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

a reply to: superman2012

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?

I could pick apart all of the points of what you're saying, but I am not going to. You obviously understand that mine is an analytical sort of brain, or you would not have asked me such a challenging question that requires me to really analyze it from the scenario exactly as you have presented it, without any other considerations. Without cheating. I don't know if you consciously did that or not, but I salute you for it either way, because that is how I learn and...I like that sh*t.

I too was immunized. Against a lot of things, a lot more than other kids because I moved overseas at the age of six, and where we were going, there were a lot of devastating diseases. I'll never in my life forget how painful those cholera shots were, during and for days after their administration (Anyone who thinks a tetanus shot is painful? Pffffttt!!! Please...you just have no idea). But if I had not had them, the cholera would have been undeniably worse, provided I actually lived to tell about it.

So I have a respect for vaccines. Like antibiotics, they are a necessary evil that we sometimes have to accept. And like antibiotics, I believe that the overuse of them has only served to do more harm than good. Specifically, the flu vaccine is the most recent and alarming example of this, as I've alluded to in previous posts.



As for your question, I have come to the conclusion that in order to properly answer it, I would need additional information. Specifically, is the cancer that my hypothetical child has inoperable or intractable? Is my child going to die, with or without intervention, to the point where intervention would be pointless to attempt? So, because it is the absolute worst case scenario available, I am going to factor that in as an affirmative. And I would have to say, yes. I would let my child pretend to be a real kid for a day.

Why? Because the cancer is going to kill her. She will either die slowly, in pieces and parts, cell by cell, in misery or she will die from something that cannot be controlled or prepared for or foreseen; a sudden illness or an accident, but either way, this child will never make it to adulthood. So, shelter her so that she has no fun or happiness at knowing she's got friends and some semblance of a life, or allow her to make her own choices on how she is going to spend the days she has left of her life and give her the opportunity to die with dignity and fulfillment? She cannot give the other kids her cancer, so she is no danger to them. They are really no danger to her at this point anymore because she is going to die no matter who she spends her time with. Yes, I would allow her to play with them as much as she wanted, vaccinations or not.

But since that was too much like cheating, I have to answer it too, from the standpoint that my cancer-having child has no immune system and is not condemned to certain death from the cancer, so her friends actually can make her very sick and even kill her if they have some devastating disease. Right? And the answer is, I don't know. If I felt that there was zero probability that the kids could possibly be attending school while having an active smallpox or cholera or polio virus raging through their bloodstream, I would have to say I'd take the chance if it meant that my kid would gain some great benefit from spending time with these kids. If I felt that there was reason to believe that any of these kids could be the vector for some horrific disease, I'm afraid that no, she'd have to take a raincheck because I'd be crazy to knowingly risk my child's life like that. But to just arbitrarily say no, she can't go to school with kids simply because they're not vaccinated? No, I don't think I could do that. And especially for something completely unnecessary, like the flu vaccine. I'd have to handle something like that on a case-by-case basis, personally.

I guess, if I had to pick a "side" in all this, I really couldn't. I think vaccines are a good idea. But I think they are overused, and I think ultimately we are going to shorten the human era by our own hand because we will have contingencies for everything to the point where we become unable to fend for ourselves at all. We will have no more natural instincts or ingrained defense mechanisms left to fall back on. De-evolution, essentially....evolving ourselves into de-evolving. Kind of like drinking yourself sober.

a reply to: tigertatzen
Cool. I respect your answer and understand your viewpoint a bit more.

I really try to watch how I word questions because I also think that way. It has to be worded precisely how someone intended, otherwise I will answer it how I understood it to be asked. I love trying to put myself in a different situation, only because I struggle with that.

a reply to: superman2012

Well, it is good to be able to see another's viewpoint without compromising your own, and I respect anyone who can do that with grace, so thank you for that. I think sometimes, especially with issues that are as emotionally charged as this one, we often actually agree with each other a lot more than we think, and the way we word things can make all the difference in the world in a situation like that.

Let me say it very slowly, so you can understand.

Vaccinations - pause - do - pause - not - pause - cause - pause - autism

The tiny little study that said this was widely debunked as completely flaky science.

a reply to: babybunnies

Let me say it very slowly, so you can understand.

Vaccinations - pause - do - pause - not - pause - cause - pause - autism

Autism/vaccine link


So far, that appears to be the consensus. There has been no established link in any of the studies that were funded or published by our government. Independent studies are the only ones publishing data that shows a causal link.


The tiny little study that said this was widely debunked as completely flaky science.

Who was it that "widely debunked" it?

There have been at least 9 separate studies either conducted by or funded by the Centers for Disease Control in the last decade alone, so it was far from just one "tiny little study". They also took the thimerosal danger seriously enough to remove it from several vaccines entirely and reduce the amount used from all others significantly because mercury is a known toxin to humans and an aggressive carcinogen...it wasn't just dismissed and forgotten about as "completely flaky science" at all.

