Vaxxed

[Fools_Rush_In]

Make assumptions much? Maybe I don't have kids, or maybe my kids are already vaccine damaged. Maybe I've seen the damage first-hand and I believe parents should have a choice for what goes inside their children's body so I can avoid more parents from going through what I've seen. Just how many deaths have vaccines prevented? You won't find that information because nobody knows. Look at the data and you'll figure out these diseases were on their way out anyway, long before the vaccines were even introduced to the population. Vaccines sometimes cause the disease they were meant to prevent! Now, how many destroyed lives have there been because of autism and other diseases and how many babies have been killed by vaccine-caused SIDS? How many more will there be? Look at the mess that Gardasil is creating. Many, many girls that were just fine before receiving the vaccine are now paralyzed and chronically ill shortly thereafter. If vaccines are mandated, that one gets mandated too, along with any new problematic vaccines they introduce for other probably non-fatal diseases. Do vaccines have their hand in cancer? Probably yes. Again, no long-term double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to know for sure so I don't want to hear that they don't. How about the 3.4 B paid out by VAERS, 1-10% get reported. Many of the diseases we vaccinate for would easily go away on their own with no permanent damage, and we'd be left with lifelong immunity. There are a lot of things to consider here, and those concerns I listed are not even close to being all encompassing. Not to mention your post assumes herd immunity, which I've posed as a highly questionable idea that none of you folks have even cared to even attempt to counter. Your post is a short-sighted one-sided heap of assumption filled garbage.

You're such a damn selfish fool that you'll bring down society for the sake of your uneducated beliefs. Just like a trump idiot, you have no clue or education put everyone at risk because you have a gut feeling that change needs to be made.

You sound like a liberal trying to make conservatives or libertarians look bad.

 

[Fools_Rush_In]

naturalbornhawk said: ↑
The content of this thread so far is completely unexpected. About a year ago I started a vaccine thread where I contended that parents should have the right to choose whether or not vaccines should be given to their children and posters were downright nasty in that thread. I don't think there's been a vaccine thread since, probably because people wanted to avoid the subject after seeing that thread. I'll admit though I haven't been able to follow HROT enough to say for sure. You guys remember, right? The tone in this thread has changed considerably, is that because people are finally waking up?
Lmao I wouldn't be patting myself on the back that a handful of retards are now in agreement on HROT with your retarded stance on vaccines

25 bhawk24bob, Saturday at 2:44 PM

That was real hard, but in your defense saying over and over that someone has no credibility isn't as bad as saying they are retarded. Maybe you should just go with this to mix things up a bit?

That should end the debate once and for all.

Go live in the woods by yourself, you dang hippie. We don't need you as you probably don't work anyway.

 

[bhawk24bob]

naturalbornhawk said: ↑
The content of this thread so far is completely unexpected. About a year ago I started a vaccine thread where I contended that parents should have the right to choose whether or not vaccines should be given to their children and posters were downright nasty in that thread. I don't think there's been a vaccine thread since, probably because people wanted to avoid the subject after seeing that thread. I'll admit though I haven't been able to follow HROT enough to say for sure. You guys remember, right? The tone in this thread has changed considerably, is that because people are finally waking up?
Lmao I wouldn't be patting myself on the back that a handful of retards are now in agreement on HROT with your retarded stance on vaccines

25 bhawk24bob, Saturday at 2:44 PM

That was real hard, but in your defense saying over and over that someone has no credibility isn't as bad as saying they are retarded. Maybe you should just go with this to mix things up a bit?

That should end the debate once and for all.

That was more a statement of fact than an insult

 

[Nat Algren]

So. What? There was tons of independent research indicating the dangers of tobacco, you moronic twit. There is zero credible evidence indicating this for vaccines. The tobacco companies couldn't suppress the evidence then and "BIG PHARMA" couldn't do it now...if it existed. Your argument is stupid and vacuous but since you decided to get personal, so are you. Not that that's a surprise to anyone.

You're a dunce.
Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues raised the possibility that the MMR vaccine might have something to do with this syndrome. They concluded the Lancet paper with this statement: "Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome [autistic enterocolitis] and its possible relation to this [MMR] vaccine." For this, he was taken down in the way of a Soviet- style show trial.

But, you're so pompously bright, you probably knew that the head of the control panel, Dr. Kumar, was an undisclosed shareholder in Glaxo Smith Kline, the UK's largest vaccine maker. Also undisclosed was that Kumar also was a rabid advocate for mandatory vaccination, for which he would have been a beneficiary. You probably also knew that Brian Deer, the UK pseudo journalist of The Sunday Times had conducted his 'investigation' into Wakefield. Oh, a small conflict. The Sunday Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, whose son, James, sits on the board of GlaxoSmith Kline.

In 2004, the very 1st bill that George W. Bush admin signed into law after passing through Congress was a bill that eliminated all liability to vaccine makers. Of course, his henchman, Donald Rumsfeld worked for Searle. Interesting note on how corrupt the medical government complex is, aspartame languished in trials for 12 years. In an interview, Rumsfeld admitted that he used his influence in the admin. to push it through for his friend in the blink of an eye.

