Vaccines are ineffective and dangerous

Post Reply New Topic

There's an equal lack of unbiased evidence that sandals don't cause earthquakes, that sunspots don't cause elephants and that I don't cause America. I am quite happy to discount all of those causal relationships as highly unlikely. I don't really see much point in proving such negatives. I can certainly come up with theories why each of those might be true... and display evidence to support those theories.

As to the contaminants: quantitative evidence?
As to the Amish: non-anecdotal evidence?
As to your bet: evidence?
(Actually, your bet is that genes cause infections? I'm infected with autism?)


Your belief is your own business. The fact is that your belief is divorced from any reasonable assessment of the situation: "chronic health problems", which you provide no evidence of, versus death, of which there are simple records.

You are encouraging people to reject vaccination.
Vaccination is most effective if the majority do it.
You are arguing that death is better than autism?

You can search the web for scientific evidence of the risks. I won't bother searching again for it and posting because I doubt it will convince you.

As to the contaminants: quantitative evidence? - the drug companies certainly aren't going to test for it

As to the Amish: non-anecdotal evidence? - make me wonder why researchers don't even look given that none are autistic

As to your bet: evidence?
(Actually, your bet is that genes cause infections? I'm infected with autism?) - I thought it was well know that genetics influences everything including susceptibility to infections. I don't know about you but I think some cases of autism are caused by infections

As Kassiana A. Sibley once said, people fear the vaccines because they have forgotten to fear what the vaccines prevent.

He did nothing of the sort.

See rest of article at http://www.autismtoday.com/articles/Bus ... ccines.asp

Yes.

Keyword: FLU vaccines.

But you can get them without mercury VERY EASILY.

Even in New Jersey, the only state that requires them.

Yes, you searched. You gave a list of nine references. They were all taken down, for logcal reasons. All the references that disagreed with your premise, you rejected, with no justification.

But they do. They publish their results.

I fail to follow your logic here (again). Are you are making the assertion that no Amish are autistic?

Some genes affect susceptibility to some infections. A genes associated with autism can also be a gene associated with susceptibility to a particular infection. This does not imply a causal relationship. Or... are you saying that autism is not genetic? Or... are you just mixing up scare stories of genetics, infection, autism, big companies and general conspiracies.

Just to make it clear.

So far as I can see, the whole spectrum is best described as a difference in neurological processing (not at all at the lowest, cellular level) which is predisposed towards by various genes. (As an aside, I'm amazed that most people's brains work as similarly to each other as they do!)

Genes rarely are "single purpose" as soon as you depart from the plain single-cell chemistry level. Hence the genes that are found associated with autism will most likely also be found involved with other aspects of the person (length of leg, susceptibility to whooping cough, number of fingers, retention or excretion of mercury).

Where the difference in neurological processing is very dissimilar to the "average" form, it becomes less easy to support conventional thinking, and this manifests as a low functioning autism (or maybe HFA...).

I think it becomes hard to distinguish a low functioning autistic (purely genetic) from someone who has suffered cellular damage as a result of, for example, toxins.

The Amish have regular old autistics and they have autistics from various genetic defects that are rare in the general population. The idea that the Amish don't vaccinate is a lie. The idea that the Amish don't have regular old autism is also a lie. They have a clinic for special children where they see regular run of the mill autistic kids.

I know people who know and have specifically asked the researchers at this clinic about autism. When Dan Olmsted started this idiotic rumor that there are no autistic kids he neither visited nor telephoned the clinic for special children. Why do you suppose that is? He got his information from a water filter salesman if I recall from his idiotic article.

The Amish have NO religious objection to vaccines so, guess what? they vaccinate their kids. From what I hear the likelihood of Amish vaccinating is higher for the younger parents. Some Amish, if told that a vaccine is like insurance against disease will refuse the vaccine because they are against insurance (preferring to trust in God), but if the doctor doesn't present it as "insurance" they have no reason to reject it. I know that the Amish who lived near where I did in Montana used "nasty heinous big pharma drugs" and used the regular doctors in town for themselves and their kids. (gasp)

Vaccines are tested for efficacy. You took my statement that no one has ever said that vaccines are 100% effective and turned that into a ridiculous statement that vaccines aren't tested before they are used on people.

NO treatment is 100% effective. But by vaccinating a large majority of a population you can wipe out a disease in some cases. And in many cases drastically lower death rates, and not increase autism. Gosh, isn't that amazing? I think it's amazing.

Actually, it's the anti-vaccine and mercury folk that tend to start threads about vaccines, not the other way around.

Anti-vaccine, not anti-mercury necessarily. You seem more than willing to discredit the mercury idea, but less than willing to present any evidence that aluminium, formeldehyde, ethylene glycol etc cannot possibly have any effect on the human body or neurological system, especially when injected repeatedly into a child at an age where neither the brain nor immune system are fully developed and able to withstand such an assault yet...

There's no need to show they have no effect at all, you only have to know they do no harm in the amounts presented and the absence of large numbers of serious vaccine related injury is sufficient evidence that they are harmless enough. Where's the overwhelming evidence that they are dangerous in the way they are used? There are far, far fewer cases of serious side-effect related to to the application of vaccines then there were to the non-application of them.

Oh, but (genetics) researchers are very much interested in them. The entire Amish population and gene-pool stems from roughly 200 families, there is little genetic variation which makes them a fantastic population for research into genetics. Some very rare genetic disorders are present far more frequently then in the rest of the world and some are absent.

So where's the evidence? If you want me to vaccinate, you have to sell me on the idea. And to do that, I want proof that it's safe to put that crap into my kids. Until such a time as I'm given absolute proof that it causes no harm further down the line, that there are no major risks, I won't be doing it.

You'd rather risk your children - and others - being exposed to, get sick from and possibly die from the diseases these vaccines protect them from?

I'd rather take my chances with building up a proper immune system via natural, organic, whole foods and natural immune boosters than inject them with a cocktail of neurotoxins that has never been proven to NOT cause cancer later in life.

Since 2000 Thimerosal is not used in any manditory childhood vaccince issued in the United States (though other developed countries could have fallowed the same or a different path, I wouldn't know as I havent looked it up as of yet.) At that piont only the flu shot still used a thimerosal additive, however there was/is a none thimersal version and the shot isn't required. I need to look at the bill you mentioned to see if its the same one I skimmed, (which was not actually a Thimerosal bill but Thimerosal was a major ridder on it) Could you elaborate on the title of the bill please. Also, bills can take a long time to form and are not always written by experts in the fields they cover and get alot of PORK to pass, they sometimes have inacuracies, irrelevent material to the bill, and/or out-dated material stuck in them. I'd need to read the actual bill to understand what the issue was and compare that to the data, hence my request.

You'd rather take your chances with unsubstantiated anecdotal building up of proper immune systems via the huge number of spurious, uncontrolled chemicals found present in all sorts of natural, organic, whole foods and even worse, those partially selected and wholly untested "natural immune boosters", than inject them with a cocktail of targeted toxins that has been tested and, by comparison, never has needed to be proven to NOT cause [substitute any scary thing you choose out of a hat here, e.g. unspecified cancer] later in life.

PS. And by adopting said policy, put the children of people around you at greater risk.