Thimerosal is a vaccine preservative comprised of ethyl mercury. It has been used in vaccines since the late 1930s. When the volume of vaccines given to children in the U.S. grew dramatically in the early 1990s, so did the amount of thimerosal a child received. At its peak, children would receive thimerosal as high as 125x the EPA safe level.

19 different studies

It is akin to the science that resulted in the removal of fluoride from the public water supply for much the same reasons. They cannot say for sure if it was causing all of the health issues being addressed, but knowing that it is a poisonous substance they stopped using it because it has been proven very well capable of causing the issues and thus it was conceivable that it had done so already. The government tried to dismiss that too, same as they did when the tobacco companies were insisting that cigarettes had not been linked to lung cancer, when in fact they had been, in numerous studies.

Likewise, they know that thimerosal is a danger, or they would not have discontinued its use...and it is still being used, through a legal government loophole, in flu vaccine under other chemical names, so the FDA quite obviously knows it is questionable to use it in an injectable preparation too and gave them a way to hide that from the general public.

A decade ago most researchers agreed that we needed to study vaccines in relation to autism. We had to reconcile the fact that the number of vaccines children were receiving was increasing, and at the same time, the number of children who were being diagnosed with autism also was on the rise.

Autism science

This is a much larger and more widespread issue than it's being given credit for, and people such as yourself are passing along information that is incorrect and/or greatly over/underexaggerated...why, I don't understand, but misinformation is one of the leading reasons that pharma companies get away with a lot of the shady stuff that they do; the less informed people are, the less trouble it is to keep them from asking too many questions. That is a fact, like it or not.

a reply to: tigertatzen

I'm not sure what the "tiny study" you refer to is.
If it's Wakefield's then aside from being fraudulent it didn't even suggest anything about thimerosal, it was actually driven from the measles virus component of the MMR.
There were only 12 subjects and not all of them were autistic anyway.
In every way you look at it (from a non-biased perspective anyway) it's completely invalid as evidence of anything, aside from Wakefield's greed and unethical/immoral behaviour.
So even that "tiny study" showed no correlation with mercury although that was the presumption afterwards (even though thimerosal is as much mercury as common salt is sodium!).
And the reason it showed no correlation with mercury is that the MMR vaccine never contained thimerosal!

Can you post links to these independant studies which show a causal connection please?

Your little snippet about the amount of thimerosal wrongly states "Thimerosal is a vaccine preservative comprised of ethyl mercury".
It isn't.
That's what it is metabolised into from it's normal chemical composition as sodium ethyl[2-(sulfanyl-κS)benzoato(2-)]mercurate(1-)
But I suppose if you call it by it's proper chemical name it doesn't have the same "mercury" impact does it?

It also fails to mention that the overall amount is the cumulative dose and since all vaccines are not given at once, that figure is totally misleading since the vast majority of thimerosal is excreted within a couple of days.
pediatrics.aappublications.org...

That snippet being the introduction of your "19 different studies" article is factually misleading (as is the actual title as it links to "Fourteen Studies", not 19 and then only lists 11. Quite bizarre).
What can that tell you about the rest of that article?
This is a good deconstruction of it.
www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...

The FDA is pretty open about which vaccines contain thimerosal (as are other medical agencies in other countries...)
www.fda.gov...


You state that pharma (and I'm guessing all of the doctors and scientists concerned with vaccinations) are deliberately withholding information or misinforming the public about vaccines but then post a deliberately misleading article about them yourself.

And why did the diagnosis of autism carry on climbing when thimerosal was removed from vaccines?
(The clue is in that sentence...)

I really dont care if my world view is warped, I live pretty much isolated so it makes no difference to me what your society does. This is how I see it:

TPTB, still # scared from what happened to them in the French revolution decided they needed a weapon thay could pre-empt any mass revolt by a disgruntled populace. They went to their good buddies at DuPont (largest manufacturer of black powder at the time) and asked what they had in development. DuPont offered a number of biological agents that could be administered to the population to pacify them, but they needed a marketing hook...

I think you get where I'm coming from.

As I said, I dont give a fk what the propagandists will say in response. I live with my own world view and its kept me alive thus far.

originally posted by: ItVibrates
I really dont care if my world view is warped, I live pretty much isolated so it makes no difference to me what your society does. This is how I see it:

TPTB, still # scared from what happened to them in the French revolution decided they needed a weapon thay could pre-empt any mass revolt by a disgruntled populace. They went to their good buddies at DuPont (largest manufacturer of black powder at the time) and asked what they had in development. DuPont offered a number of biological agents that could be administered to the population to pacify them, but they needed a marketing hook...

I think you get where I'm coming from.

As I said, I dont give a fk what the propagandists will say in response. I live with my own world view and its kept me alive thus far.

I am not saying governments don't lie, because they do, but why is it that when people believe in science they are immediately called shills/ propagandists, etc? Simply because some people have actually spent years studying medical sciences and understand how things work?

I also cannot understand why these same people that believe in a 'Big Pharma' conspiracy still visit doctors and take medication. Why cherry pick what you trust? If you really believe vaccines were made to control us, don't you think they could have done so with Paracetamol which is taken by most people all the time? Or other common drugs?

a reply to: Agartha
You have no idea about what I do and dont put into my body, or what I studied and at what institutions. In fact the same point you try to make about informed decisions is in ironic contrast to the assumptions you made about me.

But the propagandists are never ones to be able to critically think, just regurgitate the lies that they think they know.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Translation: I cannot argue against the scientific evidence so I'll instead dismiss it out of hand.

Translation - You have no argument against my statements, so you pretend I simply dismiss the evidence.

Anything of substance to add?

a reply to: superman2012

If you were honest, you would admit that no evidence contrary to your position would ever be acceptable to you. Hence, there is no reason whatsoever to even have this discussion. Toodles.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Pardon?

Go look them up. This stuff is all over online, and I flat don't have time to hunt it all down and post it for you. What makes your personal review any more valid than that of anyone else?

I have done thanks.
And none of them show an association which stands up to real scrutiny.
That's why I asked if you could provide some that do as you're so convinced.

And like I said, I'll look at them from a scientific perspective, it won't be my "personal review".

Well, plenty of people, myself included, have looked at that data fro a scientific perspective, come to a different conclusion from yours.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Not only does the scientific evidence utterly refute your position but seeing as you're a creationist, consider me DEEPLY skeptical of your ability to competently understand and critically appraise such evidence in an intellectually honest manner.

originally posted by: ItVibrates
a reply to: Agartha
You have no idea about what I do and dont put into my body, or what I studied and at what institutions. In fact the same point you try to make about informed decisions is in ironic contrast to the assumptions you made about me.

But the propagandists are never ones to be able to critically think, just regurgitate the lies that they think they know.

You missed my point. I wasn't talking specifically about you but in general, I just quoted you because you called some propagandists, I'll make it clearer next time.

And you may not go to the doctors, use medicine or smoke, but many that believe in a Big pharma conspiracy do, and that doesn't make sense. Look at Jenny McCarthy with all her rants about vaccines and about getting rid of toxins and yet she injects herself with Botox regularly! A well known poison! And she smokes!!!! I was laughing when I saw that. What a hypocrite!!!

Ah the anti vaxxers , don't you just love them . Same regurgitated garbage over and over . Lets say a small state run by a short dictator with a bad haircut lets smallpox into the wild , would you line up for a shot . No . Good luck with that .

a reply to: hutch622

And THAT would be natural selection in action, improving the herd, etc as someone posted on page 1!!

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Pardon?

Go look them up. This stuff is all over online, and I flat don't have time to hunt it all down and post it for you. What makes your personal review any more valid than that of anyone else?

I have done thanks.
And none of them show an association which stands up to real scrutiny.
That's why I asked if you could provide some that do as you're so convinced.

And like I said, I'll look at them from a scientific perspective, it won't be my "personal review".

Well, plenty of people, myself included, have looked at that data fro a scientific perspective, come to a different conclusion from yours.

Your definition of plenty would be very few then.
And your definition of "scientific perspective" would be different too.

And why do you choose to believe those studies and not the ones which aside from being more robust scientifically, don't agree with your beliefs?
(If you hadn't guessed, that was a rhetorical question).

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Not only does the scientific evidence utterly refute your position but seeing as you're a creationist, consider me DEEPLY skeptical of your ability to competently understand and critically appraise such evidence in an intellectually honest manner.

Claiming that the opposition cannot understand the science is a seriously lame argument. I am thus deeply skeptical of your ability to continue this debate. So, no point in continuing.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Pardon?

Go look them up. This stuff is all over online, and I flat don't have time to hunt it all down and post it for you. What makes your personal review any more valid than that of anyone else?

I have done thanks.
And none of them show an association which stands up to real scrutiny.
That's why I asked if you could provide some that do as you're so convinced.

And like I said, I'll look at them from a scientific perspective, it won't be my "personal review".

Well, plenty of people, myself included, have looked at that data fro a scientific perspective, come to a different conclusion from yours.

Your definition of plenty would be very few then.
And your definition of "scientific perspective" would be different too.

And why do you choose to believe those studies and not the ones which aside from being more robust scientifically, don't agree with your beliefs?
(If you hadn't guessed, that was a rhetorical question).

Why do you choose to accept some studies, and not others? Your claim that some are "more robust" scientifically is not scientific. Everyone knows that there are as many political considerations in "peer review" as actual scientific ones.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You don't understand the science, as your posts on the topic demonstrate. Not surprising, coming from a scientifically illiterate creationist.