly and correctly being tested we must come to the agreement that the aforementioned are examples of industry kicking up dust with regulators for years - while the health of the masses is being trashed - until finally regulations and health warnings are issued. By then the damage is already done and countless lives have been negatively impacted. Whether you want to admit to it or not, the CDC is in vaccine damage control mode as the new science comes out questioning their safety. This isn't the first time this has happened, that's all I'm saying.

 

[fsu1jreed]

So just to clarify, no aluminum in vaccines could EVER cause harm to ANY child, ANYWHERE?? Now THAT is an outright lie, but what else would you expect from CHOP (Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia). They have to protect their golden child, Sir Paul Offit, vaccine profiteer.

LMAO, someone doesn't understand the basics of logic and science.......it's not up to me to PROVE that no child has ever been harmed (you can't ever PROVE a negative), it's up to you to PROVE that one has. Till you do that, then all your ranting and raving is "full of sound of fury signifying NOTHING".

So just to clarify, no aluminum in vaccines could EVER cause harm to ANY child, ANYWHERE?? Now THAT is an outright lie, but what else would you expect from CHOP (Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia). They have to protect their golden child, Sir Paul Offit, vaccine profiteer.

A Lot Must be Done to Understand How, in Certain Individuals, Alum-Containing Vaccines may Become Insidiously Unsafe
Alum has been used for decades to levels considered as an acceptable compromise between its role of adjuvant and its toxic effects by the industry and the regulatory agencies. However, the MMF story revealed several gaps in the knowledge on alum particles, including their exact mechanisms of action, their fate after injection, their systemic dissemination, and their safety on the long-term. Efforts have been done in the last years to develop novel adjuvants, but attempts to seriously examine safety concerns raised by the bio-persistent character and brain accumulation of alum particles have not been made. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318414/

Someone is obviously telling dirty little lies.

Also, I've underlined the pertinent words in your chapter heading

A Lot Must be Done to Understand How, in Certain Individuals, Alum-Containing Vaccines may Become Insidiously Unsafe

I find it interesting that he doesn't have ANY direct examples of this happening. Now he did have this:
Macrophagic myofasciitis is typically detected in patients with diffuse myalgias and chronic fatigue, as shown in both the French series (46) and the recently published series of 16 patients (48).

In both series, most patients are women (70–80%) with a mean age of 45 years at the time of the biopsy, that typically complain of myalgias, with or without arthralgia, and disabling chronic fatigue. The onset of these symptoms is typically delayed from the immunization.

Strong statistical association between myalgias and MMF was detected by general survey in different French neuromuscular centers (myalgias in 90% of patients with MMF vs. 44% without MMF, p < 0.0001) (4). Onset of myalgia may follow exercise. They usually begin in the lower limbs, and not at the site of previous immunization from 0.5 to 84 months in the French patients and 3 to 192 months in Portuguese patients.

So, there were 16 patients (NONE of them babies) listed out of the MILLIONS of vaccines given to the MILLIONS of people living in France that displayed symptoms (of myalgia.....not even touching this one) YEARS after the vaccines and at sites not where they were given the injection.

This is the evidence your are using to back up your contention that aluminum in SOME baby vaccines cause autism????????

 

[Joes Place]

I still haven't gotten a straight answer from the from the first quote. You seemed to have gotten a bit off track. You say we should just blindly trust the regulatory agency position on vaccines, but not the FDA or FCC on cell phones?

When did I comment on FDA/FCC on cell phones?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Darn, I saw you comment on the Handley article and I thought you might actually have a criticism or something

And...hospitalized for chicken pox? That's a very different experience for most.

So f’n what? Most don’t die from measles...but many do. Ninety thousand in 2017. That’s down from over 500,000 in 2000 thanks to vaccines. And many, many more are adversely affected for the rest of their lives.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

When did I comment on FDA/FCC on cell phones?

You admitted that you believe there are dangers with cell phones. The FDA/FCC are the regulating bodies, and I'm not seeing any issued warnings.

 

[Joes Place]

You admitted that you believe there are dangers with cell phones. The FDA/FCC are the regulating bodies, and I'm not seeing any issued warnings.

Huh?
There was a recent study out, indicating there MAY BE interactions, but the new data are far from conclusive. I've been on here stating the regs, as currently written, are fine. And, the last thread on that topic, I'd indicated I own several reference books on the topic.

