ADVERTISEMENT

For You Anti-Vaxxers...

The MMR study was published in '98, Deer's reports on Wakefield ran from '04 to '10, the Lancet submitted a short retraction in '04 and a full retraction in '10.(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/#ref3)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Deer)

You're either blatantly lying............or you just suck at addition/subtraction.

Wow, I didn't know Deer was an award winning 'journalist'. I guess that's the equivalent of a pimp giving his best whore a huge Christmas bonus. Merck and the boys are great at making problems disappear if nothing else. :eek:
LOL...his paper was raked over the coals in the scientific community almost upon publication. It led to his resignation from the Royal Free Hospital in 2001. He stated, "I have been asked to go because my research results are unpopular." Of course, the fact that they were flatly, demonstrably wrong - not to mention unethical - is something he's never admitted to.

You do some math. Better yet, know the facts of your own case before you open your mouth. In your case, that might mean a life of silence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: claykenny
After reading the study, do you think there are any differences with how the body treats the aluminum - intramuscular injection vs. when it's taken in orally?
Ad the latest claim after all others have been discredited. So tell us...what is the total aluminum salt content found in all the vaccines on the schedule?
 
So...a little less than 5mg by 18 months - a little over 6 mg lifetime. How many mg are ingested on average on a daily basis?
Really? Let's not do this again. The body reacts completely different in one route of entry vs. the other. You're comparing apples to oranges, which of course is not good science. If I want to know whether injected aluminum can be damaging to human health do I look at oral dosing models to determine safe limits?
 
Really? Let's not do this again. The body reacts completely different in one route of entry vs. the other. You're comparing apples to oranges, which of course is not good science. If I want to know whether injected aluminum can be damaging to human health do I look at oral dosing models to determine safe limits?
You avoided the question. Try again.
 
So...a little less than 5mg by 18 months - a little over 6 mg lifetime. How many mg are ingested on average on a daily basis?
And science has shown the differences in how the body reacts to the aluminum, with the injected route being potentially much more dangerous.
 
Q: After reading the study, do you think there are any differences with how the body treats the aluminum - intramuscular injection vs. when it's taken in orally?
A: Ad the latest claim after all others have been discredited.

Answer the question and I'll answer yours. Hint: it's yes or no.
 
Q: After reading the study, do you think there are any differences with how the body treats the aluminum - intramuscular injection vs. when it's taken in orally?

It's not much, because the body clears it, either way.
You still seem to be unable to answer the question on 'how much' is ingested orally, on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. Why is that?
 
Q: After reading the study, do you think there are any differences with how the body treats the aluminum - intramuscular injection vs. when it's taken in orally?
A: Ad the latest claim after all others have been discredited.

Answer the question and I'll answer yours. Hint: it's yes or no.
No. Your turn.
 
It's not much, because the body clears it, either way.
You still seem to be unable to answer the question on 'how much' is ingested orally, on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. Why is that?
Quit acting like I can't answer the question. It's an easy question, we've talked about it here several times before, and the answer doesn't rock my world, just fyi.
 
He did, in post #214, dipshit.
DB response. I'd expect nothing less. I took his "no" to mean No, he's not going to answer because it's my turn. In addition that wasn't his first sentence. I'm just shocked that anyone could possibly answer "no" to that question.

An average adult in the United States eats about 7–9 mg of aluminum per day in their food.

TH says no, Joe says it's not much, so yes. Interesting.
 
That is absolutely inconceivable that you could answer "no". This is the mentality of the people were dealing with. Science will tell you the body reacts differently to remove the aluminum between the 2 routes of entry.
3cpAS6L.jpg


And...LOL...coming from the guy who thinks a dilution to ppq of some substance can treat anything - this is hysterical. And you still haven't answered my question.
 
Then why did you ask?

FWIW, your body also doesn't care how you ingest mercury (orally, or thru skin absorption); the body doesn't excrete it, and it accumulates, either way.
I asked because it's important and I wanted to see which way he would answer. I got 2 completely stupid answers for the price of one, and they didn't agree with each other. All in a day's work boys.
His answer is stupid because science disagrees with him, but if he said yes like you did then you must agree with me that they should not be using oral dosing studies to determine safe injected amounts of aluminum.

What's even worse you said "It's not much, because the body clears it, either way" So, the reason why it's not much is because the body clears it? Speaking nothing to the differences in how or how long it takes to clear it.
 
And science has shown the differences in how the body reacts to the aluminum, with the injected route being potentially much more dangerous.
You're crazy man. There's no difference in how a substance gets into your body. For example, air is every bit as safe to humans when they breath it into their lungs as when they inject it into their veins. And Paul Proffit says you can inject 10,000 vaccines into a baby at once, and you just know he would never lie.

