Grrrr, vaccine ARE connected with autism. >.< That's a

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not trying to make anyone else do anything - you're the ones doing that. As I've said, it's your right to choose what you do, and you choose to vaccinate. That's fine. Likewise, it's my right NOT to vaccinate, which is what I choose to do. And that's fine too. As I've said before, I advocate choice - it's up to you whether or not you choose to vaccinate. It's your right to do it or to not do it; many don't realise they have that choice and that there are options besides vaccination, should you choose to opt against it. As long as people make an informed decision then that's really all I ask.

The only one I see scaremongering around here is you and the other 'you must vaccinate' bunch, by telling me that if you don't vaccinate you're a major public health risk and all the children are going to suddenly start dropping dead from a bunch of virtually eradicated illnesses not seen for decades, if not centuries, because you're carrying these diseases somehow and passing them on to everyone else.

You do not have the right to impose your infections on others. I can hope that you make an informed decision to shun all contacts with people who sensibly vaccinate.


There is no scaremongering on out part. That is entirely on your side. You are the one who says how bad vaccines are, in the face of evidence to the contrary.
We state verifiable truths. There is no "scare" involved. Vaccines are effective, but only if the majority use them. Drop the coverage too far and the diseases will come back and kill. That is what you advocate.

And more hand-waving?

"Virtually eradicated illnesses"? Your evidence for this would be what? None of these diseases has been eradicated, in the slightest. They are merely contained, by vaccination, so that all that occurs is small outbreaks, not epidemics.

".. not seen for decades, if not centuries"? Do you not take in anything that is said? The diseases are still here, they still get caught, they still kill. Name any disease that vaccines are used for that has not been seen for a year, let alone a decade.

Vaccines work. You endanger others by your wilful disregard of evidence. You promulgate falsehoods. You doctor documents.

And I don't vaccinate. Simple. Why can't you respect that?

I read the study and it seems like a good one although I wonder whether children in America were exposed to higher levels of thimerosal. A frequently quoted Danish study used to claim thimerosal doesn't cause autism is meaningless because they only received a fraction of the thimerosal compared to US children. The dosage is important. Many vaccine ingredients would probably kill people if they were given in higher amounts.

I was surprised because the last few studies I've read that weren't able to find a link were of very poor quality. I've read several studies on this. Some were able to find a correlation between thimerosal and autism and others were unable to find one. The best study would be to look at autism rates in thimerosal versus thimerosal free groups for the same year of birth. The only studies I know of that looked at that found a link between thimerosal and autism (if you know of others, please let me know). The study you posted is good evidence of their not being a link but it doesn't conclusively prove it because autism is being diagnosed more often now and has broadened criteria which would offset any decrease in autism due to thimerosal being removed (especially if thimerosal only caused 1 or 2% of autism diagnoses).

I don't know what to believe because there is evidence on both sides. I wish everyone was open to examining all the evidence and not just the evidence that concludes that mercury isn't involved.

Here's an example of a study that found a link:
A secret CDC study (obtained a few years later by Congress) conducted by CDC employee Dr. Verstraeten revealed to Big Pharma reps at Simpsonwood found links between thimerosal and autism. Dr. Verstraeten at the CDC stated, "we have found statistically significant relationships between the exposure and outcomes for these different exposures and outcomes. First, for two months of age, an unspecified developmental delay, which has its own specific ICD9 code. Exposure at three months of age, Tics. Exposure at six months of age, an attention deficit disorder. Exposure at one, three and six months of age, language and speech delays which are two separate ICD9 codes. Exposures at one, three and six months of age, the entire category of neurodevelopmental delays, which includes all of these plus a number of other disorders." Regarding autism, the rate was double in the group receiving the most thimerosal compared to the group receiving the least but it may have been due to chance because they only had about 100 autism diagnoses to compare and they excluded almost half of them in their study. http://www.autismhelpforyou.com/Simpson ... 20Rico.htm

I will agree that thimerosal can't cause autism in someone who has never received it.

Another bit of science you ignore, I see.

Most diseases have an incubation period. This is the period from when your are exposed to the infection until you start to exhibit symptoms. For measles, this can be nearly two weeks.

