- March 24, 2014 at 10:25 pm #117263
No. ThomasJoel2 is changing the subject. I’m trying to return to the subject.
Your statement looks like an ad hominem. That’s another way of changing the subject: if you don’t like the message, then divert attention to the messenger.March 28, 2014 at 5:50 pm #117411
Floggi;55784 wrote: No. ThomasJoel2 is changing the subject. I’m trying to return to the subject.
Your statement looks like an ad hominem. That’s another way of changing the subject: if you don’t like the message, then divert attention to the messenger.
Why are we even discussing amalgam fillings in this thread anyways? We were talking about vaccines; that was the original subject of this thread. That was until you realized that the discussion was going in a direction you found unfavorable and changed the subject to mercury fillings on post #39. Pretty sly, and in my brain fog I didn’t even notice.
Unfortunately for you, that fact points out the hypocrisy of your above statement.
Since the topic has been temporarily changed anyways, answer me this Floggi:
What is your position on GMO foods?March 30, 2014 at 6:29 pm #117471
I do not understand what my position on GMO foods has to do with anything in this thread.
I also do not understand what my answer would mean to anyone.
If I would answer “they’re the best thing that ever happened to humanity”, would that information be useful to you, or to anyone else, in any way?
If I would answer “they’re the worst thing that ever happened to humanity”, would that information be useful to you, or to anyone else, in any way?
If I would answer “my opinion is mixed, I see some advantages and some disadvantages”, would that information be useful to you, or to anyone else, in any way?
I could ask you equally well: what’s your position on the music of Aretha Franklin?
Or we could return to the subject. Whichever you like.March 30, 2014 at 8:35 pm #117480
I’m curious what you think about the music of Aretha Franklin. Please, sate my curiosity.
But then, please mark the wise words of TheChosenOne (read his last sentence).March 30, 2014 at 11:19 pm #117483April 3, 2014 at 11:04 pm #117679
1 in 68 children now have autism. To put this in perspective, just thirty years ago, autism affected 1 in 2,500.
“The mainstream media covered this week’s CDC new autism data – 1 in 68 American children affected, up 29 percent in two years – without even realizing the conflict of interest at the heart of the story.
CDC is the agency that recommends and promotes the childhood vaccination schedule that so many parents know first-hand is the driving force behind the autism epidemic. The preposterous idea that there is no epidemic, or the equally ridiculous notion that it is impossible to tell, abets the CDC in avoiding culpability for what has happened the past 25 years.”
But because the CDC has done such a good job of convincing the media that a vaccine-autism link has been discredited, most journalists don’t realize the conflict staring them in the face. They don’t understand that the CDC cannot be trusted with anything bearing on the cause or frequency of autism, that it can’t be treated as a credible and disinterested source. It’s amazing really: the folks that caused this train wreck by falling asleep at the switch are investigating the cause and counting the casualties, and the media treats it as gospel.”April 6, 2014 at 3:23 pm #117785
Yet another vaccine researcher caught faking research
“Yet another vaccine researcher has been caught faking research on a bogus AIDS vaccine, adding to the pattern of scientific fraud and criminality that characterizes the modern-day vaccine industry. Dr. Dong-Pyou Han from Iowa State University has resigned this week after admitting he spiked rabbit blood samples with healthy human blood to falsely show the presence of antibodies that would “prove” his AIDS vaccine worked.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) was so convinced by the fraud that they gave Han $19 million in research funding. The NIH later found the fraud after attempting to replicate Han’s work and figuring out something was terribly wrong with the research.
Newly-released federal documents reveal the stunning breadth of the fraud. As the findings state:
[The investigation] found that the Respondent falsified results in research to develop a vaccine against human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) by intentionally spiking samples of rabbit sera with antibodies to provide the desired results. The falsification made it appear that rabbits immunized with the gp41-54 moiety of the HIV gp41 glycoprotein induced antibodies capable of neutralizing a broad range of HIV-1 strains.
A summary of the fraud was also posted on RetractionWatch.com, a site that frequently posts details of Big Pharma research fraud.”April 6, 2014 at 5:11 pm #117791
ThomasJoel2;56306 wrote: Dr. Dong-Pyou Han from Iowa State University has resigned this week after admitting he spiked rabbit blood samples with healthy human blood to falsely show the presence of antibodies that would “prove” his AIDS vaccine worked.
The NIH later found the fraud after attempting to replicate Han’s work and figuring out something was terribly wrong with the research.
That’s great news!
In any field of human activity, there are some frauds at work. Unfortunate as this may be, it is reality. For this very reason, medical research is never accepted on face value. Every finding has to be replicated.
Preferably, this replication has to be done by a different group of researchers, which consist of independent people, using a different technique, in a different place, at a different time, using different methods for verification.
Only after the results have been successfully replicated this way, will the finding be accepted.
In addition to trying to replicate the results (which one may call the “positive” approach), the report will be scrutinized by others who try to find flaws that could have been made (either knowingly or unwillingly) during any point of the process. This scrutinizing, or trying to find faults (which one may call the “negative” approach), is just as important as the replication of the results.
Your example of the discovery of Mr. Han’s fraud shows how necessary both of these approaches are. I’m happy that they are standard practice, and that they worked so well in this case!April 7, 2014 at 2:27 am #117806
FDA Vaccine Insert Lists Autism as Adverse Reaction
Straight from the FDA website:
“Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting.”
SIDS stands for sudden infant death syndrome by the way. In other words, death is listed as a possible adverse reaction.April 7, 2014 at 7:30 am #117812
You’re posting a really dangerous scam that aims at the uninformed.
If you’re uninformed, you’re tempted to believe, well, anything you like.
So please allow me to inform you. Conspiracy theorists, please stop reading now.
Still with me? Good, you’re someone who likes to be informed. Great!
The phrase that’s highlighted in the video says that SIDS, autism, and a lot of other things are reported as side effects. This is true: someone believed that such a link existed, so he reported it.
So far, so good. Just normal procedure. In my country, there’s even a separated institution where anyone can report any suspected side effect.
All such reports will then be thoroughly evaluated. The evaluation may then result in the link to be confirmed, or not confirmed.
- An example where a reported effect was confirmed, is the Diana anticonception pill. It was reported that this pill caused thrombosis. The reports were investigated, and it turned out that the reported link really existed. The Diana anticonception pill is now only prescribed in very special cases.
- An example where a reported effect was confirmed, is local swelling around an injection. The swelling was reported, it was investigated, and it turned out that the swelling was real. It was also found out that the swelling was only temporary, and there were no other effects. This side effect was now known and accepted, because the benefits of the injection greatly outweighed the small possibility of a temporary, local swelling.
- An example where a reported effect was found non-existing, is the link between vaccination and autism. Despite multiple action groups reporting their beliefs, no effect was found.
Heck, for all we know, ThomasJoel2 may have been the one who reported SIDS and autism as side effects! The producer is then required by law to publicise ThomasJoel2’s reporting. Next, someone makes a one-sided video that tells only a carefully selected part of the truth.
I think it’s no coincidence that the year 2005 is mentioned in the video. It’s a lie that “the link was known since 2005”. In reality, 2005 was the year when conspiracy theorists and scare-mongers gained traction. Hence, they started reporting non-existent cases to spread their theories. That’s what we now see in this scam video.April 7, 2014 at 9:15 am #117819
The Lead Vaccine Developer Comes Clean: Gardasil and Cervarix Don’t Work, Are Dangerous, and Weren’t Tested
“So far, 15,037 girls have reported adverse side effects from Gardasil alone to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (V.A.E.R.S.) and this number only reflects parents who underwent the hurdles required for reporting adverse reactions. At the time of writing, 44 girls are officially known to have died from these vaccines. The reported side effects include Guillain Barré Syndrome (paralysis lasting for years, or permanently — sometimes eventually causing suffocation), lupus, seizures, blood clots, and brain inflammation. Parents are usually not made aware of these risks.”
Study: 97 percent of children affected by 2009 mumps outbreak were vaccinated for condition
“More evidence has emerged showing the complete failure of modern vaccines to provide any real protection against disease. A recent study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) reveals that an astounding 97 percent of children affected by a mumps outbreak that swept the Northeast back in 2009 had already been vaccinated for the condition in accordance with recommended government guidelines.”
Vaccines: Health Professionals Speak OutApril 9, 2014 at 3:29 pm #117986
ThomasJoel2;56340 wrote: A recent study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) reveals that an astounding 97 percent of children affected by a mumps outbreak that swept the Northeast back in 2009 had already been vaccinated for the condition in accordance with recommended government guidelines.
You’re quoting only half of the information. Would you mind if I mention the other half?
Note that I’m not contradicting anything you say. I’m just offering our readers the whole picture, instead of just some carefully selected parts. Surely you wouldn’t object to me adding some information, would you?
In fact, your example is a great one! It shows how the anti-vaccination scam puts people like you and me in real danger.
Let’s look at what happened. Children have received vaccinations protecting them against mumps for many, many years. For a few generations, mumps was completely under control, the disease was virtually non-existent.
Then, as the article says, something changed. What could that be?
- Was it a change in the vaccine?
No, it wasn’t. The vaccine remained the same. True, some additives were removed, thiomersal being the most important one, because people developed a fear against it. But the removal of thiomersal did not undermine the effectiveness of the vaccine.
[h]So, the vaccine didn’t really change, and it remained as effective as it had been for generations.[/h]
- Was it a change in the mumps virus?
No, it wasn’t. The mumps virus is still identical to the mumps virus that swept the population in 1900. No mutations have been observed, no other changes have been found.
[h]So, the mumps virus is still exactly the same virus. It remained unchanged.[/h]
Yet, the situation is now clearly different then just a few years ago. Until recently, vaccinated children used to be safe. Now, that safety is endangered. [h]Something must have changed![/h]
WHAT could that be…? WHAT has changed?
Now we come to the heart of the issue.
The [h]only[/h] thing that has changed is the emergence of anti-vaccination scams, and the consequent drop in vaccination rates!
This is the important point that anti-vax scaremongers are deliberately hiding. Vaccination rates are dropping, and that means that group immunity is no longer working.
Until very recently, due to the fact that everyone co-operated and took his share in the vaccination effort, vaccination rates were high. Therefore, group immunity greatly helped protect all of us against the mumps virus. Thus, the vaccine was a mild one. It protected most of those that were vaccinated, while those that were vaccinated but didn’t develop true immunity were still protected through the collaborative group immunity.
But now, the anti-vax scare is gaining ground. Vaccination rates drop. Group immunity is affected. All of a sudden, people that used to be protected and that want to be protected, are not protected anymore – only because of the undermining activities of some conspiracy theorists!
Note that the article that you so nicely quoted (though only half of it) does not say that 97 percent of vaccinated children got mumps. Instead, it says that of those few children that did get mumps, 97 percent were vaccinated. This is a very important difference. It is this difference that proves how the anti-vax movement broke the colleborative group immunity:
- Until recently, those few that were not immunized by the vaccination were still protected through group immunity.
- Now, those few that are not immunized by the vaccination fall victim to the undermining of group immunity by a careless minority.
We see this happen for more diseases than just mumps. Undermining our collaborative protection forces us to either use more potent vaccines, or to vaccinate twice instead of just once. Both increase the number of side effects of vaccination.
It’s like shopping at Costco. If everyone pays what he buys, prices will remain low. But now, the anti-vax movement is telling people to take things without paying, and society lets them do these things. As a result, ever more people just don’t pay for what they take from Costco. If this would happen in reality, Costco would either go broke, or they would have to increase their prices, putting a larger burden upon those sociable customers who duely pay for what they take home.
Exactly the same thing is now occurring with vaccinations. A growing group refuses to pay their fair share, yet they like to benefit from group immunity. We, as society, now have the choice: either the system goes broke, and no-one will have any protection against any disease anymore, or those sociable members of society who duely take their share of the burden will have to put up with a larger share, as vaccinations will have to be more potent (and hence more risky), or more frequent (which also increases the risks).
That’s the question society is facing today: will we allow the scare-mongers to gain ground, so that preventable diseases will once more have their devestating effects on our health, just like in the old days? Or will we come to our senses?April 9, 2014 at 3:30 pm #117987
LMAO at all these postings! You must have been real busy yesterday!April 9, 2014 at 3:31 pm #117988
Thanks a lot for sharing all of your objections against my reasoning with us!April 9, 2014 at 3:36 pm #117989
Floggi;56509 wrote: Thanks a lot for sharing all of your objections against my reasoning with us!
Oh, I will reply yet don’t you worry! 😉
The topic ‘Mercury, Autism & the Global Vaccine Agenda’ is closed to new replies.