See how this works? I wrote this with facts. I didn't have to fill up my paragraphs with name-calling to stifle dissent. I only accurately called you a dunce one time. Now twice.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Damn, you really are this clueless. They're a danger to infants who haven't been immunized and the immunocompromised who can't tolerate vaccines. They're also a danger to other children whose parents are as stupid as the other anti-vaxxers. Those children don't get a choice.

This isn't hard at all if you actually research the information rather than relying on conspiracy sites.

Alright! Thank you for answering the question. It was more of a leading question than me not knowing. I should know better. It's more of a pertussis issue. Those babies are protect through supposed herd immunity, right? Ok, now please read this and report back to me how you still think herd immunity is protecting those babies. http://www.visionlaunch.com/herd-im...and-the-questionable-science-behind-vaccines/

 

[naturalbornhawk]

That was more a statement of fact than an insult

LOL. Ok, all you guys do is insult. There's not real substance behind your posts at all. Case in point:

You're such a damn selfish fool that you'll bring down society for the sake of your uneducated beliefs. Just like a trump idiot, you have no clue or education put everyone at risk because you have a gut feeling that change needs to be made.

You sound like a liberal trying to make conservatives or libertarians look bad.

Hey I don't even like Trump, and I'm not an extremist on either side. I'm a realist. I'm listening to the thousands of doctors and scientists who are saying the exact same things I have brought up in this thread. This isn't me. I'm presenting these ideas, and nobody is countering with anything but insults. It would seem as if you folks are the ones who are uneducated on these matters. If that's not true, don't hurl more insults, counter me with something brilliant that nullifies what I'm saying.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You're a dunce.
Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues raised the possibility that the MMR vaccine might have something to do with this syndrome. They concluded the Lancet paper with this statement: "Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome [autistic enterocolitis] and its possible relation to this [MMR] vaccine." For this, he was taken down in the way of a Soviet- style show trial.

Further research WAS conducted, you sanctimonious dolt. Studies were set up to reproduce the results Wakefield claimed. They couldn't. You do understand this is where it all began. No one - NO ONE - has been able to replicate Wakefield's results. The Royal Free, his employer, offered Wakefield...your hero - the opportunity to reproduce his research using a larger sample of children. He refused the opportunity to back up his own "findings". I can cite many more resources if you'd like. Those are facts.

But, you're so pompously bright, you probably knew that the head of the control panel, Dr. Kumar, was an undisclosed shareholder in Glaxo Smith Kline, the UK's largest vaccine maker. Also undisclosed was that Kumar also was a rabid advocate for mandatory vaccination, for which he would have been a beneficiary. You probably also knew that Brian Deer, the UK pseudo journalist of The Sunday Times had conducted his 'investigation' into Wakefield. Oh, a small conflict. The Sunday Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, whose son, James, sits on the board of GlaxoSmith Kline.

Ok...let's look at finances, moron. Who funded Wakefield's research? Why, it was the lawyers bringing suit against the drug companies. He was hired by the lawyers...his research was funded by the lawyers through Britain's legal aid department...and NONE of that was public record. They eventually funneled $750,000 to Wakefield personally and millions to his group. No conflict of interest there.

Wakefield had also filed an undisclosed patent application on a supposedly "safer" vaccine prior to conducting his "research". He had a vested interest in showing a link between vaccines and ANY malady. Why didn't you report THAT fact?

In 2004, the very 1st bill that George W. Bush admin signed into law after passing through Congress was a bill that eliminated all liability to vaccine makers. Of course, his henchman, Donald Rumsfeld worked for Searle. Interesting note on how corrupt the medical government complex is, aspartame languished in trials for 12 years. In an interview, Rumsfeld admitted that he used his influence in the admin. to push it through for his friend in the blink of an eye.

I have no idea how this impacts the link between vaccines and autism. It does point to great reasons to throw the GOP out, of course.

See how this works? I wrote this with facts. I didn't have to fill up my paragraphs with name-calling to stifle dissent. I only accurately called you a dunce one time. Now twice.

You couldn't be accurate with a gun to your head. Your hero performed invasive procedures on CHILDREN and lied that he had the proper authority to do so. When that was proven to be a lie, your hero changed his story and claimed - falsely - that he needed no such authorization. The asshat should be in jail.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Alright! Thank you for answering the question. It was more of a leading question than me not knowing. I should know better. It's more of a pertussis issue. Those babies are protect through supposed herd immunity, right? Ok, now please read this and report back to me how you still think herd immunity is protecting those babies. http://www.visionlaunch.com/herd-im...and-the-questionable-science-behind-vaccines/

Your article is laughably wrong. If life-long immunity was passed down from mother to child, these diseases should have disappeared long ago. The immunity enjoyed by newborns is conferred because their MOTHER'S immunoglobulin antibodies are circulating in their blood. The infant has no means to create these antibodies themselves so the immunity fades as their own immune system becomes functional. Infants do NOT get disease-specific antibodies from the mother, either in utero or from breast milk. The idea is ridiculous.

