Still Not Getting Vaccinations

Off Topic
61

[quote]yorik wrote:

[quote]otar wrote:

It’s still mercury and it’s too act as a preservative. Some times too much gets used but they recall meat all the time too and I’m sure people still eat meat… In your average vaccine the amount of mercury present is biologically insignificant.

"The main ingredient in most vaccines is the killed or weakened germ (virus or bacterium), which stimulates the immune system to recognize and prevent future disease. Some vaccines also contain extremely small amounts of preservatives or antibiotics to prevent bacterial contamination.

One preservative called thimerosal has received a lot of attention because it contains a trace amount of mercury. The amount of mercury present in thimerosal is minute, does not accumulate in the body and is much less toxic than other forms of mercury."

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/med/misconception-eng.php

From the Canadian government’s health website, an entity that does not stand to gain any profit via the proliferation of vaccines.

And while some vaccines may require a booster they do, in fact, last a life time as that’s the entire basis of vaccination. It’s a small amount of the virus that allows your body to produce antibodies, once your body produces antibodies to something it keeps the ‘blue prints’ for that anti-body on record for a life time so next time it recognizes the pathogen it simply produces more. I suggest you look into a little bit of science before spreading any more false information.[/quote]

By the way, how much mercury is biologically significant? How much aluminum? And how do those values compare between injection versus ingestion? Got some numbers for us? You’re the science guy, right?

Anyway, accusing me of not knowing the science does not give your supposed science any more credence. I will give you credit and stand corrected in that they do think immune memory does seem to last longer than previously thought, although some antibodies longer than others.

[/quote]

The onus of proof is on you for finding flaws in my science, the fact that I have even presented any trumps your complete and total lack of science to begin with. Provide me with some real data instead of random stipulations backed with nothing and we’ll talk.

Ps: For mercury “Currently, U.S. EPA uses a RfD of 0.1 µg/kg body weight/day as an
exposure without recognized adverse effects.” - Facts About Mercury | PDF | Mercury (Element) | Environmental Science

For aluminum 2mg/kg/day - Aluminum toxicokinetics regarding infant diet and vaccinations - ScienceDirect a study that found that as long as vaccines using aluminum are spaced appropriately their aluminum content yields no adverse effects as well as a table of aluminum content by vaccine (very limited but gives you an idea).

A table of mercury content by vaccine, none of them are anywhere near the unsafe level. - http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm

62

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Dr J wrote:
If the vaccines work as advertised, my not being vaccinated poses no threat to the rest of society.[/quote]

Incorrect. Vaccines do not work 100% of the time, more like 75-95% of the time.

The least understood benefit of vaccines is they create “herd immunity” — that is, a sufficient percentage of the population is immune, so that any outbreak is limited because there are not enough vectors (infectable people) to cause on outbreak.

Idiots who avoid vaccinations (should they become sufficiently numerous) put the greater population at risk for this reason — damage herd immunity.

FWIW, anyone who thinks smallpox, polio, and all the other nasties in this world are “dead” are living in fantasy land. They’re alive in animal vectors (or labs in certain countries that should make you worry) waiting to come out again into the human population, just like they did before.

Also, the virus in chickenpox is directly linked to alzheimers and an infection causes shingles later (not the other way around). It’s hardly harmless.

— Mrs. Jewbacca[/quote]

Smart lady.

63

[quote]SuperFast wrote:
The issue is not freedom, but truth.

So, with standard 3-point seat belts, they are proven very effective at reducing injuries in crashes, so yes they should be required.

Whereas with vaccines, the evidence proves they are not safe and not effective. Unfortunately, medicine is not only a business, it’s also a business that’s filled with “true believers.”

[quote]yorik wrote:

I love the idea of vaccines. It’s a brilliant idea.
[/quote]

This is the exact opposite of the truth. Injecting mercury, formaldehyde, partially de-composed organic matter (from a chicken? From something else? We don’t know - that’s “proprietary”) and who-knows-what-else directly into your bloodstream - thereby bypassing ALL of your body’s filtering and defense mechanisms - is insane. The government forcing it on everyone is evil.[/quote]

lol.

64

[quote]TheTick42 wrote:
I really get fuckin’ tired of all the “my rights” bullshit around the US. (Before some idiot opens his mouth - I AM an American, born and raised) What happened to responsibility and the “common good”? I’ve looked at the research and there is no reason to not get your children vaccinated. I’ve yet to meet a practicing physician who didn’t get their children vaccinated.

