Vaccines: Yale Study Links Higher Rates of Multiple Dissorders with Vaccinations in Children

a reply to: rickymouse

What group are you in? Are they going to harm you, you won't know for possibly years if this is the case.

I am an anti vaxxer, I don't vaccinate myself or my children. I developed an autoimmune disorder after receiving a vaccine, my older son was vaccinated in his early years and has had numerous health and developmental challenges. My younger son was not vaccinated and has not had the health or developmental challenges of my older son. But but but correlation doesn't equal causation right, that was the point of my post. How long will this crap go on before we demand that science stop stringing us along?

I agree that some vaccines may help some people, but there is too much of a downside for me to risk it with myself or my family. What I find perplexing is that I'm considered a whacko for having this sentiment, if that makes me wrong then I don't want to be right!

a reply to: jaws1975

I get a severe reaction to the flu shot, I get sicker than a dog for about eight to ten days. My one daughter from my first marriage has the same problem and so do her kids. All but one of them had the flu shot and got so sick that three of them wound up in the ER. Now my second wife and my daughter from her can take them and not get sick. I do not know why, my second wife has type O blood, my daughter has AO. I have AA. My kids and grandkids from my first marriage have AA blood, My Ex-wife has AB negative. I do not know if that has anything to do with it. Because of the agglutination difference in blood types, it may have some effect on something. This would be a random guess of a possibility.

The grandkids severe reaction to the flu shot is medically noted. The last two of my daughters kids did not have flu shots at all, so there is no evidence that they would have this severe reaction. I had all of our genetics done, there are some things that can possibly be relevant to the cytokine storm. But the results are only association evidence and not too conclusive.

My first daughter feels like she is on the defense with the school nurses and the health dept. She does not want to use the religious card, because that would be lying. The nurses tell her the kids will get used to it, that is a lie, if they actually read their literature they would find differently. The doctors know and most do not even try to push the flu shot on her kids, knowing that there is a cytokine storm possible. But their records did not make it on the health departments list that shows the kids can't have the flu shot, evidently they need concrete evidence to post it on there, special testing under controlled conditions. I guess the whole way to put anything negative against the wishes of the FDA and CDC in the records requires lots of paperwork and proper evidence. We are satisfied with just knowing we can't take these vaccines, we just want the right to say no to keep our kids safe.

I won't ever get the DTAP anymore, I got almost pneumonia type symptoms off the one I got two years ago. According to official evidence at the Pharma site, people sometimes get a severe reaction to it and for those people the DT is better. So I now know if I need one just to get the DT or a plain tetanus shot.

A lot of the vaccine scam is just a scam. We used to require more necessary vaccines and offer the others as an option for those who want them. but now schools require lots of them and the people running the schools are brainwashed to believe they are good for everyone. They are told to ignore bad evidence. Blame it on something else.

a reply to: rickymouse

That is one of the most disturbing parts of this topic, that the potential for harmful effects is hardly ever discussed, only the upside. That is disingenuous at best!

a reply to: Raggedyman

I would assume you are an Aussie who comes from Victoria, the state in Australia where they have two heads and no brains

Thanks for that i needed a good laugh . I assume you profiled me from my avatar . Well you are correct , wrong and wrong . Tasmania is the state with two heads and i live in South Australia where we apparently love festivals and have lots of churches .I put it to you that oxygen is the cause of all of the above because lets face it they all breathed oxygen , Now oxygen is safe in almost all cases and doctors highly recommend you keep using it . Vaccines also cause alcoholism , well no they dont but i am sure if studied people walking into bars at opening time i am pretty sure you could find a link .From the link .

This pilot epidemiologic analysis implies that the onset of some neuropsychiatric disorders may be temporally related to prior vaccinations in a subset of individuals.

Really , a subset . Would that be the group that came from or live in abusive households or is it the group whose parents also suffered from these ailments . What was the subset .

a reply to: hutch622
You've missed the point he made. He's not saying the study from the OP has conclusively proved anything (that was made clear in the OP). You posted a picture and made a ridiculous insinuation that just because many have doubts about some of today's vaccinations, that the only alternative is to go back to the time when there were none.