Amirite? :eek:
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalbornhawk
You're crazy man. There's no difference in how a substance gets into your body. For example, air is every bit as safe to humans when they breath it into their lungs as when they inject it into their veins. And Paul Proffit says you can inject 10,000 vaccines into a baby at once, and you just know he would never lie.

Amirite? :eek:
Right on shank, right on. :p
 
If they've gone parabolic does that me they are now on a downward trajectory?

Do you think its just a coincidence that diagnostic equipment and trained personal are slightly more sophisticated and specialized since the advent of vaccines?
There were 482,000 cases of measles in the U.S in 1962, the year before a vaccine for this disease became available. Now, with all fifty states requiring that children be vaccinated against measles in order to attend school, there were only 56 cases of measles in a population of 290 million people in 2003.

These facts are well known and proudly cited by vaccine proponents. What is less known, and doctors are not taught, is that the death rate for measles declined 97.7 percent during the first 60 years of the 20th century. The mortality rate was 133 deaths per million people in the U.S. in 1900, and had dropped to 0.3 deaths per million by 1960. Measles caused less than 100 deaths a year in the U.S. before there was a vaccine for this disease (in 1963). The same thing happened with diphtheria and pertussis. Mortality rates dropped more than 90 percent in the early 20th century before vaccines for these diseases were introduced. This was due to better nutrition (with rapid delivery of fresh fruit and vegetables to cities and refrigeration), cleaner water, and improved sanitation (removing trash from the streets and better sewage systems), not to vaccines. The World Health Organization promotes mass vaccination, but knowing these facts states, "The best vaccine against common infectious diseases is an adequate diet" — fortified, one might add, with vitamin A.

Since the measles vaccine came into widespread use in this country this disease has virtually disappeared, and it has prevented 100 deaths a year. But now, instead, several thousand normally developing children become autistic after receiving their MMR shot. Termed "regressive autism," it accounts for about 30 percent of the 10,000 to 20,000 children who are diagnosed with autism in this country each year.

Or were you referring to autoimmune disorders?

Our children are also experiencing an epidemic of autoimmune disorders — Type I diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, and bowel disorders. There has been a 17-fold increase in Type I diabetes, from 1 in 7,100 children in the 1950s to 1 in 400 now. Juvenile rheumatoid arthritis afflicts 300,000 American children. Twenty-five years ago this disease was so rare that public health officials did not keep any statistics on it. There has been a 4-fold increase in asthma, and bowel disorders in children are much more common now than they were 50 years ago.

The above from Dr. Don Miller, Dartmouth, Harvard Med. is a retired cardiac surgeon, a Professor Emeritus of Surgery and former Chief of the Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle.
 
I should have my head examined, but I will read it today when I get some time.



I agree with all of that, except underlined. Published science has always been like that because it's created by humans, and all humans have inherent flaws (e.g. bias)....but that's the very reason the peer-review process BOTH before and after publication exists, because if something is overlooked, etc. before then it's almost always caught afterward by the scientific community.

This is something I learned about in my Geographic Research class at FSU. And something that Derek Muller on his Veritasium Youtube channel covered beautifully (see below).......if you like your science broken down into layman terms then I HIGHLY recommend subscribing to his channel, each video is only ~10 minutes long.



Edit: And no wonder you quoted Horton:

Autism and vaccine controversy (1998)[edit]
Main article: MMR vaccine controversy § 1998 The Lancet paper
The Lancet was criticized after it published a paper in 1998 in which the authors suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.[10] In February 2004, The Lancet published a statement by 10 of the paper's 13 coauthors repudiating the possibility that MMR could cause autism.[11] The editor-in-chief, Richard Horton, went on the record to say the paper had "fatal conflicts of interest" because the study's lead author, Andrew Wakefield, had a serious conflict of interest that he had not declared to The Lancet.[12] The journal completely retracted the paper on 2 February 2010, after Wakefield was found to have acted unethically in conducting the research.[13]

The Lancet's six editors, including the editor-in-chief, were also criticized in 2011 because they had "covered up" the "Wakefield concocted fear of MMR" with an "avalanche of denials" in 2004.[14]


But I do find it interesting that EVEN that journal showed that Wakefield acted unethically.......something that certain posters have argued against, LOL. An interesting read.


The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud

Scientists and organizations across the world spent a great deal of time and money refuting the results of a minor paper in the Lancet and exposing the scientific fraud that formed the basis of the paper. Appallingly, parents across the world did not vaccinate their children out of fear of the risk of autism, thereby exposing their children to the risks of disease and the well-documented complications related thereto. Measles outbreaks in the UK in 2008 and 2009 as well as pockets of measles in the USA and Canada were attributed to the nonvaccination of children.[7] The Wakefield fraud is likely to go down as one of the most serious frauds in medical history.
TY for the sidebar which further illustrates my contention that Science, like any other field, is a cesspool of corrupt, immoral snakes who are on the take to put their kids through $35K a year private schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalbornhawk
That's simply nonsensical and flat out lying.

