Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[TheDemonLord]

Of course I would if I were :weird: It's not communist policy. You're fooling yourself by choice. My vote count was 214. And yours was?

No, it's communism Mk2.0 - same underlying hatred of Capitalism. Same underlying cries of 'Equality of outcome for all'. Same desire for a classless, governmentless society without the 'evil of money'. Same underlying flaws that render it completely incompatible with Human Nature.

And I would bet, everything I had, that if it was implemented on a national scale, it would simply be a matter of time before the Gulags, Stazi and 'disappearances'.


Capitalism is directly responsible for the greatest number of deaths on this planet. It holds entire continents hungry, applies sanction and embargo and brings about artificial scarcity.

Fuck right off - that is quite possibly the grossest misrepresentation you've ever made.

First up - in less than 100 years, Communism killed 200 Million people - that's not including Wars, that's simply Famine and political repression. Hell Pol Pot managed to murder a quarter of his own population. Even if I concede the corpses you pile at the feet of Capitalism (which I don't - and I'll get to that) the rate at which Communism murdered people is far far far in excess of anything the Capitalists ever did.

Second up - those entire hungry Continents - were they happy, well fed and disease free? I mean, they were living in communistic type communities right? But of course, failed harvests, Famine etc. are all concepts that are far older than Capitalism.

To make it Simple: Those continents were hungry before Capitalism, ergo not Capitalism's problem. However what you deliberately weasel out of is the very real fact that Capitalism is pulling about 100,000 people per day out of Poverty. It's giving them the ability to sanitize their water (something they never had), It's giving them the tools to make their agriculture more efficient, It's giving them Electricity to power devices.

But the simplest answer is this: If Capitalism was so bad - how do you explain China and Vietnam? Their economies were dead and rotting thanks to the poison that is Communism, and then they decided to try a little free market enterprise - and as if by Magic, the Economies started to recover.

The proof is in the pudding, problem is that you are too bitter to taste it.


Yet you'd stop me from wielding a machete even though I hadn't touched anyone with it? bwaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa. Yup, not your problem at all when you step in, claim you're a rational anarchist and then proceed to act like a fascist by preventing someone from exerting their own personal responsibility. Anarchist indeed :killingme. Your religion sounds a bit flakey to me. If you can't stick to it, then stick with fascist as it suits you perfectly.

Again - who is the Fascist?

The one who says "Do what you want, but be prepared to accept the consequences" or the one who explicitly says he wants everyone to be just like him and how much better the world would be if everyone were clones of him.

Your lack of self-awareness and historical perspective is Frightening.

Because you are exactly the type of Ideologue who would murder Women and Children whilst torturing the men in order to preserve your precious belief.

[TheDemonLord]

'Cos that's not the half I'm hoping for.

That was entirely my point.

You wish Death and destruction on half the Planet, so long as it isn't your half.

Who is the Fascist again?

[Katman]

Who is the Fascist again?

Care to point out where in the thread I've labelled anyone a fascist?

[TheDemonLord]

Care to point out where in the thread I've labelled anyone a fascist?

Who said anything about limiting to this thread?

It's just hilariously ironic that one who espouses love and compassion, is actually so bitterly jealous of those who are better, that they wish annihilation on them.

[Katman]

.....is actually so bitterly jealous of those who are better......

There's that autism again.

[TheDemonLord]

There's that autism again.

I'm not the one calling for the murder of some 3.5 Billion people.
I'm not the one who wants to see life returned to what it was before the Industrial Revolution.

You can call it Autism all you want, but your supposed mask of compassion isn't big enough to hide the seething resentment and Jealousy.

After all - how many times have you stated that it's not the fact that a company makes a profit you have an issue with - it's the fact they make 'Vast Sums of Money' - with you as the sole arbiter as to what is an acceptable amount to make.

And why would you have a problem with them making (in your judgement) too much money? Therein lies the green snake that slithers throughout your being.

[Ocean1]

Or did you figure the consequences of your choice would be somehow limited to some pesky rash?


Yes Chicken Little, that's usually the extent of it.

Then be advised that during various plagues it was traditional to burn the houses of infected individuals to the ground. After nailing the door shut.

I'll try and remember to say hi, but, y'know, so many fuckwits; so few nails...

[Katman]

Then be advised that during various plagues it was traditional to burn the houses of infected individuals to the ground. After nailing to door shut.

I'll try and remember to say hi, but, y'know, so many fuckwits; so few nails...

Dude, do at least try to come up with an original threat.

I've already had to deal with one KB fuckwit who threatened to burn my house down.

[Ocean1]

Dude, do at least try to come up with an original threat.

I've already had to deal with one KB fuckwit who threatened to burn my house down.

Yeah, it'll be a conspiracy.

[Katman]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17308763

[TheDemonLord]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17308763

A Sample size of.....










5.

[Katman]

A Sample size of.....










5.

Or is it 10?

And yes, they're aware that it's a small sample.


A limitation of our study is the small number of cases that were available to study and the
limited availability of tissue. Regarding the latter, having access to only 1g of frozen tissue
and just 3 serial sections of fixed tissue per lobe would normally be perceived as a significant
limitation. Certainly if we had not identified any significant deposits of aluminium in such a
small (the average brain weighs between 1500 and 2000g) sample of brain tissue then such a
finding would be equivocal. However, the fact that we found aluminium in every sample of
brain tissue, frozen or fixed, does suggest very strongly that individuals with a diagnosis of
ASD have extraordinarily high levels of aluminium in their brain tissue and that this
aluminium is pre-eminently associated with non-neuronal cells including microglia and other
inflammatory monocytes.

[TheDemonLord]

Or is it 10?

And yes, they're aware that it's a small sample.

So what they are basically saying is:

We know we are doing bad science, but it conforms with our Narrative, so fuck it.

[Katman]

So what they are basically saying is:

We know we are doing bad science, but it conforms with our Narrative, so fuck it.

No, they're saying that while the small sample was all that was available to them, the results indicate a strong connection between autism and high levels of aluminium in the brain.

Sorry if that doesn't conform with your narrative.

[TheDemonLord]

No, they're saying that while the small sample was all that was available to them, the results indicate a strong connection between autism and high levels of aluminium in the brain.

Sorry if that doesn't conform with your narrative.

From your quote:


would normally be perceived as a significant limitation.

It's a significant limitation for very good reason.

They acknowledge they are doing shit Science, then try to justify it by saying 'but we found what we were looking for, so it's fine"



Now - the finding DOES warrant a wider study with a much greater sample size and preferably a couple of scientists/activists who aren't heavily invested in finding a link.