The point is - while there may be some vaccinations that are absolutely effective (and vital) for preventing certain viruses - there is just way too much money being invested in the creation and pushing of new vaccinations, without anywhere near enough testing/studies on the potential risks. Creating vaccinations has effectively become a license to print money for the pharmaceutical industry - and anyone with a brain should know that where there is a potential for ridiculous amounts of profit to be made - there will inevitably be greed and corruption, if left unchecked (which it mostly is at the moment).

The public have largely been scared into submission to the point that they won't think twice about it - it's downright scary!
They've managed to create such a toxic political/social environment where vaccinations are concerned (through lobbying and fear campaigns) that anyone who dare speak/act out against vaccinations is attacked and marginalized. Many parents cannot even afford to send their children to day care anymore (or in some cases the schools they want), or get job's in certain positions - because of the Government's push against "anti-vaxxers". Undoubtedly a result of some very effective lobbying/campaigning by the Pharmaceutical companies.

Why not wait for some more definitive studies/conclusions to be made on each vaccine (certainly no issues finding volunteer subjects) before punishing people for not being so sheepishly accepting of the mainstream indoctrination - especially where their children's health is concerned? It's not as if people are going to suddenly start dropping dead en masse because a few kid's didn't get their flue shots. A mad world we're living in.

a reply to: Raggedyman

You keep on going on about trillion dollar businesses but you are no doubt ignorant of the fact that these huge pharmaceutical companies also make a killing off things championed as "alternative medicines", like liposomal vitamin C and medical marijuana.

Also, every quack website like natural news and that Avocado guy are trying to sell their own stuff to you by creating fear and doubt against the "mainstream" stuff. They are no different!

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: Raggedyman

I would assume you are an Aussie who comes from Victoria, the state in Australia where they have two heads and no brains

Thanks for that i needed a good laugh . I assume you profiled me from my avatar . Well you are correct , wrong and wrong . Tasmania is the state with two heads and i live in South Australia where we apparently love festivals and have lots of churches .I put it to you that oxygen is the cause of all of the above because lets face it they all breathed oxygen , Now oxygen is safe in almost all cases and doctors highly recommend you keep using it . Vaccines also cause alcoholism , well no they dont but i am sure if studied people walking into bars at opening time i am pretty sure you could find a link .From the link .

This pilot epidemiologic analysis implies that the onset of some neuropsychiatric disorders may be temporally related to prior vaccinations in a subset of individuals.

Really , a subset . Would that be the group that came from or live in abusive households or is it the group whose parents also suffered from these ailments . What was the subset .

Wrong and wrong again

Where I am from, its the Vics who have two heads South Aussies have three. SA, who cares, welfare state, the welfare state.
I hear the only reason tassie doesnt float away is because SA and Victoria suck. South Australia is just proof Tasmanians can swim
Anyway enough fun belittling the mung beans east.

It doesnt matter how stupid an argument a person can make, what counts is the science
I dont know the subset, hence why I am asking for more testing through impartial science
If you have issues with people calling on science from impartial parties I would suggest it indicates that Tasmanians are way smarter than your mob

Please think, please think

Your stupid picture reflects more about you than I care to comment on
Its wrong
We dont want that to happen to anyone, we dont want to go back to what happened in the past.
We want to make sure that vaccines are safe
One of your three SA heads must be able to comprehend that

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Raggedyman

You keep on going on about trillion dollar businesses but you are no doubt ignorant of the fact that these huge pharmaceutical companies also make a killing off things championed as "alternative medicines", like liposomal vitamin C and medical marijuana.

Also, every quack website like natural news and that Avocado guy are trying to sell their own stuff to you by creating fear and doubt against the "mainstream" stuff. They are no different!

natural news and that Avocado guy , seriously, what like its front page news, what like its relevant
Yes, everyone is greedy, everyone skews the data, thats the whole point of the issue.
These things must be tested, thats MY POINT

and this is not about "alternative medicines", like liposomal vitamin C and medical marijuana, just in case you didnt notice
Make another thread and we can deal with that if i care to comment and its relevant

a reply to: Navieko

Thankyou
I was beginning to think I posted that in another language that some people couldnt reason.