I suppose we should just go ahead and infect infants with polio and TB, as well?

 

[Nat Algren]

Further research WAS conducted, you sanctimonious dolt. Studies were set up to reproduce the results Wakefield claimed. They couldn't. You do understand this is where it all began. No one - NO ONE - has been able to replicate Wakefield's results. The Royal Free, his employer, offered Wakefield...your hero - the opportunity to reproduce his research using a larger sample of children. He refused the opportunity to back up his own "findings". I can cite many more resources if you'd like. Those are facts.Ok...let's look at finances, moron. Who funded Wakefield's research? Why, it was the lawyers bringing suit against the drug companies. He was hired by the lawyers...his research was funded by the lawyers through Britain's legal aid department...and NONE of that was public record. They eventually funneled $750,000 to Wakefield personally and millions to his group. No conflict of interest there.

Wakefield had also filed an undisclosed patent application on a supposedly "safer" vaccine prior to conducting his "research". He had a vested interest in showing a link between vaccines and ANY malady. Why didn't you report THAT fact?I have no idea how this impacts the link between vaccines and autism. It does point to great reasons to throw the GOP out, of course.

You couldn't be accurate with a gun to your head. Your hero performed invasive procedures on CHILDREN and lied that he had the proper authority to do so. When that was proven to be a lie, your hero changed his story and claimed - falsely - that he needed no such authorization. The asshat should be in jail.

LOL. A NIH link? A corrupt organization if ever there was one.


Myths: The Lancet paper
  was funded by the Legal Aid Board (LAB)4 False – Not one penny of LAB money was spent on The Lancet paper. An LAB grant was provided for a separate viral detection study. This latter study, completed in 1999, does disclose the source of funding. The Lancet paper had been submitted for publication before the LAB grant was even available to be spent. my involvement as a medical expert was kept “secret”5 False – at least one year before publication, my senior co-authors6, the head of department and the dean of the medical school7, and the CEO of the hospital were informed by me. This fact was also reported in the national press 15 months prior to publication8. children were “sourced” by lawyers to sue vaccine manufacturers5 False – Children were referred, evaluated, and investigated on the basis of their clinical symptoms alone, following referral from the child’s physician9. children were litigants10 False – at the time of their referral to the Royal Free, the time material to their inclusion in The Lancet paper, none of the children were litigants. I had an undisclosed conflict of interest11 False – The Lancet’s disclosure policy at that time was followed to the letter. Documentary evidence confirms that the editorial staff of The Lancet was fully aware that I was working as an expert on MMR litigation well in advance of the paper’s publication12. did not have Ethics Committee (EC) approval5 False – The research element of the paper that required such an approval, detailed systematic analysis of children’s intestinal biopsies, was covered by the necessary EC approval13. I “fixed” data and misreported clinical findings14 False – There is absolutely no basis in fact for this claim and it has been exposed as false15. findings have not been independently replicated12 False – The key findings of LNH and colitis in ASD children have been independently confirmed in 5 different countries16. has been retracted by most of the authors17 False – 11 of 13 authors issued a retraction of the interpretation that MMR is a possible trigger for syndrome described. This remains a possibility and a possibility cannot be retracted. the work is discredited18 False – Those attemping to discredit the work have relied upon the myths above. The findings described in the paper are novel and important19.
http://www.autismone.org/content/paper-andrew-wakefield-mb-bs-frcs-frcpath

This is what happens when you read just one side all the time. You have the conclusion already drawn up in your head and just seek bits and pieces to support your side.

Of course you don't understand. You're too effing stupid. What it shows is how corrupt government power is and those who wish to gain by peddling influence. See the Clinton Foundation for the latest example.

You just keeping glossing over the Glaxo connection of Kumar, James Murdoch and Brian Deer though. It kind of blows up your story, Walt Disney.

Even today, those who wish to delve into any possible connection and they will be denied grant money and upward career advancement and in Wakefield's case, loss of license to practice medicine.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Your article is laughably wrong. If life-long immunity was passed down from mother to child, these diseases should have disappeared long ago. The immunity enjoyed by newborns is conferred because their MOTHER'S immunoglobulin antibodies are circulating in their blood. The infant has no means to create these antibodies themselves so the immunity fades as their own immune system becomes functional. Infants do NOT get disease-specific antibodies from the mother, either in utero or from breast milk. The idea is ridiculous.

I suppose we should just go ahead and infect infants with polio and TB, as well?

Could you please point out where in the article it says lifelong immunity is passed down from mother to child?

Also, I noticed you didn't touch the original question.

 

[Joes Place]

Ok. What's your point (other than the fact you believe correlation is causation)?

Correct.

And vaccination schedules in most Westernized societies have various vaccines given many many times during development; all it takes is one 'vaccination' event to happen to coincide with when a child exhibits early autism behaviors for people to make the incorrect 'causation' connections. This is precisely how false anecdotal information is spread. There are no correlations, but because something happened near the timeframe of a vaccine, people wrongly connect the dots. You cannot do retrospective 'research' based on these types of events, because people's memory is faulty and they can never tell precisely when behaviors changed.