[Katman]

Now - the finding DOES warrant a wider study with a much greater sample size and preferably a couple of scientists/activists who aren't heavily invested in finding a link.

I agree entirely that the findings warrant further investigation.

It's pretty much what I've been saying all along.

(Although I very much doubt that any scientist who undertakes such a study would ever get your stamp of approval).

[Graystone]

Results were photoshopped, also, what was their control group?

[TheDemonLord]

It's pretty much what I've been saying all along.

No, you want action taken now.

(plus all that resentful jealousy of Big Pharma making profits that you deem to be too much)


(Although I very much doubt that any scientist who undertakes such a study would ever get your stamp of approval).

Have you ever considered why that is?

Maybe because all the 'studies' you've posted are by a small minority of Scientists all have vested interests in finding a link?
Maybe because like this case - they've acknowledged that they are doing bad science with a laughable sample size, but then try to justify it as legitimate?
Maybe because the Research is funded by groups who actively promote an anti-vaccination stance?

[Katman]

Have you ever considered why that is?

Because you refuse to consider any evidence presented that doesn't conform to your narrative - regardless of the qualifications of the person presenting it.

[TheDemonLord]

Because you refuse to consider any evidence presented that doesn't conform to your narrative - regardless of the qualifications of the person presenting it.

Well, it's the most honest description of yourself I've seen...

[Katman]

Here is another series of videos presented in a similar manner to the series 'The Truth About Vaccines' that bogan recommended we all watch a few months ago (until he discovered that the videos didn't conform to his narrative - at which point he decided not to watch them after all).

http://www.vaccinesrevealed.com/

After registering, each of the nine 2 hour videos are available for free viewing for 24 hours over the next 9 days.

Now I'm aware that some die hard ostriches here won't bother to watch them, but if anyone does, I'll look forward to engaging in a rational discussion about the content.

[TheDemonLord]

I'll look forward to engaging in a rational discussion about the content.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh wait...

You're Serious?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA!

This is coming from the Man who continually refuses to Answer questions he doesn't like and then red-reps everyone when he gets his ass handed to him in a Debate.

[Katman]

This is coming from the Man who continually refuses to Answer questions he doesn't like

Speaking of unanswered questions - have you ever lived in Australia?

[TheDemonLord]

Speaking of unanswered questions - have you ever lived in Australia?

I answered, you just didn't like it.


And plus given our respective track record on said subject - this isn't the Pot calling the kettle black, this is a piece of Coal calling the Regimental Silver black.

[Katman]

I answered, you just didn't like it.

Well you didn't actually.

It was a yes or no question.

It's not even as if I was asking any mental effort from you.

[TheDemonLord]

Well you didn't actually.

It was a yes or no question.

It's not even as if I was asking any mental effort from you.

Again - you're upset that I didn't answer it with a yes or a no - but I still replied to it and answered it.

Also again - this is the Irony of the Century given your track record with direct questions.

[Graystone]

I'll look forward to engaging in a rational discussion about the content.

What was the control group used in the previous article you posted?

[Katman]

What was the control group used in the previous article you posted?

Any previous analysis of aluminium levels in non-autistic brains, I presume.

[Katman]

Again - you're upset that I didn't answer it with a yes or a no.

Not upset at all.

Just pointing out that you're every bit as guilty of not answering questions.

[husaberg]

This is coming from the Man who continually refuses to Answer questions he doesn't like and then red-reps everyone when he gets his ass handed to him in a Debate.
Its pretty safe to suggest we all know about Stevos male arse and cock predilection.

[Graystone]

Any previous analysis of aluminium levels in non-autistic brains, I presume.

You presume? if it is not covered in the article the only rational presumption is that there was no control group. Which is in keeping with their findings that there is no reason not to do more studies on this, but it underscores the obvious limitation of the study and its inabilty to deliver any sort of result.

[Katman]

You presume? if it is not covered in the article the only rational presumption is that there was no control group. Which is in keeping with their findings that there is no reason not to do more studies on this, but it underscores the obvious limitation of the study and its inabilty to deliver any sort of result.

Perhaps you should contact the journal and let them know that you object to the publication of the study.

(And I even quoted the bit where the study authors themselves pointed out the study's limitations).

[Katman]

And to be a little more specific, the study is comparing the findings with the figure of less than 1 microgram per gram of aluminium in the brain - a level that is considered 'benign' as opposed to 'safe'.

[Graystone]

Perhaps you should contact the journal and let them know that you object to the publication of the study.

(And I even quoted the bit where the study authors themselves pointed out the study's limitations).

Are you no longer engaging in a rational discussion about the content? I don't object to the publication at all, and while they did point out the sample size limitation, they did not point out a lack of control group. They did mention a previous measurements but only saw fit to include their own.


And to be a little more specific, the study is comparing the findings with the figure of less than 1 microgram per gram of aluminium in the brain - a level that is considered 'benign' as opposed to 'safe'.

That figure does not seem to be supported anywhere, their reference is to their own work which has a sample size of one. Do they have any evidence to say the aluminium content in the 5 brains they tested this time is higher than normal?

[Katman]

That figure does not seem to be supported anywhere, their reference is to their own work which has a sample size of one. Do they have any evidence to say the aluminium content in the 5 brains they tested this time is higher than normal?

You either haven't read the study or your comprehension of English is lacking.

Read page 6 of the study a little more carefully.

Get someone to help you with any big words.

[Graystone]

You either haven't read the study or your comprehension of English is lacking.

Read page 6 of the study a little more carefully.

Get someone to help you with any big words.

Page 6 is where they tell us what the level categories are, but the only reference in that page is [15], one to their own study which has a sample size of one donor brain. So surely it is wise to question if those levels are valid?

[Katman]

Page 6 is where they tell us what the level categories are, but the only reference in that page is [15], one to their own study which has a sample size of one donor brain. So surely it is wise to question if those levels are valid?

The study referenced at [15] has two authors in common with this study.

Have you got a link to the study that shows it only uses 1 brain as a sample?

[Graystone]

The study referenced at [15] has two authors in common with this study.

Have you got a link to the study that shows it only uses 1 brain as a sample?

15. A. Mirza, A. King, C. Troakes, C. Exley, The identification of aluminium in human brain
tissue using lumogallion and fluorescence microscopy, J. Alzh. Dis. 54 (2016) 1333-1338.

I just googled that title to find https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5088403/ "The donor was a 69-year-old man, originally from the town of Camelford, Cornwall, and known to have been exposed to aluminum during this, now, infamous event when 20 tons of aluminum sulphate were inadvertently added to the potable water supply"

[Katman]

I just googled that title to find https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5088403/ "The donor was a 69-year-old man, originally from the town of Camelford, Cornwall, and known to have been exposed to aluminum during this, now, infamous event when 20 tons of aluminum sulphate were inadvertently added to the potable water supply"

Then it would be fairly safe to presume it wasn't his brain that allowed them to determine the 'benign' level of 1 microgram/gram.