I guess its a south australian thing, victorians, just a different name.

a reply to: Raggedyman

HA ha, three heads are better than one so they say .

Here's an excellent piece on this "groundbreaking study".
scienceblogs.com...

Don't comment on it until you've read and understood it.

originally posted by: Navieko
a reply to: hutch622
You've missed the point he made. He's not saying the study from the OP has conclusively proved anything (that was made clear in the OP). You posted a picture and made a ridiculous insinuation that just because many have doubts about some of today's vaccinations, that the only alternative is to go back to the time when there were none.

The point is - while there may be some vaccinations that are absolutely effective (and vital) for preventing certain viruses - there is just way too much money being invested in the creation and pushing of new vaccinations, without anywhere near enough testing/studies on the potential risks. Creating vaccinations has effectively become a license to print money for the pharmaceutical industry - and anyone with a brain should know that where there is a potential for ridiculous amounts of profit to be made - there will inevitably be greed and corruption, if left unchecked (which it mostly is at the moment).

The public have largely been scared into submission to the point that they won't think twice about it - it's downright scary!
They've managed to create such a toxic political/social environment where vaccinations are concerned (through lobbying and fear campaigns) that anyone who dare speak/act out against vaccinations is attacked and marginalized. Many parents cannot even afford to send their children to day care anymore (or in some cases the schools they want), or get job's in certain positions - because of the Government's push against "anti-vaxxers". Undoubtedly a result of some very effective lobbying/campaigning by the Pharmaceutical companies.

Why not wait for some more definitive studies/conclusions to be made on each vaccine (certainly no issues finding volunteer subjects) before punishing people for not being so sheepishly accepting of the mainstream indoctrination - especially where their children's health is concerned? It's not as if people are going to suddenly start dropping dead en masse because a few kid's didn't get their flue shots. A mad world we're living in.

Your post is like an anti-vax 101 course.

About the money in vaccines; more money is made by treating the diseases they prevent by an enormous factor so if they didn't make vaccines they would make more money. Logic.
Vaccines, due to their very nature of being administered to healthy people are the most tested forms of medication ever and are continually monitored and tested post release.
There are multitudes of definitive studies out there (and yes, even quite a few on vaxxed vs unvaxxed) however ridiculous claims by anti-vaxxers (like this "study") force researchers down blind-alleys to show there's no causation from vaccines. This means precious funding for more pressing issues is used up.

As for your last line, people ARE dying.
www.cidrap.umn.edu...

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Navieko
a reply to: hutch622
You've missed the point he made. He's not saying the study from the OP has conclusively proved anything (that was made clear in the OP). You posted a picture and made a ridiculous insinuation that just because many have doubts about some of today's vaccinations, that the only alternative is to go back to the time when there were none.

The point is - while there may be some vaccinations that are absolutely effective (and vital) for preventing certain viruses - there is just way too much money being invested in the creation and pushing of new vaccinations, without anywhere near enough testing/studies on the potential risks. Creating vaccinations has effectively become a license to print money for the pharmaceutical industry - and anyone with a brain should know that where there is a potential for ridiculous amounts of profit to be made - there will inevitably be greed and corruption, if left unchecked (which it mostly is at the moment).

The public have largely been scared into submission to the point that they won't think twice about it - it's downright scary!
They've managed to create such a toxic political/social environment where vaccinations are concerned (through lobbying and fear campaigns) that anyone who dare speak/act out against vaccinations is attacked and marginalized. Many parents cannot even afford to send their children to day care anymore (or in some cases the schools they want), or get job's in certain positions - because of the Government's push against "anti-vaxxers". Undoubtedly a result of some very effective lobbying/campaigning by the Pharmaceutical companies.