I use a cellphone all the time; I simply use bluetooth headsets instead of putting a 5W transmitter next to my head, because despite knowing the risks are small, they are far smaller using bluetooth, than cellular transmission energies.

And my position on vaccines is the same; they are not zero-risk. They are very very small risk. But the risks of contracting a fatal or debilitating disease are much much higher, and those carry way worse side effects than the vaccines.

 

[shank hawk]

LMAO, someone doesn't understand the basics of logic and science.......it's not up to me to PROVE that no child has ever been harmed (you can't ever PROVE a negative), it's up to you to PROVE that one has. Till you do that, then all your ranting and raving is "full of sound of fury signifying NOTHING".



Also, I've underlined the pertinent words in your chapter heading

A Lot Must be Done to Understand How, in Certain Individuals, Alum-Containing Vaccines may Become Insidiously Unsafe

I find it interesting that he doesn't have ANY direct examples of this happening. Now he did have this:
Macrophagic myofasciitis is typically detected in patients with diffuse myalgias and chronic fatigue, as shown in both the French series (46) and the recently published series of 16 patients (48).

In both series, most patients are women (70–80%) with a mean age of 45 years at the time of the biopsy, that typically complain of myalgias, with or without arthralgia, and disabling chronic fatigue. The onset of these symptoms is typically delayed from the immunization.

Strong statistical association between myalgias and MMF was detected by general survey in different French neuromuscular centers (myalgias in 90% of patients with MMF vs. 44% without MMF, p < 0.0001) (4). Onset of myalgia may follow exercise. They usually begin in the lower limbs, and not at the site of previous immunization from 0.5 to 84 months in the French patients and 3 to 192 months in Portuguese patients.

So, there were 16 patients (NONE of them babies) listed out of the MILLIONS of vaccines given to the MILLIONS of people living in France that displayed symptoms (of myalgia.....not even touching this one) YEARS after the vaccines and at sites not where they were given the injection.

This is the evidence your are using to back up your contention that aluminum in SOME baby vaccines cause autism????????

You can't prove a negative? That's exactly what the propaganda I linked earlier from Offit/C.H.O.P attempted to do. They unequivocally stated that aluminum CAN'T harm a healthy baby. Maybe you should reach out to them with your quaint notions of what constitutes logic and science.

And where did I say it caused autism? The PubMed article (and there are lots more) said it could be 'insidiously unsafe'. I linked it merely to refute the lie spouted by C.H.O.P. that said it is impossible for aluminum to cause any harm - period, end of discussion.

Then Joe jumped in with the assertion that obviously, Offit meant only if subjects were injected at the CDC's recommended levels, which also flies in the face of 'Dr.' Offit's assertion that an infant could theoretically handle 10,000 vaccines at one time without suffering any ill effects. That man is truly a snake-oil salesman extraordinaire. But then again, coming from a branch of science that gave us pioneers like Saul Krugman, the bar has been set low.

Extremely low.

 

[fsu1jreed]

You can't prove a negative? That's exactly what the propaganda I linked earlier from Offit/C.H.O.P attempted to do. They unequivocally stated that aluminum CAN'T harm a healthy baby. Maybe you should reach out to them with your quaint notions of what constitutes logic and science

If there isn't ANY evidence out of the BILLIONS of vaccines given then, yes, they can say that it CAN'T harm a healthy baby.....you need to have evidence of ONE baby harmed by the aluminum in the vaccines to say it CAN, that's how science works.

Till someone discovers purple dragons on Jupiter, then I can continue to say they DON'T and CAN'T exist.

And where did I say it caused autism? The PubMed article (and there are lots more) said it could be 'insidiously unsafe'. I linked it merely to refute the lie spouted by C.H.O.P. that said it is impossible for aluminum to cause any harm - period, end of discussion.