[Graystone]

Then it would be fairly safe to presume it wasn't his brain that brought them to the 'benign' level of 1 microgram/gram.

So what did?

[Katman]

So what did?

I don't know.

I wasn't one of the authors of the study.

[Graystone]

I don't know.

I wasn't one of the authors of the study.

Then something is lacking, either you need to read the study better, or they need to write it better. Their whole 'findings' such as they are, are predicated on the acceptance of those levels being a benchmark, without that...

I'd suggest looking through the other references, it is possible it was an honest mistake and they just cocked up the reference numbering.

[Katman]

Then something is lacking, either you need to read the study better, or they need to write it better. Their whole 'findings' such as they are, are predicated on the acceptance of those levels being a benchmark, without that...

I'd suggest looking through the other references, it is possible it was an honest mistake and they just cocked up the reference numbering.

Maybe you should voice your concerns to the journal editors.

[Graystone]

Maybe you should voice your concerns to the journal editors.

Do you want a rational discussion or not?

[Woodman]

Do you want a rational discussion or not?

Good luck with that..................

[Graystone]

Good luck with that..................

Well I figured he brought it up, so we shall see how far it goes...

[Katman]

Do you want a rational discussion or not?

Like I said, I'm not one of the study's authors.

[Graystone]

Like I said, I'm not one of the study's authors.

And you think that is a rational response? You are one of the study's readers, and if they had done their job correctly that should be enough to allow for a rational discussion, that is the whole idea behind journal articles; this isn't the youtube amateur hour, this is (or should be) actual science.

[Katman]

And you think that is a rational response? You are one of the study's readers, and if they had done their job correctly that should be enough to allow for a rational discussion, that is the whole idea behind journal articles; this isn't the youtube amateur hour, this is (or should be) actual science.

Dude, if you've got questions that I'm unable to answer and that should be better directed to the authors of the study, I fail to see how you consider that irrational.

[Graystone]

Dude, if you've got questions that I'm unable to answer and that should be better directed to the authors of the study, I fail to see how you consider that irrational.

You should have the same question is the point I'm making. Or should I rephrase the question, do you consider that they sufficiently substantiated their ranges of aluminium toxicity in brains?

[Katman]

Or should I rephrase the question, do you consider that they sufficiently substantiated their ranges of aluminium toxicity in brains?

Possibly not.

Do you have any better reference data?

[Graystone]

Possibly not.

Do you have any better reference data?

Correct. So how does this affect how you interpret the studies findings?

Better? Do they have any data to be better than?

[Katman]

Better? Do they have any data to be better than?

Then you should find it easy to better their data.

[Graystone]

Then you should find it easy to better their data.

The onus is not on me to do so, it is on the author of the article to provide it in the first place.

So how does their lack of such data affect how you interpret the studies findings?

[Katman]

So how does their lack of such data affect how you interpret the studies findings?

It makes me even more keen to see further studies done on the matter.

How about you?

[Katman]

http://ahrp.org/former-merck-scientists-sue-merck-alleging-mmr-vaccine-efficacy-fraud/

[Katman]

I'd suggest looking through the other references, it is possible it was an honest mistake and they just cocked up the reference numbering.

You're right.

The correct reference should have been [13].

[TheDemonLord]

You're right.

The correct reference should have been [13].

That speaks oh so highly of the Thoroughness of Peer Review that is undertaken by that Journal....

[Katman]

That speaks oh so highly of the Thoroughness of Peer Review that is undertaken by that Journal....

The article makes it perfectly clear that it hasn't been through the editing process yet.

(But your desperation to try discrediting anything that doesn't conform to your narrative is duly noted).

[TheDemonLord]

The article makes it perfectly clear that it hasn't been through the editing process yet.

(But your desperation to try discrediting anything that doesn't conform to your narrative is duly noted).

There's no desperation - These are things that are relevant.

If - as you say - it hasn't been properly peer-reviewed yet, then why are we even discussing it? Such a discussion is premature.

If it has been, then whoever did the review wasn't particularly thorough - which calls into question the validity of said review.

Add that to the hilariously small sample size used, and the vested interests of both the group that commissioned the Study and the parties involved in the study - it all starts to smell...


Plus I see you couldn't help yourself with the Red Rep and the "Retarded Cunt" Comments - So much for "engaging in a rational discussion about the content"

Although, I am somewhat pleased - Afterall, I posted an observation that you couldn't help yourself and were incapable of "engaging in a rational discussion about the content" - and there you are - 2 pages later...

If you were a Geothermal feature - I'd be calling you Old Faithful

[Katman]

Add that to the hilariously small sample size used, and the vested interests of both the group that commissioned the Study and the parties involved in the study - it all starts to smell..

If by "the group that commissioned the study" you mean the Children's Medical Safety Research Institute (who offered the grant that enabled the study), what exactly are the "vested interests" that they would have?

Heaven forbid that they should have a vested interest in children's medical safety.

And do you actually know anything about the authors of this study, to be able to make a call on their "vested interests"?

[Graystone]

You're right.

The correct reference should have been [13].

I know, and that is the correct answer to your previous post as well! so what is your take on the validity of article [13]?


There's no desperation - These are things that are relevant.

If - as you say - it hasn't been properly peer-reviewed yet, then why are we even discussing it? Such a discussion is premature.

It is an accepted manuscript, it has been through peer review, just no final editing and formatting. Focus on the content, not the container...

[Katman]

so what is your take on the validity of article [13]?

They found that the average reading for aluminium content throughout the samples of the 60 brains they tested was 1.02 micrograms/gram.

My take on the 'validity' of the article is that I assume they knew what they were doing.

[Graystone]

They found that the average reading for aluminium content throughout the samples of the 60 brains they tested was 1.02 micrograms/gram.

My take on the 'validity' of the article is that I assume they knew what they were doing.

The demographic of the donors didn't strike you as being a bit skewed?

[Katman]

The demographic of the donors didn't strike you as being a bit skewed?

Apart from the fact that the brains came from the Medical Research Council Cognaitve Function and Ageing Neuropathology Study brain donor resource, I didn't see any specifics about the demographics of the donors.

[Graystone]

Apart from the fact that the brains came from the Medical Research Council Cognaitve Function and Ageing Neuropathology Study brain donor resource, I didn't see any specifics about the demographics of the donors.

Donors were all over 70 years old.

[Katman]

Donors were all over 70 years old.

Well I must have missed that bit of information.

But just to clarify things, I'm not a research scientist. I'm just a motorcycle mechanic with a passing interest in the vaccine issue.

Not because I'm ever going to have to make a decision whether to vaccinate my own children or not but rather as a means to express my opinion that anyone calling for mandatory vaccinations can go fuck themselves.

[Graystone]

Well I must have missed that bit of information.

But just to clarify things, I'm not a research scientist. I'm just a motorcycle mechanic with a passing interest in the vaccine issue.

Not because I'm ever going to have to make a decision whether to vaccinate my own children but rather as a means to express my opinion that anyone calling for mandatory vaccinations can go fuck themselves.

I guess you have to decide if your passing interest is biased or not. You don't have to be a research scientist to ask the right questions and make a reasoned opinion on the validity of the underlying science, but you do have to have an open mind; but if you're only here to express your opinion that others can go fuck themselves, clearly you lack the open-mindedness to continue a rational discussion.

[Ocean1]

I guess you have to decide if your passing interest is biased or not. You don't have to be a research scientist to ask the right questions and make a reasoned opinion on the validity of the underlying science, but you do have to have an open mind; but if you're only here to express your opinion that others can go fuck themselves, clearly you lack the open-mindedness to continue a rational discussion.

I can't make out if you're fucking slow or terminally bored.

[Katman]

....but if you're only here to express your opinion that others can go fuck themselves, clearly you lack the open-mindedness to continue a rational discussion.

I'm quite prepared to accept that you may be more conversant with scientific research than I am, but on the other hand, there's always the possibility that you're just a classic example of the person described in the video you posted in the 'Poverty Measure' thread.

[Graystone]

I'm quite prepared to accept that you may be more conversant with scientific research than I am, but on the other hand, there's always the possibility that you're just a classic example of the person described in the video you posted in the 'Poverty Measure' thread.

And just how do you expect to find out if not with rational discourse about the scientific research? Or should I skip ahead and just state my opinion on what the research means so your bias can decide for you?

[Katman]

And just how do you expect to find out if not with rational discourse about the scientific research? Or should I skip ahead and just state my opinion on what the research means so your bias can decide for you?

Dude, go for your life.

You've showed since you started here that all you're after is an argument.

Are you autistic too?

[Graystone]

Dude, go for your life.

You've showed since you started here that all you're after is an argument.

Are you autistic too?

Thus endeth the rational discourse...

[Katman]

Thus endeth the rational discourse...

Fair enough, from here on I'll just treat you as the stupid cunt you like to pretend you're not - as per your video.

Stupid cunt.

[Graystone]

I can't make out if you're fucking slow or terminally bored.

Little of column a, little of column b. It's a bit like people watching tbh, interesting to see just how the minds of conspiracy theorists work (or don't, as the case may be)...


Fair enough, from here on I'll just treat you as the stupid cunt you like to pretend you're not - as per your video.

Stupid cunt.

...this one took a little longer to boil over than I had thought, I'll chalk it up to the breadcrumbs. Seems like a one use per username thing though, I expect this particular specimen will now read my future posts with such bias that rational discussion will not be possible.

[Katman]

... interesting to see just how the minds of conspiracy theorists work (or don't, as the case may be)....

Agenda, much?

Don't go kidding yourself that you were ever here for rational discourse.

[Katman]

...this one took a little longer to boil over than I had thought.....

Boil over?

Fuck off shitforbrains - you haven't even got me hard yet.

[TheDemonLord]

Fuck off shitforbrains - you haven't even got me hard yet.

Some might say that's Impotence.... Both literally and metaphorically....

[oldrider]

The ​Pharmaceutical CIA: How Sewage and Pollution Became ​Treatable Diseases https://needtoknow.news/2017/12/%E2%80%8Bpharmaceuticalcia-sewage-pollution-bec%E2%80%8Ba%E2%80%8Bme-%E2%80%8Btreatable-diseases/ :scratch: Interesting :corn:

[Katman]

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/1/123

[TheDemonLord]

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/1/123

Oh, David Geier and Mark Geier are up to their old tricks again.

[Oakie]

Ha ha. Seeing this thread reminded me that I need to make a plan for staff flu vaccinations again soon.
(At least it allows me to claim an item added to our Wellness Program.)

[Woodman]

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/1/123

Keep it up, you and the anti vaxxers are doing their bit for population control. Good ooon yoooou.

[husaberg]

Oh, David Geier and Mark Geier are up to their old tricks again.
Good old
Mark Geier, Geier's medical license has been suspended or revoked in every state in which he was licensed.



2003, a judge ruled that Geier presented himself as an expert witness in "areas for which he has no training, expertise and experience."

In other cases in which Geier has testified, judges have labeled his testimony "intellectually dishonest," "not reliable" and "wholly unqualified"
Geier's scientific work has also been criticized; when the Institute of Medicine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Medicine)reviewed vaccine safety in 2004, it dismissed Geier's work as seriously flawed, "uninterpretable", and marred by incorrect use of scientific terms.
In 2003, the American Academy of Pediatrics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Pediatrics)criticized one of Geier's studies, which claimed a link between vaccines and autism, as containing "numerous conceptual and scientific flaws, omissions of fact, inaccuracies, and misstatements." In January 2007, a paper by the Geiers was retracted by the journal Autoimmunity Reviews New Scientist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist)reported that the supposed institutional review board (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board)

(IRB) that Geier claimed approved his experiments with autistic children was located at Geier's business address and included Geier, his son and wife, a business partner of Geier's, and a plaintiff's lawyer involved in vaccine litigation,and the Maryland State Board of Physicians referred to it as a "sham IRB" that did not meet the requirements of state or federal law.


In a 2010 decision, the presiding legal authority made this statement: "In summary, I conclude that all of the Geier epidemiologic studies are not reliable, and cannot be accorded any weight."





But hes at least better than his son.




David Geier holds no degree nor other qualifications in medicine.
The Maryland State Board of Physicians charged Mr. Geier with practicing medicine without a license and, recently, the board found him guilty and fined him $10,000.










<strike>
</strike>

[Katman]

Keep it up, you and the anti vaxxers are doing their bit for population control. Good ooon yoooou.

Yeah, and one day we might have less DemonLards.

It's a win-win.

[TheDemonLord]

Yeah, and one day we might have less DemonLards.

It's a win-win.

The funny thing is, I've passed my genetic material onto the next generation. Whereas yours will shrivel and die when you snuff it.

It's a win-win indeed.

[Katman]

I've passed my genetic material onto the next generation.

Your child has my sincere condolences.

[TheDemonLord]

Your child has my sincere condolences.

Your chi...

Oh wait, that's right - you are too much of a pussy and afraid of responsibility to be a Parent.

[Ocean1]

More fuckwits.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/parenting/25-01-2018/spreading-like-a-disease-sick-kids-desperate-parents-and-bad-science/

[oldrider]

98th Holistic DR Found Dead! nobody seems to be asking questions! https://healingoracle.ch/2017/12/06/98th-holistic-dr-found-dead-nobody-seems-to-be-asking-questions/ :rolleyes:

Direct Quote from Erin Elizabeth:
“My (relative at his office) said that everything was out of ordinary as he checks in, never misses etc. He was a loved doctor on Pitttsburgh and speaks out often against vaccines.“ :doctor:

[Kickaha]

98th Holistic DR Found Dead! nobody seems to be asking questions!
They probably tried using their own cures and found they didn't work

[RDJ]

Or this...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/american-doctors-are-killing-themselves-and-no-one-is-talking-about-it

[mashman]

"Our observation of an association between repeated vaccination and increased viral aerosol generation demonstrated the power of our method, but needs confirmation.". (http://www.pnas.org/content/115/5/1081) Good luck with that.

"Self-reported vaccination for the current season was associated with a trend (P < 0.10) toward higher viral shedding in fine-aerosol samples; vaccination with both the current and previous year’s seasonal vaccines, however, was significantly associated with greater fine-aerosol shedding in unadjusted and adjusted models (P < 0.01). In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 (95% CI 1.9–21.5) times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons. Vaccination was not associated with coarse-aerosol or NP shedding (P > 0.10). The association of vaccination and shedding was significant for influenza A (P = 0.03) but not for influenza B (P = 0.83) infections (Table S4).".

So those who vaccinate for the flu, and get the flu, exhale 6.3 times more (or 630% more iffen ye prefer the dramatic version) flu onto everyone else than those who don't? Oh this should be fun.

[Akzle]

"Our observation of an association between repeated vaccination and increased viral aerosol generation demonstrated the power of our method, but needs confirmation.". (http://www.pnas.org/content/115/5/1081) Good luck with that.

"Self-reported vaccination for the current season was associated with a trend (P < 0.10) toward higher viral shedding in fine-aerosol samples; vaccination with both the current and previous year’s seasonal vaccines, however, was significantly associated with greater fine-aerosol shedding in unadjusted and adjusted models (P < 0.01). In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 (95% CI 1.9–21.5) times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons. Vaccination was not associated with coarse-aerosol or NP shedding (P > 0.10). The association of vaccination and shedding was significant for influenza A (P = 0.03) but not for influenza B (P = 0.83) infections (Table S4).".

So those who vaccinate for the flu, and get the flu, exhale 6.3 times more (or 630% more iffen ye prefer the dramatic version) flu onto everyone else than those who don't? Oh this should be fun.

i read up about tetanus the other day. since i reasonably often end up with rusty metal and dirt on the wrong side of my skin. 10% of people die from it, whether innoculated/vaccinated or not.
mmm science.

[mashman]

i read up about tetanus the other day. since i reasonably often end up with rusty metal and dirt on the wrong side of my skin. 10% of people die from it, whether innoculated/vaccinated or not.
mmm science.

What, rusty metal and dirt. Where can I get that vaccine?

[Akzle]

What, rusty metal and dirt. Where can I get that vaccine?

apparently you die before you develop natural immunity, too.

i could jab ya with something (rusty)...

[husaberg]

i read up about tetanus the other day. since i reasonably often end up with rusty metal and dirt on the wrong side of my skin. 10% of people die from it, whether innoculated/vaccinated or not.
mmm science.
Its 10% of people who contract tetanus die.
But Guess what dipwad, you don't tend to get Tetanus or any of the other common clostridial infections if that have been vaccinated.


Even with high quality modern intensive care units, machines and medicines, death occurs in approximately 1 in 10 of people who get tetanus.



Tetanus vacination gives a 93% reduction in occurrence of tetanus overall in a population which results in a 99% reduction in fatalities resulting from tetanus.
the Tetanus vacination does not provide lifetime immunity, thats why booster shots are recomended every 10 years.
If you had ever watched the agony in which an animal dies from what is such an easily and cheaply preventable clostridial infection you might actually check your information prior to posting such utter crap.

[eldog]

i read up about tetanus the other day. since i reasonably often end up with rusty metal and dirt on the wrong side of my skin. 10% of people die from it, whether innoculated/vaccinated or not.
mmm science.
Thought you only did that at Easter time.:headbang:

[Katman]

When doctors speak out.....

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vMJ6AaugP5w" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Paul in NZ]

Bloody Hell - hes a quack for goodness sake

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2018/01/12/whatever-happened-to-dr-daniel-neides-a-year-after-he-was-forced-to-leave-the-cleveland-clinic-because-of-his-antivaccine-rant/

[Katman]

Bloody Hell - hes a quack for goodness sake

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2018/01/12/whatever-happened-to-dr-daniel-neides-a-year-after-he-was-forced-to-leave-the-cleveland-clinic-because-of-his-antivaccine-rant/

Really Paul?

I'd thought better of you.

Are you channeling husaberk perhaps?

David Gorski (aka Orac) is nothing but a pharmaceutical industry shill.

[husaberg]

Really Paul?

I'd thought better of you.

Are you channeling husaberk perhaps?

David Gorski (aka Orac) is nothing but a pharmaceutical industry shill.

He may have earned a MD but as he pushes homeopathy as anthing but " cant do anyharm to try that as well as proper scientific treatment" thus he is clearly now a quack.
He is also a hypocrite as not so long ago he said this.
“Having survived the nightmare of the 2009 flu epidemic, you can bet I am the first in line with my sleeve rolled up. I hope many of you will take advantage of the many flu vaccine clinics that Cleveland Clinic has to offer. With a nod to Benjamin Franklin, ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.’”

[Paul in NZ]

Really Paul?

I'd thought better of you.

Are you channeling husaberk perhaps?

David Gorski (aka Orac) is nothing but a pharmaceutical industry shill.

Not really trying to live up to anyones expectations here. But the point is that anything you see on the net, including your video is suspect and more than likely placed there by someone with a vested interest BUT in this case I'm extremely wary of anything with 'wellness' etc. I have 3 chronic conditions and have been actively involved with support groups etc. The amount of damage done by crystal waving alt therapy wellness numpties has to be seen to be believed. People who claim they can 'cure' diabetes etc with magic plant extracts for example... Gah - the usual result is more pain and misery. I've seen people die because of it - anything from 'my pastor cured me' through to said crystals..

So in that direction I follow the hard science line - I'm alive and likely to continue on at least until the end of the day

However when I was doing the cancer thing I also threw in non prescribed diet (ie a vegetarian diet and no booze) for 3 years. Did it help? Well it didnt hurt and there are many peer reviewed papers on the benefits of this this (read The China Study) BUT I still went with the proper treatments as well.

I'm sorry but I have seen so many people hurt and broken by alternative practices to ever accept these people. I'm only alive today because of big pharma and please dont tell me I got sick in the first place because of them because things like type1 diabetes have been about forever (its an auto immune thing) and its just that before Insulin was perfected you just plain died - horribly.

[Katman]

I'm extremely wary of anything with 'wellness' etc.

Yeah, heaven forbid that there might be doctors out there who would prefer to make someone 'well' instead of just feeding them pharmaceuticals.

[Katman]

He is also a hypocrite as not so long ago he said this.

He addresses that point in the video.

Fuck off and watch it.

[husaberg]

He addresses that point in the video.

Fuck off and watch it.
No one ever watches your videos including it seems yourself.
Otherwise you would be able to accurately concisely summarise it for everyone.
Yet you can't

[Katman]

No one ever watches yourvideo including it seems yourself.
Otherwise you would be able to accurately concisely summariseit for everyone.
Yet you can't


Rest assured, I've watched it.

[TheDemonLord]

Rest assured, I've watched it.

Then you'd be able to summarize it....

http://i.imgur.com/jKDcEw9.gif

[Katman]

Then you'd be able to summarize it....

Or you could fuck off and watch it for yourself.

[TheDemonLord]

Or you could fuck off and watch it for yourself.

You really can't tell that I'm deliberately trolling you, can you?

Even with the Hand Grenade GIF?

[Paul in NZ]

Yeah, heaven forbid that there might be doctors out there who would prefer to make someone 'well' instead of just feeding them pharmaceuticals.

Now you see you dont actually help your argument there... The vast majority of doctors are very concerned about making people well and drugs are actually a part of that - not all of it but a part of it. Your inference is that doctors who prescribe drugs and not interested in their patients... Thats demonstrably untrue...

[Katman]

You really can't tell that I'm deliberately trolling you, can you?

I don't give a fuck what you think you're doing.

Like I said, fuck off and watch the video for yourself.

[Katman]

Now you see you dont actually help your argument there... The vast majority of doctors are very concerned about making people well and drugs are actually a part of that - not all of it but a part of it. Your inference is that doctors who prescribe drugs and not interested in their patients... Thats demonstrably untrue...

I suppose you're another one who's too fucking lazy to watch the video.

[Paul in NZ]

I suppose you're another one who's too fucking lazy to watch the video.

No I watched it - I just didnt believe him

[Katman]

No I watched it - I just didnt believe him

What specifically don't you believe?

Because quite frankly, it appears all you've bothered to do is google 'Who is Dr Daniel Neides' and then posted up the first link you could find of someone doing a hatchet job on him.

That's the sort of shit I've come to expect from Berkboy and LardArse.

(And btw, David Gorski does hatchet jobs on anyone who questions the whole vaccine issue).

[husaberg]

Rest assured, I've watched it.
Then you would have no trouble accurately concisely summarise it then, unless of course you haven't actually watched it or lack the ability to accurately evaluate information. Which is it.

[Woodman]

I suppose you're another one who's too fucking lazy to watch the video.

Have you watched any videos supporting the other side of your views?

[BuzzardNZ]

Then you would have no trouble accurately concisely summarise it then, unless of course you haven't actually watched it or lack the ability to accurately evaluate information. Which is it.

give it a rest, you try hard ladyboy.

[Katman]

Have you watched any videos supporting the other side of your views?

Post one up.

I'll let you know.

[Woodman]

Post one up.

I'll let you know.

You could just answer yes or no.

[Katman]

You could just answer yes or no.

Are you talking about videos extolling the virtues of vaccines?

Like I said, post one up and I'll let you know.

[Woodman]

Are you talking about videos extolling the virtues of vaccines?

Like I said, post one up and I'll let you know.

No I am just asking if you tried to balance your views at all. Starting to think you haven't.

[Katman]

No I am just asking if you tried to balance your views at all. Starting to think you haven't.

I'm starting to wonder if you've got anything worth viewing.

[Paul in NZ]

What specifically don't you believe?

Because quite frankly, it appears all you've bothered to do is google 'Who is Dr Daniel Neides' and then posted up the first link you could find of someone doing a hatchet job on him.

That's the sort of shit I've come to expect from Berkboy and LardArse.

(And btw, David Gorski does hatchet jobs on anyone who questions the whole vaccine issue).

Look you have been arguing on here way too long and you are in danger of being ridiculous by attacking everyone who has an alternate opinion. Its a bit like the name calling going on in american politics.

I have had massive contact with traditional medicine and it has saved my life (litterally) on multiple occasions and I have seen people litterally killed by alternative fraudsters. That means I look at the whole issue through a different lens than you do. ie due to my life experience I can look at the same video as you do and come to a rather different opinion. That does not make me automatically right BUT nor does it make you, looking through your lens right or wrong either. Maybe the truth lies between us but given the negative way you are adressing me I'm less inclined to listen to your argument...

By way of an analogy if I post up a video of a southern baptist preacher in full swing someone predisposed towards a belief in god might take this as proof of gods inspired influence. However despite the hysterical speach I see a self interested shyster. End of the day - neither of us may be right but once the name calling starts the trenches get dug and its all over.

This is pointless - you will end up hateing me for no reason and I will end up frustrated....

[husaberg]

You could just answer yes or no.
Steve can’t answer questions he has no answers only more and more outlandish conspiracy theories.
<strike></strike>

[Katman]

Look you have been arguing on here way too long and you are in danger of being ridiculous by attacking everyone who has an alternate opinion. Its a bit like the name calling going on in american politics.

I responded to your claim that Dr Neides was a 'quack'.

Go back and read it.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm starting to wonder if you've got anything worth viewing.

I think it's called "Reality" - you should try it sometime, the Graphics are pretty good, but the story isn't that interesting...

[husaberg]

I responded to your claim that Dr Neides was a 'quack'.

Go back and read it.
You didn't you just insulted the person who pointed out he why he is a quack, without providing any evidence other than your ill informed conpiracy derived opinion that is likely based on a video from a conspiracy site, that you never even watched.

[Paul in NZ]

I responded to your claim that Dr Neides was a 'quack'.

Go back and read it.

sigh - go back and read my rsponse where I gave my reasoning. you are toxic beyond belief now and are killing this site... good bye

[Katman]

sigh - go back and read my rsponse where I gave my reasoning. you are toxic beyond belief now and are killing this site... good bye

Gave your reasoning? Bullshit you gave your reasoning.

You gave the opinion of a pharma shill that you found on google.

Well done you.

[Woodman]

I'm starting to wonder if you've got anything worth viewing.

I don't have one, I am not interested in the subject but that wasn't my question as you well know. I was just asking if you have tried balancing your views. If you haven't then why not just say that instead of acting like a child.:tugger:

[Katman]

I don't have one,

I didn't imagine so.

[Katman]

I'm only alive today because of big pharma and please dont tell me I got sick in the first place because of them because things like type1 diabetes have been about forever (its an auto immune thing) and its just that before Insulin was perfected you just plain died - horribly.

This doctor might disagree with you.

http://www.vaccines.net/vaccine-induced-immune-overload.pdf

But I suspect you'll be happy to simply dismiss him as a 'quack' - probably without even bothering to read what he says.

[Graystone]

This doctor might disagree with you.

http://www.vaccines.net/vaccine-induced-immune-overload.pdf

But I suspect you'll be happy to simply dismiss him as a 'quack' - probably without even bothering to read what he says.

well if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...



...and addresses none of the points Paul actually made, maybe you're just an ill informed idiot.

[Woodman]

well if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...



...and addresses none of the points Paul actually made, maybe you're just an ill informed idiot.

And katman posted it up so on that basis alone it is not even worth clicking on it.

[Ocean1]

And katman posted...

...... Who?

[Katman]

And katman posted it up so on that basis alone it is not even worth clicking on it.

Probably a good idea.

I suspect there would be far too many big words for you.

[Woodman]

Probably a good idea.

I suspect there would be far too many big words for you.

Words like narcissist, competetelyuphimself or my favourite big word thinksheisalotclevererthaneveryoneeslsbutisactuall ystupidanddoesntunderstandthattheshitheseesonhisin ternetisduetothealgorithmrelatedtohissearches.

[Katman]

Words like narcissist, competetelyuphimself or my favourite big word thinksheisalotclevererthaneveryoneeslsbutisactuall ystupidanddoesntunderstandthattheshitheseesonhisin ternetisduetothealgorithmrelatedtohissearches.

Are you autistic?

[Woodman]

Are you autistic?

No..........

[Katman]

No..........

Even just a little?

[Woodman]

Even just a little?

Everyone is just a little autistic, even you.

[RDJ]

I don't have one, I am not interested in the subject but that wasn't my question as you well know. I was just asking if you have tried balancing your views. If you haven't then why not just say that instead of acting like a child.:tugger:

Yeah but, infants gotta infantilize. It's in his nature.

[husaberg]

Everyone is just a little autistic, even you.
funny because Most conspiracy theorists are obsessive compulsives.
Katmans narcissism takes it to another level

[RDJ]

this weekend while workingoverseas have just seen three paediatric patients with measles and one with tetanus. Completely avoidable with vaccination. Of course, some of the local trolls will argue that theses diseases are a CIA-inspired fiction, vaccines are a Big Pharma conspiracy, and what people in sub-Saharan Africa really need to avoid is the prospect of autism from over-zealous mercenary doctors wildly prescribing unproven vaccines. Yeah, right.

[Katman]

this weekend while workingoverseas have just seen three paediatric patients with measles and one with tetanus.

Wow, a whole three.

Did they all survive?

[oldrider]

this weekend while workingoverseas have just seen three paediatric patients with measles and one with tetanus. Completely avoidable with vaccination. Of course, some of the local trolls will argue that theses diseases are a CIA-inspired fiction, vaccines are a Big Pharma conspiracy, and what people in sub-Saharan Africa really need to avoid is the prospect of autism from over-zealous mercenary doctors wildly prescribing unproven vaccines. Yeah, right.

Hmmmm - maybe "you" are now a carrier of these diseases bringing them back home to infect the unsuspecting? :shit: .... :spanking:

[mashman]

lol@you're getting funded by the anti-vaccine lobby. Looks like important research with important ramifications. Wonder why the official institute that funded the initial research aren't interested in such a thing. It doesn't matter how smart science is when humans are still arseholes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syabv4Vsrpg

[Katman]

I'm forever amazed by the number of fuckwits who will happily crow that "autism has nothing to do with vaccines, it's a genetic issue" - all the while steadfastly refusing to consider the possibility that some people may have a genetic predisposition that prevents their body expelling the toxins contained in vaccines in the normal manner.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm forever amazed by the number of fuckwits who will happily crow that "autism has nothing to do with vaccines, it's a genetic issue" - all the while steadfastly refusing to consider the possibility that some people may have a genetic predisposition that prevents their body expelling the toxins contained in vaccines in the normal manner.

You'd still have to prove that those Toxins actually cause Autism. It's been theorised that there are environmental factors, but nothing even approaching conclusive has yet to be published.

Show me that study, and I'll consider the possibility seriously

[Katman]

You'd still have to prove that those Toxins actually cause Autism. It's been theorised that there are environmental factors, but nothing even approaching conclusive has yet to be published.

Show me that study, and I'll consider the possibility seriously

It's long been known that mercury and aluminium are both neurotoxins.

[Graystone]

It's long been known that mercury and aluminium are both neurotoxins.

So is water in some configurations and dosage methods.

Probably doesn't mean we should stop drinking it though.

[husaberg]

I'm forever amazed by the number of fuckwits who will happily crow that "autism has nothing to do with vaccines, it's a genetic issue" - all the while steadfastly refusing to consider the possibility that some people may have a genetic predisposition that prevents their body expelling the toxins contained in vaccines in the normal manner.

You'd still have to prove that those Toxins actually cause Autism. It's been theorised that there are environmental factors, but nothing even approaching conclusive has yet to be published.

Show me that study, and I'll consider the possibility seriously

It's long been known that mercury and aluminium are both neurotoxins.
So then it would be easy for you to show some actual creditable data proving a link between the two then, unless of cause you can't because there is no actually credible proof of any link at all.
Despite many attempts at finding a link........
I also note tetanus is a well proven neurotoxin
Especially interesting that you focus on Al and Hg as the poisoning effects of both of these clearly display none of the attributes that are prevalent in autism.
Yet the poisoning effects can lead to paranoia and low IQ both which you display clear symptom of.:clap:

[RDJ]

Anti-vaccines idiots gotta be anti-protection for the vulnerable. They are ignorant, dangerous, uninformed fuckwits. That is all.

