Vaccines and Autism: Expert Exposes DOJ Vaccine Fraud

Click here to learn the shocking truth about vaccines!

a reply to: MrSporkster

Very cute memes. None take into account other medical advances made during the same time period, including antibiotics, increased access to medical care, and better nutrition.

a reply to: superman2012

Your premise is that you have all pertinent information and data to come to any valid conclusion.

But the facts say that not only do we not have the whole truth available, but that truth has been kept from us.

Okay. We have nothing more to discuss unless one or both of us changes our perspective and reasoning.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: MrSporkster

Very cute memes. None take into account other medical advances made during the same time period, including antibiotics, increased access to medical care, and better nutrition.

Yes they do. Several of them tackle these issues specifically. For example, India suffers from poor sanitation, lack of medical care, and inferior nutrition. But thanks to the polio vaccine, India hasn't seen a single polio case since 2011.

a reply to: MrSporkster

For example, India suffers from poor sanitation, lack of medical care, and inferior nutrition.

"Inferior" is a relative term. While India's nutrition levels/standards may be "inferior" to that of other nations, it is still "superior" to what it once was. That is true of everywhere. Likewise, while medical care may not still be widely available, it has increased to some extent, and the quality has likewise improved.

Further, there is some dispute about polio, after changes were to made to the diagnosis of polio. I haven't followed up on it and I don't know if it does or does not apply here, but it may not be what it seems. More like redefining polio, rather than eliminating polio. But I haven't done enough research to understand it completely.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: superman2012

Your premise is that you have all pertinent information and data to come to any valid conclusion.

But the facts say that not only do we not have the whole truth available, but that truth has been kept from us.

Okay. We have nothing more to discuss unless one or both of us changes our perspective and reasoning.

You are wrong again.

My premise is that WE ALL have the information available to us. Some choose to ignore it and continue down the path that best falls in line with their beliefs (again, like Religion) while others digest all information and come to logical conclusions based on hard science (not belief) that many thousands of actual experts dedicated their lives too.

The truths we have now, is based on our best available data. So unless someone has technology far advanced than what we have available to us ( as anti-vaxxers seem to have) and are not releasing the data, I'll throw my hat in with hard science.
In the future, they may find out that Autism is caused by pollution brought on by spaghetti factories. The point is, we don't know for sure, but when all available science that can be replicated shows that spaghetti factories don't cause it, I'll believe that as well, even though some on here will decide that because there is no data right now saying spaghetti factories don't cause Autism, that is as likely as vaccines.

The MMR all in one vaccine doesn't have to be dangerous. Before the 80's the three vaccines were given over about a 6 month time frame. A baby would get their Mumps vaccine, wait a month or two, then go back to the doctor for a Measles vaccine, wait a month or two and go back to the doctor for their Rubella vaccine. This was done because doctors at the time knew that dumping all of those vaccines at once on a human body was dangerous.

But the same people that Obama said hack off limbs unnecessarily out of greed to charge you more for a doctor's visit decided that creating an MMR all-in-one cocktail was financially worth the risk of a few bad reactions as it lessened the number of doctor visits, but they could still charge the price of 3 vaccinations.

If you point this out to a rabid vaxxer, they will go all zombie on you and ridicule you without actcually thinking about the actual history of the MMR vaccine.

originally posted by: GenerationGap
The MMR all in one vaccine doesn't have to be dangerous. Before the 80's the three vaccines were given over about a 6 month time frame. A baby would get their Mumps vaccine, wait a month or two, then go back to the doctor for a Measles vaccine, wait a month or two and go back to the doctor for their Rubella vaccine. This was done because doctors at the time knew that dumping all of those vaccines at once on a human body was dangerous.

I didn't know that -- thank you!

One of the most common arguments against the current vaccine schedule is that there are too many vaccines given too quickly -- including several all at once -- too young. Even from doctors and other healthcare providers saying it's not so much the vaccines in and of themselves, but the current aggressive vaccine schedule. And I tend to agree.

One of the cases I've read about was a young girl given like 12 or 13 in one visit to get her "caught up." I couldn't believe anyone would think that's okay. I can't believe that any health practitioner wouldn't know that no such tests had been conducted to see how a child's immature immune system would react to such an overload. Just blew my mind.

a reply to: GenerationGap

The MMR all in one vaccine doesn't have to be dangerous. Before the 80's the three vaccines were given over about a 6 month time frame. A baby would get their Mumps vaccine, wait a month or two, then go back to the doctor for a Measles vaccine, wait a month or two and go back to the doctor for their Rubella vaccine. This was done because doctors at the time knew that dumping all of those vaccines at once on a human body was dangerous.

No, it was done that way because the MMR vaccine hadn't been developed.
Why would you expose a baby/child to the possiblity of a disease that can kill it, when there is an all in one? Why would you want a child to go through multiple needles?
There is no data supporting how long to wait to give single doses of vaccines. It would be experimental.

If you point this out to a rabid vaxxer, they will go all zombie on you and ridicule you without actcually thinking about the actual history of the MMR vaccine.