Why not wait for some more definitive studies/conclusions to be made on each vaccine (certainly no issues finding volunteer subjects) before punishing people for not being so sheepishly accepting of the mainstream indoctrination - especially where their children's health is concerned? It's not as if people are going to suddenly start dropping dead en masse because a few kid's didn't get their flue shots. A mad world we're living in.

Your post is like an anti-vax 101 course.

About the money in vaccines; more money is made by treating the diseases they prevent by an enormous factor so if they didn't make vaccines they would make more money. Logic.
Vaccines, due to their very nature of being administered to healthy people are the most tested forms of medication ever and are continually monitored and tested post release.
There are multitudes of definitive studies out there (and yes, even quite a few on vaxxed vs unvaxxed) however ridiculous claims by anti-vaxxers (like this "study") force researchers down blind-alleys to show there's no causation from vaccines. This means precious funding for more pressing issues is used up.

As for your last line, people ARE dying.
www.cidrap.umn.edu...

Cidrap as a source, he'll yeah, they vaccinate people against having a brain
Pick a better source or a less redder nose

ok, some comments about safety and the lack of appropriate safety testing of vaccines.

So lets pour in some actual numbers. In order to reveal that the administration of a certain vaccine increases the risk of getting a certain side effect, you need to compare the incidence of that side effect after administration to the incidence of that side effect in the general population (=background rate).

Take for instance Guillain-Barre syndrome, which has a background rate of 0.7–4.6 cases per 1 million. Depending upon the adverse event rate, the number of subjects required to test the existence of an increased level of risk relative to the background rate, is 43 million subjects for a x1.5 adverse event (AE) rate, around 13 million test subjects for a x2 AE rate, to 23500 test subjects for a x100 AE rate.
The 1976 swine flu vaccine revealed, from post-marketing surveillance, an increase in incidence in the vaccinated population to 8.8 cases per 1 million vaccinated people. In order to demonstrate the same potential risk increase in a clinical trial, an indicative vaccinated population size of 409,000 to 970,000 would be required to demonstrate that the adverse event rate in vaccinated individuals is greater than the background rate.

How realistic is it to expect a clinical trial with up to 1 million test subjects?

I chose Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) because it is a very, very rare side effect from the flu vaccine (estimations of up to 3 additional GBS cases per 1 million vaccinees, meaning up to 3 people out of the 1 million that are vaccinated can get GBS because of the vaccine). I chose the 1976 swine flu vaccine because that specific vaccine had one of the highest risks for GBS as a side effect.

source: “Prepandemic” Immunization for Novel Influenza Viruses, “Swine Flu” Vaccine, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and the Detection of Rare Severe Adverse Events J Infect Dis. 2009 Aug 1; 200(3): 321–328.

link

originally posted by: whismermill
ok, some comments about safety and the lack of appropriate safety testing of vaccines.

So lets pour in some actual numbers. In order to reveal that the administration of a certain vaccine increases the risk of getting a certain side effect, you need to compare the incidence of that side effect after administration to the incidence of that side effect in the general population (=background rate).

Take for instance Guillain-Barre syndrome, which has a background rate of 0.7–4.6 cases per 1 million. Depending upon the adverse event rate, the number of subjects required to test the existence of an increased level of risk relative to the background rate, is 43 million subjects for a x1.5 adverse event (AE) rate, around 13 million test subjects for a x2 AE rate, to 23500 test subjects for a x100 AE rate.
The 1976 swine flu vaccine revealed, from post-marketing surveillance, an increase in incidence in the vaccinated population to 8.8 cases per 1 million vaccinated people. In order to demonstrate the same potential risk increase in a clinical trial, an indicative vaccinated population size of 409,000 to 970,000 would be required to demonstrate that the adverse event rate in vaccinated individuals is greater than the background rate.

How realistic is it to expect a clinical trial with up to 1 million test subjects?

