More Fuel To Vaccines Under Fire

Page 2 of 3 [ 35 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 987
Location: United States

01 Apr 2011, 10:36 pm

draelynn wrote:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/0-6yrs-schedule-pr.pdf

Top of the list - the good old CDC schedule. The 12month vaccine recommendation - 10 vaccines in one visit. The CDC does not expressly recommend that all 10 are given at one time but many doctors just load them all up at once.

OK. What source you says it is dangerous to do all that?

_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime

draelynn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jan 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,304
Location: SE Pennsylvania

01 Apr 2011, 10:55 pm

HerrGrimm wrote:

draelynn wrote:

OK. What source you says it is dangerous to do all that?

I never said there was 'proof'. I said it was a theory in the light of possible vaccine injury which are reported after vaccination, most times with MMR but also in the presence of 3-4-5 other vaccines in one sitting. Hence the need for continuing research. They are looking for a single culprit... if widescale inflammation is the cause of vaccine injury, culmative effect, theoretically, is a possiblity. It's a possibility that can be easily avoided.

HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 987
Location: United States

02 Apr 2011, 10:29 am

draelynn wrote:

HerrGrimm wrote:

draelynn wrote:

OK. What source you says it is dangerous to do all that?

Do you mean VAERS for that reporting of injuries? A lot of reports are given by vaccine injury lawyers to bolster their case. Someone in Australia made a claim that a flu vaccine turned him into The Incredible Hulk and it stayed there until he himself asked to take it off.

_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime

draelynn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jan 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,304
Location: SE Pennsylvania

02 Apr 2011, 10:57 am

HerrGrimm wrote:

The national vaccine compensation program has paid out many cases. In fact, the fund was created solely for the purpose of not burdening pharmaeceutical companies with the financial burden of vaccine injuries but rather the taxpayers. The fund exists because vaccine injuries do happen. I've posted links to those stories elsewhere if you are actually interested in them. And not just the Poling case. All kinds of injuries happen from vaccines.

Here's a quick one that popped up on a google search - right on top: $4.7 million awarded

There may be no proof that injecting a child with 10 vaccines at once causes injury but just look at that logically. You are introducing 10 pathogens into the immune system at once. When does that ever happen naturally? Do we KNOW what possbile reactions could occur? It's never be studied. Testing the safety of this procedure on kids first seems misguided in the very least. If the reports of vaccine induced enchephilitis do pan out - who pays for the damages? THIS is the question that has the sides so polarized. The government and pharmaceutical companies do not want to be responsible if these claims prove true. The profit protection incentive is powerful and the need to strip the credibility of scientists who may threaten profits is par for the course. The global warming debate is proof of that.

HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 987
Location: United States

02 Apr 2011, 11:09 am

draelynn wrote:

HerrGrimm wrote:

Um...pharma companies make almost no profit off vaccinations. A lot of it gets lost because of the costs of needing packaging for the vaccine. They would much rather be pushing Viagra or something like that instead of a vaccine.

The problem is that in Hannah Poling's case, it appeared according to the court that encephalitis was caused by at least one vaccine. But the injuries that happen from vaccines of that magnitude are extremely rare. No vaccine is 100% safe; that is a biological impossibility for most if not all processes. But earlier in the vaccine court's days, it was extremely lenient and you needed just a slight bit of proof to get money. Again, I have seen a lot of times where the scientist is discredited because of known conflicts of interest and financial incentive to get that conclusion, even more so than the pharma companies. The Neurodiversity webblog made by someone who has no ties to pharma whatsoever shows a lot of corruption not only in the vaccine issue but also "advocacy" efforts as well. You should check it out.

_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime

draelynn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jan 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,304
Location: SE Pennsylvania

02 Apr 2011, 11:18 am

HerrGrimm wrote:

I have no doubt that both sides have agendas and that they are profit driven as a whole. I'm not a fan of either extreme.

I'm saying that the facts both sides present do not add up. There is SOMETHING going on and it's not adding up with what either side is saying. Individually, we know most vaccines are safe for the vast majority of people. Yet we stil have families with no genetic history of autism having entire families of kids who are displaying significant autistic behavior. That is statistically impossible yet it is happening more and more frequently, mainly in the US.

Much more research needs to be done and the sword waving over the autism label that has been attached to the issue needs to end.

HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 987
Location: United States

02 Apr 2011, 11:25 am

draelynn wrote:

we stil have families with no genetic history of autism having entire families of kids who are displaying significant autistic behavior. That is statistically impossible yet it is happening more and more frequently, mainly in the US.

No, that is not a statistical impossibility. I remember a speech by Edwin Cook, a witness at the Autism Omnibus Proceedings, at my school about the hereditary background of autism and how neurotypical parents can have a numerous children with autism. Unfortunately I do not have my notes on me and left them at home; it talked about chromosome 15 elongation and other things like that.

_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime

DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

02 Apr 2011, 12:20 pm

Interjecting - definitions:

A THEORY is when you have an idea that something may be true, and evidence, generally gathered by either experiment or observation, tends to bear your idea out. Theories require data in order to be useful.

When you have an idea about something, and it seems reasonable to you, but you don't have data yet, that's what we call a HYPOTHESIS.

Draelynn, you are hypothesizing about cumulative effects of environmental toxins. You yourself state you do not yet have any data to back the hypothesis up.

I protest because the misuse of "theory" to mean "my own idea" has become so prevalent, and because it tends to be used by some to claim legitimacy for whatever weird hypothesis they care to assume - "It's just a theory, and so is gravity!" Wrong - it's a hypothesis, and the theory of gravity is borne out by millennia of observation. The only current question is whether gravity is a field effect, the twisting of space/time metrics by the presence of a mass, or if it is in fact a "force" in the same sense as electromagnetism. If the latter, there should be some sort of elementary particle to convey the force, which is why the LHC will be looking for Higgs bosons - they're the best candidates so far for the position of "graviton", if they exist...