And we can observe the nonsense in real time, because things like measles outbreaks only occur among low-vaccination populations. They simply do not occur where vaccination rates are near 100%.
Ooops! File this under things you wish you could take back:

MMR vaccination for measles provides immunity against the virus that causes this disease, and people are spared having to suffer through its debilitating manifestations and be subject to possible complications. The MMR shot, however, does not confer lifelong immunity against measles. It only lasts for several years. Booster shots are required, which studies show to be less effective than the initial one.

Health officials, both in the U.S. and UK, blame unvaccinated people and the “anti-vaxxers” for these outbreaks. Assisted by a compliant media, they downplay the fact that the vast majority of people who are contracting measles have been fully vaccinated against it—more than 95 percent in some outbreaks. In the UK, in Northern England, a highly vaccinated part of the country, there were 757 cases in a measles outbreak there in 2013 (January to August). It went unreported. Health authorities steered the UK media in another direction and focused instead on a smaller outbreak in South Wales, which had 40 cases, where vaccine dissenters are more vocal and fewer people have been vaccinated. Unvaccinated people make easy scapegoats in today’s climate of vaccine obedience.

The key question, of course, which officials and pundits do not ask (preferring instead to censure “anti-vaxxers”), is: Why would an unvaccinated person pose a danger to the vaccinated population if the vaccine they had is effective and really works?

With measles re-emerging in developed countries where almost all of their citizens have been vaccinated, a call has gone out to develop a better, next-generation measles vaccine. [1]

One benefit of having measles is that a person so infected will then have lifelong, permanent immunity to it. Mothers transfer antibodies against measles to their babies, which protect them from this disease during their early critical months of life. The MMR shot, however, does not provide lifelong immunity to measles. It only lasts several years, and successively less effective booster shots are required.

There is a second, major benefit of measles that health authorities overlook. Measles helps a child’s immune system grow strong and mature.



https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/02/donald-w-miller-jr-md/more-dangerous-than-measles/
 
DB response. I'd expect nothing less. I took his "no" to mean No, he's not going to answer because it's my turn. In addition that wasn't his first sentence. I'm just shocked that anyone could possibly answer "no" to that question.

An average adult in the United States eats about 7–9 mg of aluminum per day in their food.
See? Now was that so hard. But there are many more sources for aluminum. You literally breathe it in all day. It's everywhere. The general number is between 10-110mg per day from all sources with an average of 65mg. So let's go with 5mg for a child. They breathe it in. Drink it in. Get it from formula or mother's milk. About 0.3% gets into the blood stream. That works out to over 25mg Al/year in the blood. Now you could certainly claim that every mg of aluminum salts in vaccines gets into the blood and you probably would...but...there is zero detectable difference in aluminum in the blood after a vaccination. So NOW you've started claiming that there's some magical process that takes that injected aluminum and handles it differently by transporting it directly to the brain - a process that's completely shut off to ingested aluminum.

No. I was talking about the lead hack(Deer) - backed by certain compromised entities - that did the dirty work to get Wakefield kicked to the curb.
Wakefield RESIGNED his post in 2001. That's years before Brian Deer came into the picture. Wakefield was already discredited in the scientific community. The ONLY reason Deer came into the picture is that Wakefield kept pushing his fraudulent work and found idiots like those in this thread who took up his idiotic campaign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: claykenny
See? Now was that so hard. But there are many more sources for aluminum. You literally breathe it in all day. It's everywhere. The general number is between 10-110mg per day from all sources with an average of 65mg. So let's go with 5mg for a child. They breathe it in.

When you breathe stuff in, it literally goes directly into your bloodstream. Faster than IM injection, by far.

But....let's just hold on a sec and see what lewrockwell has to say....;)
 
MORE lewrockwell???

THIS was the guy who posted the mixed up US/Great Britain data, dipshit. We debunked his nonsense years ago. You're going BACK to that well, again?:eek:
And here to provide the NAZI cartel view of IG Farben/ Bayer is Joe's Place. Thank you, Joe for the Goebbel's spin/ defamation.
This is not an adequate defense of your BULLSHIT position. The writer is a Harvard Med grad who has forgotten more than you will ever learn. He has cited his source.

http://www.edwardjennersociety.org/wp-content/uploads/The-re-emergence-of-measles1.pdf
 
“Anything that implies that immunizations are not the greatest medical advance in the history of public health is ignored or ridiculed. Can you imagine the economic and political import of discovering that immunizations are killing (or maiming) thousands of babies?” — Dr William C. Douglass, MD (Honored twice as America’s ‘Doctor of the Year’)
 
Pullin' the Nazi Card AGAIN? Damn, you lose arguments quickly.
Playing your Lew Rockwell slander game. It's all you understand.

“It is difficult to get a man to understandsomething, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” – Upton Sinclair
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT