Autism rates exploding in Asia after they adopt western vaccination protocols.

All I can say to all the people that have been vaccinated is that if you weren't affected, than consider yourselves lucky.

I've known many friends and myself who came down with life-long illnesses after the shots. The scary thing is that these types of things will be given to people in the food supply in the near future. There is already testing going on.

Pretty soon, they will be genetically engineering humans to try to fix what shouldn't have been broken in the first place. Actually that's already happening, and it's a thread on ATS already (with 8 posts at this point).

For all those defending the shots, please go out and get as many as you can! Russian roulette is what it should be called. As time goes on, Cancer, autoimmune disease, etc., etc., etc., is increasing. They want to blame a lot of these things on "genetic defects". If you believe them, then get 300 shots a year, for all I care. I would actually like to see a "brave soul" go take 300 vaccines from 300 different doctor's offices in 1 year, and see how they fare after that. That would be a hell of a documentary. I doubt the person getting the shots would survive, but at least it would be documented what happened to the individual (as long as the shots were REAL). I dare someone who speaks up for the shots to do it. Go for it. Make a documentary. Impress us all with the "safety" of the shots. Just make sure that everything is randomized, and you will see the true effects.

After you do see the effects, then you can tell us all how you were wrong about it. I am sure that anyone brave enough to do it would be telling the world about the side-effects-if they even live through it all. Honestly, they would be lucky if they don't end up in a wheelchair with paralysis or some other intractable condition for the rest of their life.

originally posted by: Pardon?
And how come all of the other pathogens a baby is exposed to don't cross the blood-brain barrier, just vaccine-mediated ones?

It could because the others aren't injected directly into the blood stream? Our bodies have had plenty of time to adapt and evolve against pathogens if they try to enter the usual way.

I will extrapolate exaggeratedly here but it's like expecting someone to process a slice of pizza properly by teleporting it into the stomach of shoving it up from behind.

a reply to: theMediator

That works for things like mercury being compared to ingestion, but not BBB.

I would posit a trojan horse like effect (just theory, nada backing) of other components within vaccine. aluminum and such, perhpas?////

originally posted by: InFriNiTee
If you believe them, then get 300 shots a year, for all I care. I would actually like to see a "brave soul" go take 300 vaccines from 300 different doctor's offices in 1 year, and see how they fare after that. That would be a hell of a documentary. I doubt the person getting the shots would survive, but at least it would be documented what happened to the individual (as long as the shots were REAL). I dare someone who speaks up for the shots to do it. Go for it. Make a documentary. Impress us all with the "safety" of the shots.

A documentary called : Super-Immune Me

They should also use someone that's willing to force vaccinations on everyone like a eugenics nazi.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: theMediator

That works for things like mercury being compared to ingestion, but not BBB.

I would posit a trojan horse like effect (just theory, nada backing) of other components within vaccine. aluminum and such, perhpas?////

Your probably right...

From this article, they claim that there are 3 ways for pathogens to enter the BBB and a trojan effect is one of them.

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: Pardon?
And how come all of the other pathogens a baby is exposed to don't cross the blood-brain barrier, just vaccine-mediated ones?

It could because the others aren't injected directly into the blood stream? Our bodies have had plenty of time to adapt and evolve against pathogens if they try to enter the usual way.

I will extrapolate exaggeratedly here but it's like expecting someone to process a slice of pizza properly by teleporting it into the stomach of shoving it up from behind.

You can extrapolate it any way you like but you're quite wrong.
Vaccines aren't injected directly into the blood stream.

insidevaccines.com...
(See no. 5)

honestly; less than 2 centuries into this, industry gone astronaumicicles, rays scattered sphericalacausts, immensepressured, slow-cooked, autoarranged, sprayed the unwittlings, weaklings, futurswersbeings, emerge intrasepcies, any different, or just numbers justified, dwindline/breakoff, who cares?

originally posted by: Pardon?
You can extrapolate it any way you like but you're quite wrong.
Vaccines aren't injected directly into the blood stream.

insidevaccines.com...
(See no. 5)

Ok so I was wrong about them being injected directly into the blood stream, so it might have a couple seconds before it really gets into the blood. Whatever, it's still entering the body via un-natural ways, that's the main point I was making.

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: Pardon?
You can extrapolate it any way you like but you're quite wrong.
Vaccines aren't injected directly into the blood stream.

insidevaccines.com...
(See no. 5)

Ok so I was wrong about them being injected directly into the blood stream, so it might have a couple seconds before it really gets into the blood. Whatever, it's still entering the body via un-natural ways, that's the main point I was making.

Fair enough but it's the crux of your argument.

And pretty much everything that goes into your body goes into your blood stream at some point regardless of how it's got in there in the first place. That's all the blood does, it's a transport system.

a reply to: Pardon?

You can extrapolate it any way you like but you're quite wrong.
Vaccines aren't injected directly into the blood stream.

Semantics. It still enters the bloodstream and all of the the silly nitpicking over how something is phrased does not make that any less valid a statement. Extrapolate this:

Since subcutaneous and intramuscular vaccines are injected directly into the body, and antigens and other components are taken into the bloodstream via the lymphatic system (in order to spur antibody production through hyperstimulation of the Th2/humoral response) without passing through our ordinary immune defences, people often erroneously state that vaccines are injected directly into the bloodstream.

your source

Vaccines are injected into the muscle tissue specifically because it is the quickest route for absorption into the bloodstream. Vaccines cannot work if they are not introduced into the bloodstream...they directly affect the body's immune response on a cellular level, through the blood. If you want to find out if you're immune to a disease, the way to confirm that is through testing a blood sample. In fact, if it were to be administered via intravenous line, it would not be effective at all, because the liver would just filter out all the catalysts for the immune response to even occur in the first place. The same thing can happen with subcutaneous injection...the fat under the skin can block absorption, so there are very few vaccines that will be administered that way.

What are Intramuscular Injections?
An intramuscular injection is a technique used to deliver a medication deep into the muscles. This allows the medication to be absorbed into the bloodstream quickly. You may have received an intramuscular injection at a doctor’s office the last time you got a vaccine, like the flu shot.

injection site

a reply to: Pardon?

That's all the blood does, it's a transport system.

Negative. It is far more than simply a transport system. It is an organ system, just like the digestive system or nervous systems. It contains the building blocks of every tissue structure in your body...alter the behavior of the cells and you've altered the tissue itself, sometimes permanently (as is the case with vaccines). It is a filtration system too, weeding out things that cannot be used by the body or that are potentially harmful to it.

Your blood is responsible for breaking down enzymes and proteins, converting them into useful substances to sustain the body and maintain homeostasis. Without it, we would die. It is responsible for breaking down nutrients. It is responsible for defending your body from attack by viruses and bacteria, it manufactures substances that heal wounds, it nourishes the entire body and brain.

When something affects/alters the blood's composition, it can start a chain reaction that manifests changes within the other organ systems. That is what they are describing in the OP regarding vaccines. Some of those ingredients have the capacity to wreak serious havoc on other organs; in this discussion primarily the brain would be the area of concern, but every organ system's functions can be affected by each other, so it is a trickle-down effect as well. Anything that interrupts homeostasis can have devastating effects on the human body, given the right set of circumstances.

a reply to: GetHyped

Where are these studies? I have yet to see you (or anyone else in this thread) post a study that shows causation between vaccines and autism. Studies about the harms of elemental mercury (methylmercury) have nothing to do with this whatsoever.

On the contrary, they have everything to do with this. In fact, they are the number one concern regarding this entire discussion. Where have you been? The reason that there is cause for concern is because of the harms of mercury and other ingredients in vaccines that could very well be causing a secondary or tertiary condition to emerge. These substances have been proven to cause precisely the reactions and behavioral changes that are being described in the OP.