Prior to showing symptoms, you will enter a period where you are infectious. Actually, technically, you are infectious from the moment that you are exposed, but this would be very marginal. It is the point at which the infection has multiplied to a level that is GROSSLY infectious that is meant here. For measles this is one or two days. I.e. it is adequate for a flight to the other side of the world.

This "infectious without symptoms" period is where you are "carrying these diseases somehow and passing them on to everyone else" in your attempt at quaint, dismissive terminology.

You remain infectious, with measles, for several days after symptoms appear. And so on.

You read none of this last time, so I'm not sure I can be bothered to go on... except to mention that measles causes, in some cases, repercussions that appear up to two years or more after. Also, of course, measles can kill.

I understand that. But you'd have to come into contact with the disease in the first place, and it's something rarely seen these days. The chances are extremely slim that you'd even come into contact with it so as to be able to POSSIBLY contract it and have that incubation period of asymptomatic carrying in the first place. You make it sound as if by not vaccinating you'll automatically come into contact with it, spread it around the world, and start some horrendous epidemic. Extremely unlikely.

However, on the weird site you gave a link to, on his (singular) front page, his book on autism with a (badly capitalised) section about "Inappropriate Use Of Stairs" made me laugh. It's just one of those things I've always wanted to do.

Vaccines control the disease, at present. You are advocating not to use vaccines. As the coverage drops, this will increase the probability of coming into contact with a carrier. Without vaccination you will become infected. You will pass it on. By not vaccinating yourself you increase you own risk and other people's risk. By advocating refusal to vaccinate you further increase the risks. You are bringing back pandemics. You seem unable to understand this?

No, by not vaccinating I MIGHT come into contact with the disease, with an equal chance of contracting it as I would have were I vaccinated. Not vaccinating doesn't mean you automatically will come into contact with it and will contract it and will pass it on and will die from it. If you aren't going to vaccinate you should at the very least eat a healthy diet, sleep well, and use other immune-boosters to be as healthy as you can. Actually, you should do that anyway. But it's of even more importance if you aren't vaccinating as you will need to make sure you have the defenses there should the worst happen.

Le kiwi is le tired.

And le boring! The same old thing - you still don't get it! No amount of healthy eating will give you the protection that vaccines give - save from locking yourself in your own house and never coming out.

You have MORE chance of catching a preventable disease if you aren't vaccinated. Fact of life.

And that lessons with sensible eating and proven immune-boosters. If you have the immune system strong enough to fight it off it will balance the risks out anyway. Just because you're vaccinated doesn't mean you can't get the disease.

Which fantasy world do you live in? Measles doesn't care what you eat. It doesn't care if you have taken quack "immune-boosters". It infects you. You become a carrier. You may be less likely to die at that point. I doubt it will affect you long term prognosis. None of that goes any way towards any sort of "balance the risks out". A small percentage change is nothing.

If not vaccinated, exposed is infected. If vaccinated only one in ten will become infected.

If you frighten enough people off vaccines, you will bring back pandemics.

You especially increase the danger to children who are not vaccinated and to people who cannot take the vaccine because of other, genuine reasons. Not your frivolous excuses.

If you have a strong immune system it will pose about as much risk as it would to those vaccinated. What do vaccines do? Boost your immune system so it can fight it off and not let you become infected, and should you become infected, not let that infection take hold. Ditto other immune boosters beyond vaccines. If people ate properly instead of constantly gorging on nutrient-empty junk the risks would be far lower.

Vac off topic

I would like to kill this thread. However, there may be a serum to ressurrect it. This is one vaccination I would refuse!

Off topic... I love the word serum. Mmm.

More waffle. Please state the sources you have used to come to this conclusion. I.e that some generic "strong immune system" is of any use against measles, say. Everyone tends to have a "strong immune system", otherwise we'd all be dead.

You speak as if an immune system is some sort of magic thing with a volume control. It's not. Your body can learn to manufacture antibodies. It's pretty good at that sort of thing. It doesn't forget, either. Teach it once (with a dead infecting agent), and it will remember how to do it years later, when the live one hits. Keep your body nice and pristine, and when an infection strikes, you suffer and maybe die.