All you are doing is risking the life of your children and your neighbors children. For what? To “stick it to big pharma”? Please…these shots are dirt cheap compared to real drugs. I just got a flu shot, uninsured, and it cost $26. My sister just started a family a few years ago and the total cost over the first 3 years of vaccinations cost $40 out of pocket and cost her insurance company $400ish. That’s roughly equivalent of a 3 month supply of statin type medication. It’s 1/5 the cost of 1 shot of MS medication. The out of pocket is less then most people here spend on protein per month. Man…I just don’t get this crap. [/quote]

Typical communist/socialist crap…this bullshit is spreading fast all over the world! FUCK the “common good”! Fuck that “Brave New world”!

65

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
An interesting thread. I must admit, I don’t recall ever meeting someone who wouldn’t get vaccinated or get their kid vaccinated in the real world, so it has been interesting to read.

On Edge, may I ask, you seem to believe their is a link between big pharma and the CDC, correct? Do you believe that link extends to all the other countries’ government agencies as well? Do you generally distrust the scientific consensus or is it just on this issue? [/quote]

There’s definately a link between big pharma and the CDC. Big pharma lobbies the US government hard. I’m pretty sure big pharma and medical devise makers provide most if not all the continuing education for doctors (DJ?). They fund research studies. I’d be surprised if they don’t fund medical schools in various ways.

I don’t know how big their influence is in other countries. I think it’s safe to say, the bigger the market, the more effort they will make to do whatever they can. “Whatever they can” will be different with each country.

It sounds like you’re on to me with the last question. I mostly trust scientific consensus but have a hard time where the drug companies are involved. I think they have been given the ability to set the standards very much like the banking system has been allowed to self regulate.

By the way, I own Astrazeneca, Glaxo Smith Klein and two small cap drug companies. I usually own Abbot Labs but sold it a month ago and will probably buy it back soon. If you would like to make (me) lots of money, I recommend everyone buy tons of PDLI and CRME. Buy as much as you can, buy on margin, get all your friends and family buying. Get your grandmother buying. I, I mean you won’t regret it.

I sincerely hope you all do go out and buy those stocks and it’s a good example of how quickly principles go out the window when money can be made.[/quote]

Thanks for the response.

66

Individual Rights vs the Common Good:

The two aren’t mutually exclusive, but rather complimentary. The Founding Fathers, in particular Jefferson and Madison, firmly believed that individuals, when left alone, would naturally bend themselves toward the common good. They argued that regardless, mankind should be free enough to make their own decisions. They also viewed government as a means of protecting life, liberty, and property…not promoting the common good.

Children do not belong to the State, as they did in ancient Sparta, or in Soviet Russia. In the United States and other free countries, the State belongs to the individuals. Thus, the state must grant individual parents the right to do what they think is best for their children. HOWEVER, when a child’s life is in danger, the state can, and should intervene. What does this mean for vaccines? As Jewbacca mentions, there is still a “need” for vaccines in that these diseases still exist and we are not naturally immune to them. Thus it is prudent to vaccinate. However, many of the diseases that the CDC and FDA recommend vaccines for, like mumps (which my son had, btw), are not life threatening to kids, let alone adults.

67

When my oldest was born, my wife (who was working with some autistic children at the time) wanted me to look at the link between thimerasol and autism. I wasn’t completely convinced that there was a link, but one thing jumped out at me: prior to the more enhanced schedules of vaccinations, the autistic rate was 1 in 100,000. After the enhanced schedule of vaccinations, it skyrocketed to 1 in 120. I didn’t see any causal link between the two, but the connection seemed at the least, correlational. What did concern me was that every proponent of thimerasol-laced vaccines said that the mercury in it was below the harmful exposure levels…for adults. What about infants? Their bodies are as developed, nor can they deal with toxins effectively or efficiently. We decided to wait on the vaccines that were laced with thimerasol (which, at least in our area, is fading away).

The issue we have is the use of aborted babies’ cell lines to make vaccines. While not all vaccines are produced from the cells of willfully killed innocent human beings, a good deal are. I have a problem with that. I’d be fine with it if it was just a one and done thing. That tiny human being would have potentially saved the lives of millions. However that is not the case. These cell lines are not immortal, and new sources are being harvested. Some medical research companies have actually offered to kill the unborn baby for free, provided the mother donate the corpse to research (these are mostly European companies, but still). In addition, the alternatives for those vaccines produced with dead babies’ cells are rare in the US. One reason is that Big Pharma holds a relative monopoly on vaccines, and is choosing to use dead babies to produce its vaccines, thus, we only have those vaccine lines available to us (Depts of Health in the states receive only those lines of vaccines the companies provide and the dept of health distributes them to the pediatricians…we are at the mercy of Big Pharma). The other reason is that the FDA will not test, review or approve alternative vaccines produced in other countries by companies that aren’t affiliated with Big Pharma. Call me whatever name you want, I will not be complicit in the death of an innocent human being, especially when viable alternatives exist. The ends never justify the means.