1. They in NO way said that it's 'impossible for aluminum to cause any harm', the CONTEXT in which they are talking about Aluminum in that pdf is EXTREMELY important there

2. You also missed a very important word, MAY.....also, it was a WHOLE 16 people who CLAIM to have myalgia, a condition that there isn't ANY test for and that MANY doctors don't think even really exists. One would think an 'insidiously unsafe' treatment would affect more than .000002% of the treated population (and that's IF the population of France only had ONE vaccine, which is false in a probability). There still wasn't ANY evidence backing up ANYTHING he posted about Aluminum causing negative symptoms (IF said symptoms are even real) in those 16 people, much less that it was the aluminum from said vaccines.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Huh?
There was a recent study out, indicating there MAY BE interactions, but the new data are far from conclusive. I've been on here stating the regs, as currently written, are fine. And, the last thread on that topic, I'd indicated I own several reference books on the topic.

I use a cellphone all the time; I simply use bluetooth headsets instead of putting a 5W transmitter next to my head, because despite knowing the risks are small, they are far smaller using bluetooth, than cellular transmission energies.

And my position on vaccines is the same; they are not zero-risk. They are very very small risk. But the risks of contracting a fatal or debilitating disease are much much higher, and those carry way worse side effects than the vaccines.

Do you feel regulators are regulating and warning appropriately?

 

[Joes Place]

Do you feel regulators are regulating and warning appropriately?

Have I stated differently?

FWIW, I used to draft the 'emissions exposure safety rules' for a company making microwave equipment. And I used the books I referenced above - if I didn't think their "regulations" and "recommendations" were accurate, I'd have passed on performing that task...

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Have I stated differently?

You're modifying your own behavior in order to avoid what you feel is an unacceptable health risk, yet you feel that no warning and the regulated standards set for everyone else is acceptable?

 

[naturalbornhawk]

So f’n what? Most don’t die from measles...but many do. Ninety thousand in 2017. That’s down from over 500,000 in 2000 thanks to vaccines. And many, many more are adversely affected for the rest of their lives.

1) My argument isn't that vaccines are nothing but bad. It's that the vaccine safety science sucks.
2) What I was hoping for is a counter to the ideas set forth in the herd immunity myth article in the post that you quoted since nobody else can. It's ok though, I understand it's hard to argue against truth.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

I wonder how many other healthcare issues the Antivax morons in this thread ignore their medical doctors on....

• Is "cancer treatment" all fake, too? Because they're just 'making money off of all of it'?
• How about 'strokes'?
• High blood pressure?
• Heart bypass procedures, for clogged arteries?
• Bacterial infections?
• Erectile dysfunction (or is that one "for REALz, man"!!??)

This is the definition of a strawman. Joe loves him some logical fallacy.

 

[shank hawk]

If there isn't ANY evidence out of the BILLIONS of vaccines given then, yes, they can say that it CAN'T harm a healthy baby.....you need to have evidence of ONE baby harmed by the aluminum in the vaccines to say it CAN, that's how science works.

Till someone discovers purple dragons on Jupiter, then I can continue to say they DON'T and CAN'T exist.



1. They in NO way said that it's 'impossible for aluminum to cause any harm', the CONTEXT in which they are talking about Aluminum in that pdf is EXTREMELY important there

2. You also missed a very important word, MAY.....also, it was a WHOLE 16 people who CLAIM to have myalgia, a condition that there isn't ANY test for and that MANY doctors don't think even really exists. One would think an 'insidiously unsafe' treatment would affect more than .000002% of the treated population (and that's IF the population of France only had ONE vaccine, which is false in a probability). There still wasn't ANY evidence backing up ANYTHING he posted about Aluminum causing negative symptoms (IF said symptoms are even real) in those 16 people, much less that it was the aluminum from said vaccines.

1. " They in NO way said that it's 'impossible for aluminum to cause any harm', the CONTEXT in which they are talking about Aluminum in that pdf is EXTREMELY important there"
Context? Read it for yourself (https://media.chop.edu/data/files/pdfs/vaccine-education-center-aluminum.pdf). Paul Offit and his profiteers state quite plainly that the minimal amount of aluminum in vaccines CANNOT cause harm to a healthy baby. They are pushing lies as facts: believe them if you wish.
(30-35 ncbi aluminum toxicity studies in this link)
https://healthfreedomidaho.org/flaw...toxic-aluminum-in-vaccines-as-160-pound-adult

 

[tarheelbybirth]

1) My argument isn't that vaccines are nothing but bad. It's that the vaccine safety science sucks.
2) What I was hoping for is a counter to the ideas set forth in the herd immunity myth article in the post that you quoted since nobody else can. It's ok though, I understand it's hard to argue against truth.