I wouldn't classify myself as "rabid" but I'm definitley "for" keeping children alive and healthy! It seems you are not sure of the history of the MMR vaccine. You say before the 1980s, but it was licensed in 1971. If you had said 1970s you would have been correct, but only because it hadn't been developed!

a reply to: superman2012

It was developed in 1971, but it's a fact that up until the mid 80s, the VAST majority of doctors vaccinated in line with what I stated. I know because I have 4 kids, vaccinated between 1969 and 1981, in 3 different states, by 4 different practioners, that all had them wait between vaccinations as I stated and for the reason I stated.

Once again, it's the rabid vaxxers that lie and spread disinformation which is why responsible vaccination is being distrusted. Stop it.

originally posted by: GenerationGap
a reply to: superman2012

It was developed in 1971, but it's a fact that up until the mid 80s, the VAST majority of doctors vaccinated in line with what I stated. I know because I have 4 kids, vaccinated between 1969 and 1981, in 3 different states, by 4 different practioners, that all had them wait between vaccinations as I stated and for the reason I stated.

Once again, it's the rabid vaxxers that lie and spread disinformation which is why responsible vaccination is being distrusted. Stop it.

So because your personally subjective story doesn't line up with historical facts, responsible vaccination is being distrusted?
Bahahahaha

Edit: I gave you a star because you literally made me burst out laughing.

a reply to: superman2012

I say that because it's fact. I know it's fact because I lived through it. I don't need an internet link to prove what I know. I was there.

The MMR All-In-One was not widely adopted as soon as it hit the shelf. Far from it. Hell, my first grand child was born in 1990 and even he was vaccinated, by recommendation of his doctor, over a year and never received the all in one. Other grand children have received the All-in-One and thankfully they are all fine. But I've got close family friends who are part of that group that says, "My baby was normal, he received the All-in-One, and with in hours we saw a change in his eyes where he simply began to have a blank stare". I trust them, I know they are not lying and that in their heart they know it was that shot. That is anecdotal, but I more faith in them than random internet posters or a government or pharm corp study. Especially when the people, who they themselves conducted the studies, are standing up and saying "Well, we did lie a bit..."

But you really think that when the MMR all-in-one came out doctors said, "Oh hey, shiny new thing. Let me change the way I've safely vaccinated babies for 15 years and do it this new way." It was adopted by doctors over time. Doctors of all people know that when something works, you don't change it. They are stubborn that way. But yeah, it came out in 1971 and doctors rapidly changed the way they vaccinate! Only a rabid moron would think that.

Seems like someone here could have used rabies vaccine...

a reply to: Boadicea

Why bother disproving a link between vaccines and autism?

Surely its for the people who think there is a link to prove it in the first place....and they haven't.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
a reply to: Boadicea

Why bother disproving a link between vaccines and autism?

Golly gee... maybe because real people are being hurt and damaged by autism, and if we can identify even one cause or stimulus, we could change protocols and make sure it never happens to anyone for this reason again? You know, reasonable precautions for reasonable risk... quality of life... FIRST, DO NO HARM!!!

I don't expect some who has to ask the question to understand the answer though.

Surely its for the people who think there is a link to prove it in the first place....and they haven't.

Yes, apparently they have proven it... and they have tried very hard to make their data and evidence known. But the data and information has been hidden from the public.

But hey! Since you're so darn confident about all this, I'm sure you'd like to see exactly what the government is hiding from us, because OF COURSE it will prove no link between autism and vaccines. I'm sure you'll be demanding that all pertinent information will be made public immediately to prove the outrageous nature of these claims. Right?

Put up or shut up, right?

Didn't they already lose in a court of law and had to pay settlements? Kennedy found out that there has a been no oversight in the testing of vaccines. They were exempt from damages. Children currently are administered over 70 shots.

originally posted by: TamtammyMacx
Didn't they already lose in a court of law and had to pay settlements? Kennedy found out that there has a been no oversight in the testing of vaccines. They were exempt from damages. Children currently are administered over 70 shots.

Kinda sorta. Vaccine cases don't go through regular courts though; there was a Vaccine Court set up when the manufacturers were given immunity (no pun intended) from litigation and prosecution. The Vaccine Court is run by the DOJ, with DOJ attorneys. So anyone who brings a case is fighting the unlimited resources of the federal court, and because the Feds are the "defendants", they have all the rights of a defendant, and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In these cases, usually the parents and children of those harmed by vaccines.

I don't believe any autism cases have won in the Vaccine Court. I could be wrong about that though.

Robert Kennedy has been fighting this like a bear. In one of the links in the OP, there were descriptions of how these issues are killed and buried in Congress.

a reply to: GenerationGap

I have zero faith in anecdotal personal subjective evidence.
I don't have to have faith in science. It is a fact.

Yes I do think that doctors that weren't dinosaurs in their field jumped at the chance for modern medicine. I don't know what city/town you grew up in but, I was born in the 70s and I got the all in one. My doctor clearly decided that modern medicine evolve, changes, and gets better. I wonder why others didn't...

I don't know about a rabies vaccine being needed on this thread, but I sure wish there was a critical thinking pill instead of the usual anti-vaxxer rhetoric.

Edit: Again, you got a star from me. Thanks for the laugh yet again! ...doctors are stubborn...they refused to change when something better came along....stop it!! Bahahaha