Prospective studies have shown no effects. Those are the studies we do to establish connections and safety profiles. There ARE kids who do have reactions to vaccines, but they are very rare events - far rarer than the disease states that vaccines prevent. The anti-vaxx crowd really pisses me off because of the hazards they pose to kids who cannot get vaccines, and adults who have compromised immune systems and rely on the herd immunity to keep them healthy. People who dispense this nonsense need to be forced to watch documentaries on what pre-vaccination days were like - kids going deaf from or dying from simple things like measles, people dying from polio, and whooping cough, and all the other side effects and long-term health problems from completely preventable illnesses. They should be shown how folks back 50+ years ago LINED UP for hours in lines to get their kids vaccines for diseases which back then would literally kill them.

Anti-vaxxers are the scum of the Earth.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

LOL. A NIH link? A corrupt organization if ever there was one.


Myths: The Lancet paper
  was funded by the Legal Aid Board (LAB)4 False – Not one penny of LAB money was spent on The Lancet paper. An LAB grant was provided for a separate viral detection study. This latter study, completed in 1999, does disclose the source of funding. The Lancet paper had been submitted for publication before the LAB grant was even available to be spent. my involvement as a medical expert was kept “secret”5 False – at least one year before publication, my senior co-authors6, the head of department and the dean of the medical school7, and the CEO of the hospital were informed by me. This fact was also reported in the national press 15 months prior to publication8. children were “sourced” by lawyers to sue vaccine manufacturers5 False – Children were referred, evaluated, and investigated on the basis of their clinical symptoms alone, following referral from the child’s physician9. children were litigants10 False – at the time of their referral to the Royal Free, the time material to their inclusion in The Lancet paper, none of the children were litigants. I had an undisclosed conflict of interest11 False – The Lancet’s disclosure policy at that time was followed to the letter. Documentary evidence confirms that the editorial staff of The Lancet was fully aware that I was working as an expert on MMR litigation well in advance of the paper’s publication12. did not have Ethics Committee (EC) approval5 False – The research element of the paper that required such an approval, detailed systematic analysis of children’s intestinal biopsies, was covered by the necessary EC approval13. I “fixed” data and misreported clinical findings14 False – There is absolutely no basis in fact for this claim and it has been exposed as false15. findings have not been independently replicated12 False – The key findings of LNH and colitis in ASD children have been independently confirmed in 5 different countries16. has been retracted by most of the authors17 False – 11 of 13 authors issued a retraction of the interpretation that MMR is a possible trigger for syndrome described. This remains a possibility and a possibility cannot be retracted. the work is discredited18 False – Those attemping to discredit the work have relied upon the myths above. The findings described in the paper are novel and important19.
http://www.autismone.org/content/paper-andrew-wakefield-mb-bs-frcs-frcpath

This is what happens when you read just one side all the time. You have the conclusion already drawn up in your head and just seek bits and pieces to support your side.

Of course you don't understand. You're too effing stupid. What it shows is how corrupt government power is and those who wish to gain by peddling influence. See the Clinton Foundation for the latest example.

You just keeping glossing over the Glaxo connection of Kumar, James Murdoch and Brian Deer though. It kind of blows up your story, Walt Disney.

Even today, those who wish to delve into any possible connection and they will be denied grant money and upward career advancement and in Wakefield's case, loss of license to practice medicine.

You post the testimony of the fraudster himself and then chastise others for reading only one side? Tsk tsk. And the ad hominem merely cements the frailty of your claims.

Brian Deer worked for a conglomerate whose owner has a son who works for someone else? Seriously? That's your link to discredit Deer's work? Not on the facts but on a specious link? Sad really.

In fact, it appears your entire argument is bereft of facts other than shadowy conspiracy connections. Explain why Wakefield refused the offered opportunity to reproduce his results with a larger cohort of children? Explain why he has failed to do so in the many years since his initial claims? Explain why NO ONE can reproduce his claimed results? Anywhere.

Until you can answer those questions, you have no legs upon which to stand.

 

[bhawk24bob]

LOL. Ok, all you guys do is insult. There's not real substance behind your posts at all. Case in point:


Hey I don't even like Trump, and I'm not an extremist on either side. I'm a realist. I'm listening to the thousands of doctors and scientists who are saying the exact same things I have brought up in this thread. This isn't me. I'm presenting these ideas, and nobody is countering with anything but insults. It would seem as if you folks are the ones who are uneducated on these matters. If that's not true, don't hurl more insults, counter me with something brilliant that nullifies what I'm saying.

It's difficult to view your stance as anything but. You disregard accepted science and instead rely on discredited science and theories that aren't based on fact.

Like I said earlier, if your stupidity didn't have the chance to affect others - I wouldn't care

 

[Nat Algren]

You post the testimony of the fraudster himself and then chastise others for reading only one side? Tsk tsk. And the ad hominem merely cements the frailty of your claims.

Brian Deer worked for a conglomerate whose owner has a son who works for someone else? Seriously? That's your link to discredit Deer's work? Not on the facts but on a specious link? Sad really.

No. I read your corrupt side and read the other. Then I drew a conclusion.

Ummm. He didn't merely just work for someone else. Cute how dismissive you are of this. He sat on the board of Glaxo. That's pretty big. It was a ginormous conflict, as he stood to lose or gain either way. He controlled the situation and it was not disclosed. Take a frigging ethics course for Chrissakes.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Even today, those who wish to delve into any possible connection and they will be denied grant money and upward career advancement and in Wakefield's case, loss of license to practice medicine.

And this is complete and utter BULLSHIT. It was just such research - unable to reproduce Wakefield's results - that collapsed his house of cards.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

No. I read your corrupt side and read the other. Then I drew a conclusion.

Ummm. He didn't merely just work for someone else. Cute how dismissive you are of this. He sat on the board of Glaxo. That's pretty big. It was a ginormous conflict, as he stood to lose or gain either way. He controlled the situation and it was not disclosed. Take a frigging ethics course for Chrissakes.

Deer had NO connection to ANY company. The guy who owned his paper - among many others - has a son, according to you, who has a connection to a drug company. And you use that piece of bullshit to discredit Deer's work. You dispute none of his information - all of which is documented.

Including the letter Wakefield sent to the lawyers who funded his work agreeing to work for them. Years before the Lancet paper was published. Including both patent applications for a "safer" vaccine that would have profited Wakefield if he could show some link between the accepted protocols and ANY disease.

 

[Nat Algren]

Deer had NO connection to ANY company. The guy who owned his paper - among many others - has a son, according to you, who has a connection to a drug company. And you use that piece of bullshit to discredit Deer's work. You dispute none of his information - all of which is documented.

Including the letter Wakefield sent to the lawyers who funded his work agreeing to work for them. Years before the Lancet paper was published. Including both patent applications for a "safer" vaccine that would have profited Wakefield if he could show some link between the accepted protocols and ANY disease.

Christ, you're flipping obtuse. He was told to do a hit piece to protect Murdoch's family jewels. Is that too hard for you to understand? I also read the transcript of Deer with Anderson Cooper when he wouldn't come clean as to how he was being paid. Deer is a LIAR.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Christ, you're flipping obtuse. He was told to do a hit piece to protect Murdoch's family jewels. Is that too hard for you to understand? I also read the transcript of Deer with Anderson Cooper when he wouldn't come clean as to how he was being paid. Deer is a LIAR.

Wait. Multi-billionaire Rupert Murdoch...owner of media outlets all over the world...tells a journalist to do a hit piece on a doctor to protect his son James'...the chief executive officer of 21st Century Fox...board seat at Glaxo? Is that your claim?

 

[like-woahh]

LOL. Ok, all you guys do is insult. There's not real substance behind your posts at all. Case in point:


Hey I don't even like Trump, and I'm not an extremist on either side. I'm a realist. I'm listening to the thousands of doctors and scientists who are saying the exact same things I have brought up in this thread. This isn't me. I'm presenting these ideas, and nobody is countering with anything but insults. It would seem as if you folks are the ones who are uneducated on these matters. If that's not true, don't hurl more insults, counter me with something brilliant that nullifies what I'm saying.

Here's what I don't get. You keep touting the "thousands of doctors and scientists" thing like it has some sort of inherent validity. But if that is your metric, there are thousands more doctors and scientists pro vaccine.

Seems like a pretty stupid statement to try and bolster your argument.

Bullshit you aren't extremist on one side and a realist. At least own it.

 

[Nat Algren]

Wait. Multi-billionaire Rupert Murdoch...owner of media outlets all over the world...tells a journalist to do a hit piece on a doctor to protect his son James'...the chief executive officer of 21st Century Fox...board seat at Glaxo? Is that your claim?

Let me throw an atta boy your way. Now, don't forget Dr. Kumar who ran the panel, who was a shareholder and called for mandatory vaccination.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Let me throw an atta boy your way. Now, don't forget Dr. Kumar who ran the panel, who was a shareholder and called for mandatory vaccination.

Uh-huh. That's pretty interesting. Paid a reporter to do a hit piece to protect his son's position on the board at Glaxo. Your claim. I guess we know how Murdoch created his empire.

Revealed: MMR research scandal
The Sunday Times, February 22 2004
Brian Deer


GSK appoints James Murdoch to board
Feb 3, 2009, 01.53am IST

 

[shank hawk]

1) The U.S., while having the most vaccinated citizenry in the world (per CDC's schedule), ranks 58th in the world in infant mortality (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html) Nothing strange goin' on there, I suppose. Just doesn't say a lot for the 'doctors, scientists and researchers' the vaxxers in this thread are placing on a pedestal.

2) There's no profit in peddling vaccines? Ummmmm, ok. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/big-ph...he-multibillion-dollar-vaccine-market/5503945)

3) In addition to the ingrained revolving door policy of leadership at the FDA, CDC and Big Pharma, the fact that the CDC buys more than $5 billion worth of vaccines a year from the same companies they are supposed to be monitoring for vaccine safety is a massive conflict of interest that certainly begs to be explored. But please don't hold your breath, because we all know it never will.

4) Andrew Wakefield's co-author of the infamous MMR study appealed the ruling that removed his medical license; and won his case based on the "inadequate and superficial reasoning" of the General Medical Council. (http://www.ebcala.org/areas-of-law/...ted-on-all-charges-of-professional-misconduct)

5) With vaccines, as with everything else in our society, all you have to do is follow the money. The rest will follow.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Gotta love how the conspiracy theorists tell us BIG PHARMA is hiding the cure for cancer because treating the disease is more profitable but they are hiding the fact that inexpensive vaccines are ineffective and cause serious side effects because the vaccines are more profitable than treating all the diseases they prevent.

 

[BioHawk]

naturalbornhawk said: ↑
The content of this thread so far is completely unexpected. About a year ago I started a vaccine thread where I contended that parents should have the right to choose whether or not vaccines should be given to their children and posters were downright nasty in that thread. I don't think there's been a vaccine thread since, probably because people wanted to avoid the subject after seeing that thread. I'll admit though I haven't been able to follow HROT enough to say for sure. You guys remember, right? The tone in this thread has changed considerably, is that because people are finally waking up?
Lmao I wouldn't be patting myself on the back that a handful of retards are now in agreement on HROT with your retarded stance on vaccines

25 bhawk24bob, Saturday at 2:44 PM

That was real hard, but in your defense saying over and over that someone has no credibility isn't as bad as saying they are retarded. Maybe you should just go with this to mix things up a bit?

That should end the debate once and for all.

I never called anyone retarded. Maybe your initial post wasn't directed at me.

 

[BioHawk]

Alright! Thank you for answering the question. It was more of a leading question than me not knowing. I should know better. It's more of a pertussis issue. Those babies are protect through supposed herd immunity, right? Ok, now please read this and report back to me how you still think herd immunity is protecting those babies. http://www.visionlaunch.com/herd-im...and-the-questionable-science-behind-vaccines/

Visionlaunch.com is hardly a reputable source and its bias is all over the writing. Using this as your source to try and take down herd immunity actually hurts your position. Now, please post a similar document from a reputable organization if you want to be taken seriously.

Just linking to some random website on the internet does not suddenly make your argument legitimate. Bullshit backed up by bullshit is still bullshit. It doesn't matter how many random articles you link to. The source does matter.

 

[L. Wade Childress]

Don't tell me there's no pro vaccine propaganda when the pharmaceutical companies own your media outlets.

And who do you think owns big pharma?

 

[shank hawk]

I never called anyone retarded. Maybe your initial post wasn't directed at me.

Nope, it wasn't. It was bhawk that used that term: your replies were fairly respectful, just a bit on the condescending side.

This is no different than a Trump v. Clinton debate. Both sides feel strongly about their views, and for some reason feel offended when they are unable to convince others to think accordingly.

I happen to feel the same way about vaccines as I do about politicians: everybody should be free to vote for whoever they want to vote for or get as many shots as they want..............just don't try and make me do the same. I happen to think that they're both bad for the country, but live and let live, right?

 

[HawktimusPrime]

The difference is the science said smoking was deadly and the companies own "research" flew in the face of the actual science. In the case of vaccines, it's the exact opposite. The claims made by anti-vaxxers flies in the face of the actual scientific data. Sorry the science doesn't agree with your conspiracy theories and anger at Big Pharma.

It's sad too because there is a lot to be angry at Big Pharma about, but this isn't one of them. It is a useful way to keep you from focusing on what they are actually doing, and that is gaming the system so they can charge you 10 times what their drugs cost in other countries by sealing up no-bid contracts and other policies that allow them to charge whatever they want for their drugs. Big Pharma is a big part of the reason health care in the United States is so overpriced.

Why do you speak of this like you aren't completely biased? It takes away any credit you may have.
Also, VAERS is the vaccine adverse effects reporting system. Which was created by the government and the CDC.
They wouldn't have created this, which was created due to Congressional findings, backed by 'science', if there wasn't a threat with vaccines.
Also Big Pharma's costs are mostly covered by insurance. Insurance is not super high because of it, it's high because of the actual healthcare costs, which isn't included with pharmaceuticals.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Why do you speak of this like you aren't completely biased? It takes away any credit you may have.
Also, VAERS is the vaccine adverse effects reporting system. Which was created by the government and the CDC.
They wouldn't have created this, which was created due to Congressional findings, backed by 'science', if there wasn't a threat with vaccines.

Adverse reactions? Say it ain't so.

Just out of curiosity, can you name a medical treatment that doesn't have adverse reactions?

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Adverse reactions? Say it ain't so.

Just out of curiosity, can you name a medical treatment that doesn't have adverse reactions?

Nope, we're not changing the subject. We are going to stick directly to vaccines. The adverse reactions are DIRECTLY related to vaccines, which is why it was created under the NCVIA in 1986.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Nope, we're not changing the subject. We are going to stick directly to vaccines. The adverse reactions are DIRECTLY related to vaccines, which is why it was created under the NCVIA in 1986.

The issue of adverse reactions from ANY medical treatment is directly on point...but I do understand you wanting to avoid it. It kind of makes your post look silly.

 

[shank hawk]

Adverse reactions? Say it ain't so.

Just out of curiosity, can you name a medical treatment that doesn't have adverse reactions?

She looks placid and relaxed, but odds are good that a doctor would have diagnosed her with hysteria.
There was a time when everyone knew for certain that women didn't have orgasms. Women were, however, prone to suffering from a psychiatric disorder called hysteria, and needed their physician to perform a special type of pelvic physical therapy to achieve something called "hysterical paroxysm." In today's parlance, that's an orgasm.
Pelvic massages were popular for ages - beginning in ancient Greece as an early method of treating a "wandering womb" and persisting in Western medical practice until the 1920s. By the end of the 19th century it was estimated that 75 percent of American women suffered from hysteria. The treatment was so popular, in fact, that physicians sought a faster, more efficient way to perform the treatment than with their own hands. The first electric vibrator hit the scene in the late 1800s - that's before the vacuum cleaner was invented - which decreased treatment times from as much as an hour to as little as 10 minutes.
In the 1920s, vibrators began to appear in erotic films and that put them out of favour in the physician's office. By the beginning of the 20th century, women could choose and buy their own vibrators from publications such as the Sears, Roebuck and Co. catalogue. Before women had the popular Hitachi Magic Wand and the Rabbit, they had the pricey US$200 Chattanooga (plus shipping) - in 19th-century dollars [source: Maines].

 

[tarheelbybirth]

She looks placid and relaxed, but odds are good that a doctor would have diagnosed her with hysteria.
There was a time when everyone knew for certain that women didn't have orgasms. Women were, however, prone to suffering from a psychiatric disorder called hysteria, and needed their physician to perform a special type of pelvic physical therapy to achieve something called "hysterical paroxysm." In today's parlance, that's an orgasm.

LOL...ok...so there's one.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

The issue of adverse reactions from ANY medical treatment is directly on point...but I do understand you wanting to avoid it. It kind of makes your post look silly.

It doesn't really, because we can stick to vaccines and stay on the exact subject. VAERS by the way has LOTS of limitations. It's a very half arse reporting system and is very ineffective for the most part. It's not well kept, it's set for open reporting and it doesn't research around the claims entered.

I wonder what would happen if it was actually used to it's full potential? Seems like most funding goes against proving against the dangers of certain vaccines.

Sure, vaccines can help and do help. I do though wonder if we could find some flaws, if an actual effort was put into looking for flaws.

Also, follow this link. Tell me what you think. Keep in mind, it takes 1 + 1 to =2....So being that I already know where you'll go with this,...try another tactic.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-to-receive-15m-plus-in-first-ever-vaccine-autism-court-award/

 

[HawktimusPrime]

I also find it funny that a year after this, the Supreme Court ruled that you can't sue Big Pharma over reaction claims, based on the 1986 law to protect Pharamceutical companies.
It just seems like science doesn't find the way in some cases, but that money does.....

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Also, follow this link. Tell me what you think. Keep in mind, it takes 1 + 1 to =2....So being that I already know where you'll go with this,...try another tactic.

How's this:

A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism

RESULTS
Of the 537,303 children in the cohort (representing 2,129,864 person-years), 440,655 (82.0 percent) had received the MMR vaccine. We identified 316 children with a diagnosis of autistic disorder and 422 with a diagnosis of other autistic-spectrum disorders. After adjustment for potential confounders, the relative risk of autistic disorder in the group of vaccinated children, as compared with the unvaccinated group, was 0.92 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.24), and the relative risk of another autistic-spectrum disorder was 0.83 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.07). There was no association between the age at the time of vaccination, the time since vaccination, or the date of vaccination and the development of autistic disorder.


Neurologic disorders after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination.

RESULTS:
Of the 535 544 children who were vaccinated, 199 were hospitalized for encephalitis, 161 for aseptic meningitis, and 352 for autistic disorders. In 9 children with encephalitis and 10 with meningitis, the disease developed within 3 months of vaccination, revealing no increased occurrence within this designated risk period. We detected no clustering of hospitalizations for autism after vaccination. None of the autistic children made hospital visits for inflammatory bowel diseases.
CONCLUSIONS:
We did not identify any association between MMR vaccination and encephalitis, aseptic meningitis, or autism.

Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association.

FINDINGS:
We identified 498 cases of autism (261 of core autism, 166 of atypical autism, and 71 of Asperger's syndrome). In 293 cases the diagnosis could be confirmed by the criteria of the International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD10: 214 [82%] core autism, 52 [31%] atypical autism, 27 [38%] Asperger's syndrome). There was a steady increase in cases by year of birth with no sudden "step-up" or change in the trend line after the introduction of MMR vaccination. There was no difference in age at diagnosis between the cases vaccinated before or after 18 months of age and those never vaccinated. There was no temporal association between onset of autism within 1 or 2 years after vaccination with MMR (relative incidence compared with control period 0.94 [95% CI 0.60-1.47] and 1.09 [0.79-1.52]). Developmental regression was not clustered in the months after vaccination (relative incidence within 2 months and 4 months after MMR vaccination 0.92 [0.38-2.21] and 1.00 [0.52-1.95]). No significant temporal clustering for age at onset of parental concern was seen for cases of core autism or atypical autism with the exception of a single interval within 6 months of MMR vaccination. This appeared to be an artifact related to the difficulty of defining precisely the onset of symptoms in this disorder.
INTERPRETATION:
Our analyses do not support a causal association between MMR vaccine and autism. If such an association occurs, it is so rare that it could not be identified in this large regional sample.

I know...I know...ALL of these researchers, the NEJM, the journal Pediatrics, and The Lancet are all in the pocket of BIG PHARMA and these studies comprising well over one million children hold no weight when compared with Wakefield's "study" of 12 children.

I'll ask again...why did Wakefield turn down the offer to replicate his findings with a larger study cohort?

 

[JWolf74]

2 pages later, naturalborn and his ilk still getting their assess handed to them and correctively going

 

[HawktimusPrime]

How's this:

A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism

RESULTS
Of the 537,303 children in the cohort (representing 2,129,864 person-years), 440,655 (82.0 percent) had received the MMR vaccine. We identified 316 children with a diagnosis of autistic disorder and 422 with a diagnosis of other autistic-spectrum disorders. After adjustment for potential confounders, the relative risk of autistic disorder in the group of vaccinated children, as compared with the unvaccinated group, was 0.92 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.24), and the relative risk of another autistic-spectrum disorder was 0.83 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.07). There was no association between the age at the time of vaccination, the time since vaccination, or the date of vaccination and the development of autistic disorder.


Neurologic disorders after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination.

RESULTS:
Of the 535 544 children who were vaccinated, 199 were hospitalized for encephalitis, 161 for aseptic meningitis, and 352 for autistic disorders. In 9 children with encephalitis and 10 with meningitis, the disease developed within 3 months of vaccination, revealing no increased occurrence within this designated risk period. We detected no clustering of hospitalizations for autism after vaccination. None of the autistic children made hospital visits for inflammatory bowel diseases.
CONCLUSIONS:
We did not identify any association between MMR vaccination and encephalitis, aseptic meningitis, or autism.

Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association.

FINDINGS:
We identified 498 cases of autism (261 of core autism, 166 of atypical autism, and 71 of Asperger's syndrome). In 293 cases the diagnosis could be confirmed by the criteria of the International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD10: 214 [82%] core autism, 52 [31%] atypical autism, 27 [38%] Asperger's syndrome). There was a steady increase in cases by year of birth with no sudden "step-up" or change in the trend line after the introduction of MMR vaccination. There was no difference in age at diagnosis between the cases vaccinated before or after 18 months of age and those never vaccinated. There was no temporal association between onset of autism within 1 or 2 years after vaccination with MMR (relative incidence compared with control period 0.94 [95% CI 0.60-1.47] and 1.09 [0.79-1.52]). Developmental regression was not clustered in the months after vaccination (relative incidence within 2 months and 4 months after MMR vaccination 0.92 [0.38-2.21] and 1.00 [0.52-1.95]). No significant temporal clustering for age at onset of parental concern was seen for cases of core autism or atypical autism with the exception of a single interval within 6 months of MMR vaccination. This appeared to be an artifact related to the difficulty of defining precisely the onset of symptoms in this disorder.
INTERPRETATION:
Our analyses do not support a causal association between MMR vaccine and autism. If such an association occurs, it is so rare that it could not be identified in this large regional sample.

I know...I know...ALL of these researchers, the NEJM, the journal Pediatrics, and The Lancet are all in the pocket of BIG PHARMA and these studies comprising well over one million children hold no weight when compared with Wakefield's "study" of 12 children.

I'll ask again...why did Wakefield turn down the offer to replicate his findings with a larger study cohort?

So you just posted a link that shows vaccines can in fact cause autism, though it's very rare, to prove me wrong?

 

[HawktimusPrime]

2 pages later, naturalborn and his ilk still getting their assess handed to them and correctively going

Don't worry, Prime is here to set the order.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

So you just posted a link that shows vaccines can in fact cause autism, though it's very rare, to prove me wrong?

There was no association between the age at the time of vaccination, the time since vaccination, or the date of vaccination and the development of autistic disorder.

CONCLUSIONS:
We did not identify any association between MMR vaccination and encephalitis, aseptic meningitis, or autism.

INTERPRETATION:
Our analyses do not support a causal association between MMR vaccine and autism. If such an association occurs, it is so rare that it could not be identified in this large regional sample.

Like to try that analysis again, Skippy?