I chose Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) because it is a very, very rare side effect from the flu vaccine (estimations of up to 3 additional GBS cases per 1 million vaccinees, meaning up to 3 people out of the 1 million that are vaccinated can get GBS because of the vaccine). I chose the 1976 swine flu vaccine because that specific vaccine had one of the highest risks for GBS as a side effect.

source: “Prepandemic” Immunization for Novel Influenza Viruses, “Swine Flu” Vaccine, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and the Detection of Rare Severe Adverse Events J Infect Dis. 2009 Aug 1; 200(3): 321–328.

link

Another awesome link
Just because there are numbers of people out there in la la land doesn't meen that people here don't check for stupidity

Have another go, I believe in second chances
Try some one impartial and relevant

originally posted by: Pardon?
Your post is like an anti-vax 101 course.

About the money in vaccines; more money is made by treating the diseases they prevent by an enormous factor so if they didn't make vaccines they would make more money. Logic.

Assumption #1: The diseases they're supposed to prevent are actually being prevented by the vaccine.

Assumption #2: The vaccines are not the (direct/indirect) cause of a range of other diseases/conditions/ailments needing to be treated.

Vaccines, due to their very nature of being administered to healthy people are the most tested forms of medication ever and are continually monitored and tested post release.
There are multitudes of definitive studies out there (and yes, even quite a few on vaxxed vs unvaxxed) however ridiculous claims by anti-vaxxers (like this "study") force researchers down blind-alleys to show there's no causation from vaccines. This means precious funding for more pressing issues is used up.

Unfortunately I'm not as trusting in many of these "definitive" studies as you are - considering many of them (if you follow the money) are directly/indirectly lobbied for and funded by the very same people that profit from getting everyone vaccinated. Funny though how quick you are to dismiss the conclusions of one the few impartial/unbiased studies just because it doesn't tow-the-line according to the medical establishment indoctrination/profit-driven agenda.

As for your last line, people ARE dying.
www.cidrap.umn.edu...

I hope you do realize that even if every person on this planet was vaccinated for the flu, there would almost positively still be flu-related deaths, right? Just as we adapt new methods of fighting off viruses, viruses adapt new strains to penetrate our defenses. It's my opinion that vaccinations are probably not doing much more than my own immune system is capable of doing on it's own (assuming of course that I live a healthy lifestyle).

At the end of the day, unless it can be proven beyond doubt that a vaccine is completely safe (yet to be done) and my not taking a vaccine is effectively doing harm to others (beyond negatively affecting the profit-margins of the Pharmaceutical companies) - then I should have a choice whether or not to have myself or my kid's vaccinated - without being penalized in any way. Why is that so much to ask for?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Navieko
a reply to: hutch622
You've missed the point he made. He's not saying the study from the OP has conclusively proved anything (that was made clear in the OP). You posted a picture and made a ridiculous insinuation that just because many have doubts about some of today's vaccinations, that the only alternative is to go back to the time when there were none.

The point is - while there may be some vaccinations that are absolutely effective (and vital) for preventing certain viruses - there is just way too much money being invested in the creation and pushing of new vaccinations, without anywhere near enough testing/studies on the potential risks. Creating vaccinations has effectively become a license to print money for the pharmaceutical industry - and anyone with a brain should know that where there is a potential for ridiculous amounts of profit to be made - there will inevitably be greed and corruption, if left unchecked (which it mostly is at the moment).

The public have largely been scared into submission to the point that they won't think twice about it - it's downright scary!
They've managed to create such a toxic political/social environment where vaccinations are concerned (through lobbying and fear campaigns) that anyone who dare speak/act out against vaccinations is attacked and marginalized. Many parents cannot even afford to send their children to day care anymore (or in some cases the schools they want), or get job's in certain positions - because of the Government's push against "anti-vaxxers". Undoubtedly a result of some very effective lobbying/campaigning by the Pharmaceutical companies.

Why not wait for some more definitive studies/conclusions to be made on each vaccine (certainly no issues finding volunteer subjects) before punishing people for not being so sheepishly accepting of the mainstream indoctrination - especially where their children's health is concerned? It's not as if people are going to suddenly start dropping dead en masse because a few kid's didn't get their flue shots. A mad world we're living in.