I just want to make sure we’re on the same page here. Mercury is no longer the vaccine demon of the day and Wakefield is a fraud. Is that or is it not correct?

 

[Joes Place]

You're modifying your own behavior in order to avoid what you feel is an unacceptable health risk

Where did I state it was an "unacceptable risk"?

The risk with ANYTHING is non-zero.

Using bluetooth is a LOWER risk, just like vaccines provide a LOWER risk of contracting a disease, suffering permanent side effects of a disease or dying of it. I'd surmise that's entirely consistent, wouldn't you?

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Where did I state it was an "unacceptable risk"?

Your behavior is proof that you believe the risk is unacceptable. You're not accepting the risk because you're going out of your way to modify your behavior to avoid it.

The risk with ANYTHING is non-zero.

Using bluetooth is a LOWER risk, just like vaccines provide a LOWER risk of contracting a disease, suffering permanent side effects of a disease or dying of it. I'd surmise that's entirely consistent, wouldn't you?

No. You're arguing your cost/benefit analysis of the risk. I'm not arguing against that (here) and that's not my point. My point is that you are somewhat educated in this field and you believe that it's an unacceptable risky behavior to expose your brain directly to your cell phone especially since there are relatively easy alternatives. Regulators, who are charged with looking out for the health of the rest of us have allowed the rest of us to use the phones w/o any issued warnings or tighter regulations in an effort to make the situation safer. Then you imply that you feel that the level of regulation and no warning to the rest of us is acceptable. So the risk at least in your mind is unacceptable for you, but acceptable for everyone else.

Unless you feel that regulatory agencies could be doing more to make the situation safer for the rest of us (since it probably wouldn't be too hard to issue a warning at the very least), then you're operating under a double standard.

 

[Joes Place]

Your behavior is proof that you believe the risk is unacceptable.

Again, wrong.

What I'd stated is the risk is LOWER with the other option.

If the risks were "unacceptable", I would not have either a cellphone, OR any Wifi/Bluetooth around my house.

Just like vaccines: being unvaccinated is an "unacceptable" risk for me. I'm "ok" with the 0.0001% severe reactions risks with vaccines. It's why I get flu shots every year. And now am considering a shingles vaccine, as well, as I just learned a friend came down with that and had to be off work for over a month because of it. His wife got a shingles vaccine in response to that episode. Because the alternative risk was "too high".

 

[fsu1jreed]

1. " They in NO way said that it's 'impossible for aluminum to cause any harm', the CONTEXT in which they are talking about Aluminum in that pdf is EXTREMELY important there"
Context? Read it for yourself (https://media.chop.edu/data/files/pdfs/vaccine-education-center-aluminum.pdf). Paul Offit and his profiteers state quite plainly that the minimal amount of aluminum in vaccines CANNOT cause harm to a healthy baby. They are pushing lies as facts: believe them if you wish.
(30-35 ncbi aluminum toxicity studies in this link)
https://healthfreedomidaho.org/flaw...toxic-aluminum-in-vaccines-as-160-pound-adult

1. Still waiting for evidence of harm to ONE healthy baby.........there should be plenty since it's so "insidiously unsafe"
2. Health Freedom Idaho?!?
   1. Just perusing through some of it's links makes me shake my head at why any logical human would believe anything they would write
3. Where is this any where in this link?
   1. 30-35 ncbi aluminum toxicity studies in this link
4. After clicking and reading the paper 'Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?' by L Tomljenovic & C Shaw, I went to read up on them and to say they have some problems with their research is putting it mildly, they've had numerous papers retracted due to BAD science and are now under investigation by their university
   1. A Faked Study Linking Vaccines And Autism Is Being Eviscerated by Scientists
      1. RETRACTED: Subcutaneous injections of aluminum at vaccine adjuvant levels activate innate immune genes in mouse brain that are homologous with biomarkers of autism
         
      2. But the most damning indictment on the research came when users on community science site PubPeer noticed several instances where the graphics and results in the study's data had been deliberately manipulated, copied and pasted, and generally faked.
         
      3. But it gets worse, Scientists pointed out flaws and weaknesses throughout the study, including, but not limited to:
         1. Injecting aluminum under the rodent’s skin, rather than into muscles, which is how vaccines are delivered
         2. Using dosing regimens that make incorrect assumptions about the development of mice and do not mimic vaccine schedules in children
         3. Studying genes based on outdated literature
         4. Using an outdated and inaccurate method to assess gene activity
         5. Using inappropriate statistical tests
         6. “Clear and deliberate” removal of control data
            
         7. Being funded by private foundations that question the safety of vaccines, which is noted in the study. A report in 2015 noted that it had received nearly $900,000 in grants from the anti-vaccine foundations. This is questionable, but can be overlooked if the science is correct.......but in this case it was not only incorrect, but clearly falsified so it puts into question EVERYTHING they have published
      4. One of the senior authors of the paper, Christopher Shaw from the University of British Columbia in Canada, told the site it was a mystery how the manipulated data made its way into their research.
         1. Sure Buddy, we believe you
   2. And it's not like this was the first time
      1. Canadian researchers whose studies questioned vaccine safety face second retraction
         1. WITHDRAWN: Behavioral abnormalities in young female mice following administration of aluminum adjuvants and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil
            
            1. This article has been withdrawn at the request of the Editor-in-Chief due to serious concerns regarding the scientific soundness of the article.
            2. Review by the Editor-in-Chief and evaluation by outside experts, confirmed that the methodology is seriously flawed, and the claims that the article makes are unjustified.
   3. Now said researchers are under investigation by the the University of British Columbia for scholarly/scientific misconduct
      1. If misconduct is determined, the university would address it through steps that could include contacting research journals, notifying funding organizations of the research and "administering discipline, up to and including termination of a faculty member's appointment," Prof. Murphy said.
5. Okay, so maybe that paper and authors accidentally slid under the radar of the website 'Health Freedom Idaho' (but I think we really know the answer here), so I go check out this one
   1. Aluminium in brain tissue in autism by Mold, Umar, King, & Exley and yep, this one has major problems also
      
      1. “Utterly awful:” David Gorski weighs in on yet another paper linking vaccines and autism
         1. There are no controls
         2. Means are used instead of medians
         3. There was no attempt even to explain why there were huge variations in readings for their tissue replicates
         4. I can’t comment on the details of the fluorescence microscopy images, but talking to people I know who do have expertise there, I find them unimpressive
            
         5. The short time frame between publication, revision, resubmission, and publication makes me suspicious that the peer review was not what it should be
            1. The paper was submitted on October 26, a revised version was resubmitted on November 21, and the final was accepted on November 23 — and published online November 26
               1. That’s an awfully quick turnaround
         6. The lead author, Christopher Exley at Keele University, sits on the editorial board of the journal, which makes me wonder if there’s a sufficient firewall between the editorial board and the review process
            1. This one is the HUGE red flag, normally a paper written by someone that sits on the editorial review board is published in another journal to show that there couldn't be any impropriety such as this
         7. You compare the lead author of this paper — Christopher Exley — with the lead author of another paper allegedly linking autism to components of vaccines, Christopher Shaw, who has had to retract two papers for data issues. What’s the similarities between them, besides the subject matter?
            1. Both have been funded extensively by the rabidly antivaccine Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute
            2. Both claim not to be antivaccine but regularly say things that show they are, They show up in antivaccine propaganda films
               1. For instance Shaw was in the antivaccine propaganda film The Greater Good, while Exley was recently in the antivaccine propaganda documentary Injecting Aluminum
            3. They’re both popular now in various antivaccine groups such as Autism One, a conference devoted to promoting the discredited idea that vaccines cause autism.
            4. So both are really no different than the scientists funded by Big Tobacco and the fossil fuel industry
      2. Christopher Exley: Using bad science to demonize aluminum adjuvants in vaccines
         1. This breaks down EVERY problem with said paper

1) My argument isn't that vaccines are nothing but bad. It's that the vaccine safety science sucks.
2) What I was hoping for is a counter to the ideas set forth in the herd immunity myth article in the post that you quoted since nobody else can. It's ok though, I understand it's hard to argue against truth.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

What I'd stated is the risk is LOWER with the other option.

If the risks were "unacceptable", I would not have either a cellphone, OR any Wifi/Bluetooth around my house.

No again. Yes of course, I know you think the "other (bluetooth) option" is lower risk. The issue has become the fact that you think direct cell phone contact is riskier, but also think that it's ok that regulators have not done anything or at least told people about the fact that it is riskier.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

I just want to make sure we’re on the same page here. Mercury is no longer the vaccine demon of the day and Wakefield is a fraud. Is that or is it not correct?

Did I say that aluminum is the only problem?

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Shouldn't I be the one posting that gif in response to ZERO comments? It's a relatively small, and easy to read article.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Did I say that aluminum is the only problem?

You didn't answer the question. Interesting.

 

[LBoogie28]

No again. Yes of course, I know you think the "other (bluetooth) option" is lower risk. The issue has become the fact that you think direct cell phone contact is riskier, but also think that it's ok that regulators have not done anything or at least told people about the fact that it is riskier.

SMH. If anyone on this board thought you knew what you were talking about...that concept was obliterated with this post/response.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

You didn't answer the question. Interesting.

Sure I did. How many times have I said that I feel the thimerosal studies were poorly designed. Thimerosal is still on the table until it's not. And Wakefield isn't a fraud. I'm just focused on aluminum right now.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

SMH. If anyone on this board thought you knew what you were talking about...that concept was obliterated with this post/response.

Oh? How so?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Sure I did. How many times have I said that I feel the thimerosal studies were poorly designed. Thimerosal is still on the table until it's not. And Wakefield isn't a fraud. I'm just focused on aluminum right now.

And it will always be thus...which is why engaging with you on this topic is a monumental waste of time. You bend the results to fit your conclusions - your mind is encased in concrete and nothing will change it. No study conceived could sway you from your predetermined conclusion that...something...anything...in vaccines is responsible for causing...something...everything.

Therefore...on this topic...I choose to mock you, instead. Mock!

 

[fsu1jreed]

Shouldn't I be the one posting that gif in response to ZERO comments? It's a relatively small, and easy to read article.

The whole idea that you call Herd Immunity, a very basic ecological theorem (one that I learned about in my first ecology class), a "myth" tells me all I need to know about that article (namely that I don't need to waste my time tearing it apart).

Sure I did. How many times have I said that I feel the thimerosal studies were poorly designed. Thimerosal is still on the table until it's not.

Considering that it hasn't been in ANY children's vaccines since 2001 and only in a few flu vaccines (you can ask for one without it), then I would say that it's been off the table for almost 20 YEARS.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Considering that it hasn't been in ANY children's vaccines since 2001 and only in a few flu vaccines (you can ask for one without it), then I would say that it's been off the table for almost 20 YEARS.

You're wasting your time. That he claims the studies that rebut his claims are invariably poorly designed yet accepts that piece of crap that Wakefield got published is golden tells you all you need to know.

 

[LBoogie28]

Oh? How so?

Let’s start with your use of “riskier” and what you think should be done everytime something is “riskier.”

 

[shank hawk]

1. Still waiting for evidence of harm to ONE healthy baby.........there should be plenty since it's so "insidiously unsafe"
2. Health Freedom Idaho?!?
   1. Just perusing through some of it's links makes me shake my head at why any logical human would believe anything they would write
3. Where is this any where in this link?
   1. 30-35 ncbi aluminum toxicity studies in this link
4. After clicking and reading the paper 'Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?' by L Tomljenovic & C Shaw, I went to read up on them and to say they have some problems with their research is putting it mildly, they've had numerous papers retracted due to BAD science and are now under investigation by their university
   1. A Faked Study Linking Vaccines And Autism Is Being Eviscerated by Scientists
      1. RETRACTED: Subcutaneous injections of aluminum at vaccine adjuvant levels activate innate immune genes in mouse brain that are homologous with biomarkers of autism
         
      2. But the most damning indictment on the research came when users on community science site PubPeer noticed several instances where the graphics and results in the study's data had been deliberately manipulated, copied and pasted, and generally faked.
         