(Incidentally, to call back to my own first posting in this thread, it was in the opening paragraphs that the researcher claimed the possibility that the injection of minuscule amounts of human DNA in vaccines was responsible for the increase in autism diagnoses, by changing the patient's own genetic structure and modifying the structure of his brain. Since this betrays a complete failure to understand either neurology or teratogenetics, I knew I could safely dismiss almost anything she had to say on the topic, and stopped reading.)

_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.

HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 987
Location: United States

02 Apr 2011, 12:26 pm

DeaconBlues wrote:

(Incidentally, to call back to my own first posting in this thread, it was in the opening paragraphs that the researcher claimed the possibility that the injection of minuscule amounts of human DNA in vaccines was responsible for the increase in autism diagnoses, by changing the patient's own genetic structure and modifying the structure of his brain. Since this betrays a complete failure to understand either neurology or teratogenetics, I knew I could safely dismiss almost anything she had to say on the topic, and stopped reading.)

You should have rejected it when you saw the name of the reporter.

_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime

draelynn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jan 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,304
Location: SE Pennsylvania

02 Apr 2011, 5:29 pm

DeaconBlues wrote:

I do not have data to back it up because I am not a scientist. The information on environmental toxins is available from scientists in several different disiplines. It is not MY theory but one being posed by environmental scientists.

I did respond you your orgininal post. I beleive you misread the facts presented in the article. It did not say that the genetic structure of the brain was changed. It suggested that foreign human DNA was responsible for an immune reaction thus encephilitis that led to brain damage.

HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 987
Location: United States

02 Apr 2011, 5:36 pm

draelynn wrote:

The information on environmental toxins is available from scientists in several different disiplines. It is not MY theory but one being posed by environmental scientists.

So you have sources?

_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime

draelynn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jan 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,304
Location: SE Pennsylvania

02 Apr 2011, 6:19 pm

HerrGrimm wrote:

draelynn wrote:

The information on environmental toxins is available from scientists in several different disiplines. It is not MY theory but one being posed by environmental scientists.

So you have sources?

MSNBC -click
NewYorkTimes - click

I do not know if these sources or their authors meet your standards for 'acceptable' but they quote a large number of scientists, reports and opinions in support of the theory. Am I in possession of all the academic papers that support this theory - no. I am not. These are not the only two articles. This topic is especially prevalant in most Clean Water Advocacy groups and has been an EPA concern for years. Being that I live near Philly, which has some of the most polluted drinking water in the nation, it's of particular concern to me.

<EDIT>

Another credible link with links of it's own to the science...

NOAA - Pharmaceuticals in Coastal Waters - CLICK

HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 987
Location: United States

03 Apr 2011, 6:29 am

draelynn wrote:

The pharmaceuticals in the water will affect aquatic life differently from humans.

From what I found here and based on the articles themselves, it feels like the thimerosal argument: yes, it might be toxic to the body IN LARGER QUANTITIES, but the dose is so unbelievably small nothing will happen. Like homeopathy in a way. I am sure that this is a consequence of better detection technology. It probably was worse previously with lesser wastewater technology back then (and the worse side effects of medication as well), but I am not a wastewater expert, so it is just a hypothesis. As Paracelsus said, it is the dose that makes the poison.

_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime

draelynn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jan 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,304
Location: SE Pennsylvania

03 Apr 2011, 9:15 am

HerrGrimm wrote:

So we better know HOW it effects humans. Assuming the cocktail of pharms in our water do nothing to us when they already affect aquatic life is negligent. It is already proven that pregnant mothers are receiving low doses of drugs known to cause birth defects through their tapwater daily. But no one is ready to cause a panic...

... so we better know what constitutes a 'dose'. We only know about acute toxicity - not long term exposure. Only addressing one side is negligent.

And in the case of thimerasol nearly irrelevent. It is being phased out completely because of those unanswered questions.

HerrGrimm
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 987
Location: United States

03 Apr 2011, 9:41 am

draelynn wrote:

HerrGrimm wrote:

No, thimerosal is not being phased out completely because of unanswered questions. It has been repeatedly proven in epidemiological studies with millions of children involved that no ill effects happen when thimerosal is in a vaccine. Price et al in Pediatrics showed thimerosal in prenatal exposure does not increase your risk of having autism.

Negligent? That is a complete fact that it will affect aquatic life different from humans based on their systems. On a different thread I told you about chronic long-term mercury exposure in air and how it stays in you referencing a study in a book; that should probably be considered a study of long-term exposure. Over numerous years of people drinking much worse chemicals in the water supply based on technology at the time and the medications used should make a hypothesis that maybe it is not bad for you.That link I showed you had one part per TRILLION in the supply. You keep talking about long term exposure; do you know of any cases where something happened?

What source do you have that says the drugs with birth defects are causing them in pregnant women when they drink the water? Because that is only over a nine-month time span.

_________________
"You just like to go around rebuking people with your ravenous wolf face and snarling commentary." - Ragtime

draelynn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jan 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,304
Location: SE Pennsylvania

03 Apr 2011, 9:57 am

This conversation as ventured far from the original article...

I did not say 'they are causing birth defects'. I am growing very weary of constantly having to clarify my words.

I am suggesting caution because there is potential for harm. Not imagined. Not made up. Enough potential that several of our own government agencies are diligently studying this problem as well as many nations across the globe. If there was no potential for harm why would all this research be underway?

I'm not suggesting mass hysteria.

Why is my preference for caution so repugnant?

Page 2 of 3 [ 35 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

More Fuel To Vaccines Under Fire Post Reply New Topic

More Fuel To Vaccines Under Fire