Your post is like an anti-vax 101 course.

About the money in vaccines; more money is made by treating the diseases they prevent by an enormous factor so if they didn't make vaccines they would make more money. Logic.
Vaccines, due to their very nature of being administered to healthy people are the most tested forms of medication ever and are continually monitored and tested post release.
There are multitudes of definitive studies out there (and yes, even quite a few on vaxxed vs unvaxxed) however ridiculous claims by anti-vaxxers (like this "study") force researchers down blind-alleys to show there's no causation from vaccines. This means precious funding for more pressing issues is used up.

As for your last line, people ARE dying.
www.cidrap.umn.edu...

Cidrap as a source, he'll yeah, they vaccinate people against having a brain
Pick a better source or a less redder nose

"Pick a better source"? Do you mean one that you'r belief system will accept?
Or one which has verifiable data?

originally posted by: whismermill
ok, some comments about safety and the lack of appropriate safety testing of vaccines.

So lets pour in some actual numbers. In order to reveal that the administration of a certain vaccine increases the risk of getting a certain side effect, you need to compare the incidence of that side effect after administration to the incidence of that side effect in the general population (=background rate).

Take for instance Guillain-Barre syndrome, which has a background rate of 0.7–4.6 cases per 1 million. Depending upon the adverse event rate, the number of subjects required to test the existence of an increased level of risk relative to the background rate, is 43 million subjects for a x1.5 adverse event (AE) rate, around 13 million test subjects for a x2 AE rate, to 23500 test subjects for a x100 AE rate.
The 1976 swine flu vaccine revealed, from post-marketing surveillance, an increase in incidence in the vaccinated population to 8.8 cases per 1 million vaccinated people. In order to demonstrate the same potential risk increase in a clinical trial, an indicative vaccinated population size of 409,000 to 970,000 would be required to demonstrate that the adverse event rate in vaccinated individuals is greater than the background rate.

How realistic is it to expect a clinical trial with up to 1 million test subjects?

I chose Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) because it is a very, very rare side effect from the flu vaccine (estimations of up to 3 additional GBS cases per 1 million vaccinees, meaning up to 3 people out of the 1 million that are vaccinated can get GBS because of the vaccine). I chose the 1976 swine flu vaccine because that specific vaccine had one of the highest risks for GBS as a side effect.

source: “Prepandemic” Immunization for Novel Influenza Viruses, “Swine Flu” Vaccine, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and the Detection of Rare Severe Adverse Events J Infect Dis. 2009 Aug 1; 200(3): 321–328.

link

And here's a follow-up to that.
www.who.int...

originally posted by: Navieko

originally posted by: Pardon?
Your post is like an anti-vax 101 course.

About the money in vaccines; more money is made by treating the diseases they prevent by an enormous factor so if they didn't make vaccines they would make more money. Logic.

Assumption #1: The diseases they're supposed to prevent are actually being prevented by the vaccine.

Assumption #2: The vaccines are not the (direct/indirect) cause of a range of other diseases/conditions/ailments needing to be treated.

Vaccines, due to their very nature of being administered to healthy people are the most tested forms of medication ever and are continually monitored and tested post release.
There are multitudes of definitive studies out there (and yes, even quite a few on vaxxed vs unvaxxed) however ridiculous claims by anti-vaxxers (like this "study") force researchers down blind-alleys to show there's no causation from vaccines. This means precious funding for more pressing issues is used up.

Unfortunately I'm not as trusting in many of these "definitive" studies as you are - considering many of them (if you follow the money) are directly/indirectly lobbied for and funded by the very same people that profit from getting everyone vaccinated. Funny though how quick you are to dismiss the conclusions of one the few impartial/unbiased studies just because it doesn't tow-the-line according to the medical establishment indoctrination/profit-driven agenda.

As for your last line, people ARE dying.
www.cidrap.umn.edu...