I will not continue to hand-feed you information that you have no intention of even considering. There are links all over this thread that have that information and no one else needs to give you more than that. You are just as capable of locating the answers as any of us are; it is not hard. Google can be your friend, too.

a reply to: superman2012

No worries...this is a passionate subject. Easy to misinterpret, and I am as guilty of that as anyone.

china is known worldwide for adulterating products with harmful chemicals to make a quick buck....remember the baby formula problem in years past?...or lead based paints still being made and sold? cardboard in dog food?....I could go on, but it's easy enough to google and finds lots of problems in what is sold to China's own people, by Chinese.

a reply to: superman2012

Correlation does not equal causation. If that were true, have they ruled out baby food? Mothers diet while breastfeeding? Formula? Brand of diapers? Laundry detergent? Mold in the house? I could literally go on for the whole page, but I'm sure you get the point.

There are tonnes of studies, even research papers, that show there might be a correlation, but they are looking specifically at one item. Perhaps if they looked at the whole picture in every instance, they might have a better idea instead of some what ifs that get people so wound up they start believing a guy who has been discredited and Jenny McCarthy.

I agree with you, correlation doesn't equal causation. But it does merit closer scrutiny. As I stated before, it could be the cause or it could be something totally different. We simply do not know at present. But if the slightest possibility is there, it needs to be investigated.

These are our babies and children, the ones who look to us for protection and nurturing, that we are talking about here. Would you, given a choice, allow someone to inject your infant with a substance that has not been 100% proven to have zero adverse effects on any other developmental functions necessary for quality of life, to protect against something that only comes around once a year and is not life-threatening to the population at large? Something that, if you utilize proper hygiene practices and simple common sense, can easily be avoided, just as it has been for generations now?

Personally, I refuse to take that chance...simply because I know that it has been proven that these ingredients have the capacity to be toxic to humans. And also because, as I said earlier, the huge, aggressive push for people to get their kids injected makes me wonder what the real purpose is behind it. That rings the alarm bells for me, as a medical professional and as a discerning parent. It is a risk without any guaranteed benefit. It is the use of fear, ridicule and a "pack mentality" to manipulate people into doing something they do not want to do.

To be 100% clear, for me personally, it is the flu vaccine that I primarily have issues with. There are too many oddities surrounding it that I can't move past. Something is really getting me in the "Spidey senses" about it, and has been ever since they started trying to force people to get the vaccine. And by force, I mean threaten healthcare workers with their jobs...even pregnant ones or people such as myself who have autoimmune diseases/disorders, and employing other scare tactics to garner compliance. Why are they being so insistent? It would affect my decision just the same if it were a food or a supplement or a topical skin treatment, or diet...the fact that it's an injection doesn't matter. I am suspicious of anyone who pushes too hard for people to accept/allow something that is uncomfortable to them, for any reason. Something is really wrong there, particularly when they are resorting to bullying and/or personal attacks to further an obvious agenda. Nothing good can come of that.

And what you are saying has merit too. Other environmental factors could either be to blame, or could be contributing in conjunction, for what is being observed here. But if you remember, not too long ago there was a similar debate regarding fluoride in our water supply. I distinctly remember one ATS thread in particular where people were citing clear case studies showing that fluoride causes certain adverse health issues that can result in permanent damage or even fatalities, and they were being told they were crazy, exaggerating, misinterpreting data, etc....and what ended up happening? Fluoride was found to be harmful (often in conjunction with other factors unique to a certain demographic, as a matter of fact), and it is no longer being dumped into the water we are bathing our children in, cooking their food in, and allowing them to drink.

Bottom line is, it needs to be reexamined. And if there really isn't some nefarious underlying plot behind vaccinations, make them optional. There's no need to force compliance for something if it's optional, and it can even cause more people to embrace the idea if they feel like it is their idea...simple human psychology has taught us that. The scare tactics and overzealous efforts to get everyone aboard the vaccination train connote a sense of desperation much like you see exhibited by a really bad car salesman...it doesn't take long before that is the last person on Earth you want to buy a car from...they simply want it too badly and that is suspicious behavior.

a reply to: Pardon?

So it's the flu vax that is the risk?
How come in countries where the flu vax isn't routinely given to kids and only adults in risk groups (i.e. the UK) the rates of diagnosis of autism have increased the same as in the US?

I'm not sure, without researching it from that particular angle, but I do think any vaccine that contains known carcinogens and has received packaging language modifications from the FDA specifically to allow the manufacturer a way to hide the presence of said carcinogens to deliberately fool people into allowing their kids to be injected with it needs a closer examination, because that is blatant and purposeful misdirection. And it is the influenza vaccine that has this distinction...I don't think any of the standard childhood vaccines (MMR, oral polio, varicella zoster, etc.) contain mercury derivatives (or other toxins) like that now.

Now as far as vaccines in general, I personally believe they are ok...and a lot of them I consider necessary, in fact. Diseases are never fully eradicated...all it takes is one person with a contagion to become the vector for an epidemic, and viruses that may be unheard of in one country can be rampant in another. Ebola is an excellent example of that.

Many things could affect the rise of reported cases of autism in a given area, just like anything else...including misdiagnosed cases that are not corrected once reported, which can skew the statistics...and often do, on anything that is being indexed out there in the world. I'd have to slog through a lot of stats to determine the reason behind that, but it is a very interesting question that should also be taken into consideration for the "big picture". And who knows...that could actually turn out to be a key factor in determining etiology as well.

a reply to: jimmyx

china is known worldwide for adulterating products with harmful chemicals to make a quick buck....remember the baby formula problem in years past?...or lead based paints still being made and sold? cardboard in dog food?....I could go on, but it's easy enough to google and finds lots of problems in what is sold to China's own people, by Chinese.

You know, that is a very good analogy...I think that the influx of mass production is more likely to be the culprit here regarding chemicals in the flu vaccines than deliberately introducing a neurotoxin to alter mental status in droves of children. If these toxins are in fact responsible for the rise in cases of autism, I believe it is directly linked to the specific chemical composition of the vaccine being cheaper and easier to mass-produce in a limited amount of time. Cutting corners, so to speak. Cheaper ingredients=a whole lot more product, a whole lot faster. As evidenced by just about anything "made in China".

Now...as to why they feel the need to suddenly mass-produce something that has been historically in short supply since its inception...I have no ready answer. What are they up to? That is the sixty-four thousand dollar question right there. There is a massive push for this, and I want to know why.

a reply to: tigertatzen

These are our babies and children, the ones who look to us for protection and nurturing, that we are talking about here. Would you, given a choice, allow someone to inject your infant with a substance that has not been 100% proven to have zero adverse effects on any other developmental functions necessary for quality of life, to protect against something that only comes around once a year and is not life-threatening to the population at large? Something that, if you utilize proper hygiene practices and simple common sense, can easily be avoided, just as it has been for generations now?

Yes I would.

For two reasons. One, I was immunized. Two, if one of their friends gets cancer and cannot be immunized due to that (or any other illness that precludes vaccinations) then I don't want one of my children to be part of the chain of other non-immunized kids that makes this child sick and dies.

Like I said before, herd immunity should be there for the weak that need it, not the fearful that don't trust it.

Edit: Just because I am interested. Hypothetically ( I know these are easy situations to holdfast to your beliefs, but nevertheless), if you had a child with cancer, and they wanted to go to school and be with their friends, just to feel like they didn't have a sickness if even for a day, would you allow your child to go to school knowing that there are non-vaccinated kids there? Why or why not? How would that make you feel?

Not a chance in hell I'd care what friends my kids were hanging around based on if they were or were not vaccinated. I was running through sewers, and trash dumps as a kid. Sick all the time, rarely after age 15. I don't get sick anymore, just minor blips that run their course before I get close to run down. My system was built not by vaccines, but by experiences. You look to these foolish moms that disinfect everything, and watch those kids end up with autoimmune, allergies, weak immune systems sick all the time. It's clear to me. We need to adapt, not try to shortcut. You look at all the possibilities, and most focus on some on this extreme or the next. That's why I try to stay out of these threads. The end of the day, it's all about adaptation, and unfortunately the world we live in we must adapt to many new changes each successive generation. Vaccines are probably not going away, but I'm sure as hell not getting a flu shot, or any other without my permission.

a reply to: pl3bscheese
Unfortunately, any diseases that have vaccinations don't care if you were running in puddles, eating mud, etc.
Are you saying you weren't immunized, or that you won't immunize your kids?