68

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

[quote]Theface wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:

Dont know if this will link correctly however shows the source of the Autism and vaccination hysteria. Cliff notes the “Dr.” who started this was actually stripped of his license and had legal action of fraud. [/quote]

As was Thorsen who has churned out a fair amount of pro-vaccination literature, recently indicted in Atlanta for fraud. So it happens on both sides. Though I agree the autism link is tenuous currently.

Then again so was the smoking-lung cancer link 30 years ago.
[/quote]

I would. The problem with the smoking and lung cancer link is that you cannot ethically use experimental methods to prove it. There will always be the question “are people who are predisposed to lung cancer also predisposed to smoking?” and we cannot take a random sample of people who do not smoke, force them to smoke, and see if they end up with higher lung cancer rates than the rest of the population.

Nevertheless, population data pointed directly at smoking as a factor in lung-cancer. We do not have a parallel in the vaccine-autism debate.[/quote]

The only parallel is the sudden increase of rates of autism diagnosed immediately after the number of thimerasol-laced vaccines was enhanced. Prior to the increase, it was about 1 in 100,000; after the increase it was 1 in 120. That is an insane jump. What is even more interesting, is that this jump is not correlational to other factors, save one: the inclusion of “autism spectrum disorders” on the diagnosis scale. Now, a child can demonstrate a mild display of some autistic trait, and be diagnosed with ASD, “autism spectrum disorder”, commonly referred to as autism. This skews the numbers a bit, because no one really knows how many kids walked around with autistic trait prior to the diagnosis change.

69

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

[quote]Theface wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:

Dont know if this will link correctly however shows the source of the Autism and vaccination hysteria. Cliff notes the “Dr.” who started this was actually stripped of his license and had legal action of fraud. [/quote]

As was Thorsen who has churned out a fair amount of pro-vaccination literature, recently indicted in Atlanta for fraud. So it happens on both sides. Though I agree the autism link is tenuous currently.

Then again so was the smoking-lung cancer link 30 years ago.
[/quote]

I would. The problem with the smoking and lung cancer link is that you cannot ethically use experimental methods to prove it. There will always be the question “are people who are predisposed to lung cancer also predisposed to smoking?” and we cannot take a random sample of people who do not smoke, force them to smoke, and see if they end up with higher lung cancer rates than the rest of the population.

Nevertheless, population data pointed directly at smoking as a factor in lung-cancer. We do not have a parallel in the vaccine-autism debate.[/quote]

The only parallel is the sudden increase of rates of autism diagnosed immediately after the number of thimerasol-laced vaccines was enhanced. Prior to the increase, it was about 1 in 100,000; after the increase it was 1 in 120. That is an insane jump. What is even more interesting, is that this jump is not correlational to other factors, save one: the inclusion of “autism spectrum disorders” on the diagnosis scale. Now, a child can demonstrate a mild display of some autistic trait, and be diagnosed with ASD, “autism spectrum disorder”, commonly referred to as autism. This skews the numbers a bit, because no one really knows how many kids walked around with autistic trait prior to the diagnosis change.

[/quote]

Thimerosal hasn’t been used in vaccines for about a decade now and the autism rate has increased, not decreased.

70

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:

[quote]DragnCarry wrote:

[quote]Theface wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:

Dont know if this will link correctly however shows the source of the Autism and vaccination hysteria. Cliff notes the “Dr.” who started this was actually stripped of his license and had legal action of fraud. [/quote]

As was Thorsen who has churned out a fair amount of pro-vaccination literature, recently indicted in Atlanta for fraud. So it happens on both sides. Though I agree the autism link is tenuous currently.

Then again so was the smoking-lung cancer link 30 years ago.
[/quote]

I would. The problem with the smoking and lung cancer link is that you cannot ethically use experimental methods to prove it. There will always be the question “are people who are predisposed to lung cancer also predisposed to smoking?” and we cannot take a random sample of people who do not smoke, force them to smoke, and see if they end up with higher lung cancer rates than the rest of the population.

Nevertheless, population data pointed directly at smoking as a factor in lung-cancer. We do not have a parallel in the vaccine-autism debate.[/quote]

The only parallel is the sudden increase of rates of autism diagnosed immediately after the number of thimerasol-laced vaccines was enhanced. Prior to the increase, it was about 1 in 100,000; after the increase it was 1 in 120. That is an insane jump. What is even more interesting, is that this jump is not correlational to other factors, save one: the inclusion of “autism spectrum disorders” on the diagnosis scale. Now, a child can demonstrate a mild display of some autistic trait, and be diagnosed with ASD, “autism spectrum disorder”, commonly referred to as autism. This skews the numbers a bit, because no one really knows how many kids walked around with autistic trait prior to the diagnosis change.

[/quote]

I’d be pretty interested too see the research stating that one in nearly twenty children is developing autism.