I hope you do realize that even if every person on this planet was vaccinated for the flu, there would almost positively still be flu-related deaths, right? Just as we adapt new methods of fighting off viruses, viruses adapt new strains to penetrate our defenses. It's my opinion that vaccinations are probably not doing much more than my own immune system is capable of doing on it's own (assuming of course that I live a healthy lifestyle).

At the end of the day, unless it can be proven beyond doubt that a vaccine is completely safe (yet to be done) and my not taking a vaccine is effectively doing harm to others (beyond negatively affecting the profit-margins of the Pharmaceutical companies) - then I should have a choice whether or not to have myself or my kid's vaccinated - without being penalized in any way. Why is that so much to ask for?

Show me why you think your assumptions are assumptions then we can move along.

As for you not trusting the studies, outside of your bubble that's irrelevant.
Show me proof that these studies are incorrect rather than trying to associate them with your own conspiracy leanings and I'll give you some credence.
Until then...

If every person on the planet was vaccinated against flu there would a lot less incidences of flu and as a consequence, a lot less deaths.
Similar to how there are very few deaths due to measles (in the west anyway) because vaccination has almost eradicated its incidence (although the anti-vaxxers are trying hard to change this).

Let's see how your opinion fares when you pit your immune system against yellow fever without a vaccination for it.

And your last part, if you can show me anything at all which is 100% safe (and I mean anything) then I will allow you to use that as an argument against vaccines (personally I'm okay with a 99.99% etc safety rate).
You personally not vaccinating hopefully won't be an issue but if many more people don't then it will be an issue.
Then interesting bit is whether responsibility can be attributed to you and your ilk and therefore recourse should you lot propagate a disease.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Navieko
a reply to: hutch622
You've missed the point he made. He's not saying the study from the OP has conclusively proved anything (that was made clear in the OP). You posted a picture and made a ridiculous insinuation that just because many have doubts about some of today's vaccinations, that the only alternative is to go back to the time when there were none.

The point is - while there may be some vaccinations that are absolutely effective (and vital) for preventing certain viruses - there is just way too much money being invested in the creation and pushing of new vaccinations, without anywhere near enough testing/studies on the potential risks. Creating vaccinations has effectively become a license to print money for the pharmaceutical industry - and anyone with a brain should know that where there is a potential for ridiculous amounts of profit to be made - there will inevitably be greed and corruption, if left unchecked (which it mostly is at the moment).

The public have largely been scared into submission to the point that they won't think twice about it - it's downright scary!
They've managed to create such a toxic political/social environment where vaccinations are concerned (through lobbying and fear campaigns) that anyone who dare speak/act out against vaccinations is attacked and marginalized. Many parents cannot even afford to send their children to day care anymore (or in some cases the schools they want), or get job's in certain positions - because of the Government's push against "anti-vaxxers". Undoubtedly a result of some very effective lobbying/campaigning by the Pharmaceutical companies.

Why not wait for some more definitive studies/conclusions to be made on each vaccine (certainly no issues finding volunteer subjects) before punishing people for not being so sheepishly accepting of the mainstream indoctrination - especially where their children's health is concerned? It's not as if people are going to suddenly start dropping dead en masse because a few kid's didn't get their flue shots. A mad world we're living in.

Your post is like an anti-vax 101 course.

About the money in vaccines; more money is made by treating the diseases they prevent by an enormous factor so if they didn't make vaccines they would make more money. Logic.
Vaccines, due to their very nature of being administered to healthy people are the most tested forms of medication ever and are continually monitored and tested post release.
There are multitudes of definitive studies out there (and yes, even quite a few on vaxxed vs unvaxxed) however ridiculous claims by anti-vaxxers (like this "study") force researchers down blind-alleys to show there's no causation from vaccines. This means precious funding for more pressing issues is used up.

As for your last line, people ARE dying.
www.cidrap.umn.edu...

Cidrap as a source, he'll yeah, they vaccinate people against having a brain
Pick a better source or a less redder nose

"Pick a better source"? Do you mean one that you'r belief system will accept?
Or one which has verifiable data?

I am sure Einstein can take a seat and you can step up to the freaking obvious