      3. But it gets worse, Scientists pointed out flaws and weaknesses throughout the study, including, but not limited to:
         1. Injecting aluminum under the rodent’s skin, rather than into muscles, which is how vaccines are delivered
         2. Using dosing regimens that make incorrect assumptions about the development of mice and do not mimic vaccine schedules in children
         3. Studying genes based on outdated literature
         4. Using an outdated and inaccurate method to assess gene activity
         5. Using inappropriate statistical tests
         6. “Clear and deliberate” removal of control data
            
         7. Being funded by private foundations that question the safety of vaccines, which is noted in the study. A report in 2015 noted that it had received nearly $900,000 in grants from the anti-vaccine foundations. This is questionable, but can be overlooked if the science is correct.......but in this case it was not only incorrect, but clearly falsified so it puts into question EVERYTHING they have published
      4. One of the senior authors of the paper, Christopher Shaw from the University of British Columbia in Canada, told the site it was a mystery how the manipulated data made its way into their research.
         1. Sure Buddy, we believe you
   2. And it's not like this was the first time
      1. Canadian researchers whose studies questioned vaccine safety face second retraction
         1. WITHDRAWN: Behavioral abnormalities in young female mice following administration of aluminum adjuvants and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil
            1. This article has been withdrawn at the request of the Editor-in-Chief due to serious concerns regarding the scientific soundness of the article.
            2. Review by the Editor-in-Chief and evaluation by outside experts, confirmed that the methodology is seriously flawed, and the claims that the article makes are unjustified.
   3. Now said researchers are under investigation by the the University of British Columbia for scholarly/scientific misconduct
      1. If misconduct is determined, the university would address it through steps that could include contacting research journals, notifying funding organizations of the research and "administering discipline, up to and including termination of a faculty member's appointment," Prof. Murphy said.
5. Okay, so maybe that paper and authors accidentally slid under the radar of the website 'Health Freedom Idaho' (but I think we really know the answer here), so I go check out this one
   1. Aluminium in brain tissue in autism by Mold, Umar, King, & Exley and yep, this one has major problems also
      1. “Utterly awful:” David Gorski weighs in on yet another paper linking vaccines and autism
         1. There are no controls
         2. Means are used instead of medians
         3. There was no attempt even to explain why there were huge variations in readings for their tissue replicates
         4. I can’t comment on the details of the fluorescence microscopy images, but talking to people I know who do have expertise there, I find them unimpressive
            
         5. The short time frame between publication, revision, resubmission, and publication makes me suspicious that the peer review was not what it should be
            1. The paper was submitted on October 26, a revised version was resubmitted on November 21, and the final was accepted on November 23 — and published online November 26
               1. That’s an awfully quick turnaround
         6. The lead author, Christopher Exley at Keele University, sits on the editorial board of the journal, which makes me wonder if there’s a sufficient firewall between the editorial board and the review process
            1. This one is the HUGE red flag, normally a paper written by someone that sits on the editorial review board is published in another journal to show that there couldn't be any impropriety such as this
         7. You compare the lead author of this paper — Christopher Exley — with the lead author of another paper allegedly linking autism to components of vaccines, Christopher Shaw, who has had to retract two papers for data issues. What’s the similarities between them, besides the subject matter?
            1. Both have been funded extensively by the rabidly antivaccine Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute
            2. Both claim not to be antivaccine but regularly say things that show they are, They show up in antivaccine propaganda films
               1. For instance Shaw was in the antivaccine propaganda film The Greater Good, while Exley was recently in the antivaccine propaganda documentary Injecting Aluminum
            3. They’re both popular now in various antivaccine groups such as Autism One, a conference devoted to promoting the discredited idea that vaccines cause autism.
            4. So both are really no different than the scientists funded by Big Tobacco and the fossil fuel industry
      2. Christopher Exley: Using bad science to demonize aluminum adjuvants in vaccines
         1. This breaks down EVERY problem with said paper

Oh look. David 'my pockets are stuffed with Sanofi-Aventis cash and undisclosed conflicts-of-interest' Gorski has been brought into the discussion to refute any bad publicity related to vaccines. What a surprise!

Try and find a person or organization that isn't compromised to make your case.

Then again, never mind. They don't exist.

 

[*33*]

Oh look. David 'my pockets are stuffed with Sanofi-Aventis cash and undisclosed conflicts-of-interest' Gorski has been brought into the discussion to refute any bad publicity related to vaccines. What a surprise!

Try and find a person or organization that isn't compromised to make your case.

Then again, never mind. They don't exist.

Yes, because pharmaceutical companies with those deep pockets never take drugs off the market with negative effect....they also never get sued over said drugs either.....but somehow, magically, vaccines and specifically the ones for children these companies can buy off??

(that was sarcasm just in case you missed it)