[Katman]

So then it would be easy for you to show some actual creditable data proving a link between the two then, unless of cause you can't because there is no actually credible proof of any link at all.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24779346

[husaberg]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24779346
Yet no mention of a link between Autism and vaccination in your link.
In fact no mention of Autism or Vaccination at all.
Did you not understand the question on account of your low IQ?:laugh:
Just exactly how many thermometers did you eat for breakfast this morning Stevo?

[Katman]

Yet no mention of a link between Autism and vaccination in your link.
In fact no mention of Autism or Vaccination at all.
Did you not understand the question on account of your low IQ?:laugh:

My post that you quoted, where you asked your question, was stating that aluminium and mercury are both known neurotoxins.

Are you suggesting they're not?

[husaberg]

My post that you quoted, where you asked your question, was stating that aluminium and nercury are both known neurotoxins.

Are you suggesting they're not?
I was clearly not.

I clearly asked you to produce creditable evidence of the link you are suggesting between
1 Vaccination
2 Autism
You might want to lower the daily dose of Thermometers youre ingesting there Stevo.

[Katman]

I clrearly asked you to produce creditable evidence of the link you are suggesting between
1 Vaccination
2 Autism

Then you should ask questions somewhat more clearly.

And if you'd bothered to watch the video that mashman posted you'd have noticed trying to prove a link is about when the funding stops.

[husaberg]

Then you should ask questions somewhat more clearly.

And if you'd bothered to watch the video that mashman posted you'd have noticed trying to prove a link is about when the funding stops.
It would have been impossible to spell it out more clearly.
The post had the quotes to which I was refering
I'd suggest the trouble is you cant suggest a paper that provides a credible link between the two.

[Katman]

The post had the quotes to which I was refering


And we're all well aware of your habit of editing posts retrospectively.

[husaberg]

And we're all well aware of your habit of editing posts retrospectively.
Yeah Stevo that's the issue here rather than you not being able to provide a credible link that backs up your assertions of a link between autism and vaccination.:facepalm:
So now you claim to understand the question just where are the credable papers providing proof of a link?
#I note you edit every single one of my posts.

[Katman]

just where are the creditable papers providing proof of a link?

They've been posted previously in this thread.

Fuck off and re-read them.

[husaberg]

They've been posted previously in this thread.

Fuck off and re-read them.
Credible links no need for the potty mouth just because you cant find anything credible.:laugh:

[Katman]

Credible links no need for the potty mouth just because you cant find anything credible.:laugh:

The credible links have been scientific studies.

Fuck off and re-read them.

[husaberg]

The credible links have been scientific studies.

Fuck off and re-read them.

Well go on post them then. Its shouldn't be hard for you to do so seeing you are so sure they exist and all.
Unless of course you can't and are just stalling and adding further posts so in your mind less people see what a dick you just made of yourself on the previous page:msn-wink:

[Katman]

Well go on post them then. Its shouldn't be hard for you to do so seeing you are so sure they exist and all.
Unless of course you can't and are just stalling and adding further posts so less people see what a dick you just made of yourself on the previous page:msn-wink:

Like I said, fuck off back through the thread and re-read them.

[husaberg]

Like I said, fuck off back through the thread and re-read them.
You should have just said you have no proof of any credible links between vaccination and Autism a page back, It would have saved everyone some typing:msn-wink:

[TheDemonLord]

It's long been known that mercury and aluminium are both neurotoxins.

Never denied they weren't.

Still doesn't mean they cause Autism though - that's the bit you need to prove.

[Katman]

Still doesn't mean they cause Autism though - that's the bit you need to prove.

Dude, I don't have to prove anything.

I'm just asking questions and raising points of concern.

[Woodman]

I'm forever amazed by the number of fuckwits who will happily crow that "autism has nothing to do with vaccines, it's a genetic issue" - all the while steadfastly refusing to consider the possibility that some people may have a genetic predisposition that prevents their body expelling the toxins contained in vaccines in the normal manner.

Is this just asking a question or just raising a concern?

[Graystone]

Dude, I don't have to prove anything.

I'm just asking questions and raising points of concern.


Is this just asking a question or just raising a concern?

And how about this?


They've been posted previously in this thread.

Fuck off and re-read them.

[Katman]

Is this just asking a question or just raising a concern?

Well due to the absence of a question mark you can probably safely assume that it's just voicing a concern.

[husaberg]

Well due to the absence of a question mark you can probably safely assume that it's just voicing a concern.
So that's you finally admitting that you have no actual credible research that shows any links between vaccination and Autism other than your gut feeling established from one of your many conspiracy theories.

[TheDemonLord]

Dude, I don't have to prove anything.

I'm just asking questions and raising points of concern.

Raising points of concern, on what? That's where the whole "burden of proof" thing comes in, It's also where your conspiracy falls down.

And It's hilarious - because the burden of proof that we are asking is exceptionally low - show us a study, published in a respectable journal, by respectable researchers, with a sufficiently large sample size, showing a causal link.

[Katman]

And It's hilarious - because the burden of proof that we are asking is exceptionally low - show us a study, published in a respectable journal, by respectable researchers, with a sufficiently large sample size, showing a causal link.

Like I said to the other stupid cunt - fuck off back and re-read them.

[TheDemonLord]

Like I said to the other stupid cunt - fuck off back and re-read them.

So that's a "No" then.

Unless you are referring to that "Study" with 5 or 10 samples in it. Which brings back to the point that it doesn't even come close to meeting the minimum criteria.

[husaberg]

Like I said to the other stupid cunt - fuck off back and re-read them.

You can repeatedly call people stupid cunts and tell people to fuck off all you want even though its clearly against the rules of KB to do so, and doing so would earn anyone other than you it seems you a vast array of infractions. Maybe that's the real conspiracy here.:msn-wink:
Regardless all your foul mouthed abuse only serves to highlight the fact that's it becoming very obvious you have nothing that meets a very simple level of proof linking Vaccination and Autism.
Otherwise you would be producing it.

[mashman]

Before the rabid anti-vax bullshit is trotted out. Let's see what the experts have to say about the state of medical science in general eh.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” - Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” - Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ)

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” - Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal

NOW you can proceed better informed than you have ever been.

World Renowned Scientists Have Their Lab Shut Down After Troublesome Vaccine Discovery (http://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/04/17/world-renowned-scientists-have-their-lab-shut-down-after-troublesome-vaccine-discovery/)

“Because Gatti and Montanari had taken their research of nanodust and nanoparticles, from in-vivo (performed in a living organism) and in-vitro (performed in a test tube) to what unseen contamination might reside in vaccines in 2016, they came under the microscope of the United States, European, and Italian authorities. They had touched the third rail of medicine. They had crossed the no-go zone with the purported crime being scientific research and discovery. By finding nano-contamination in random vaccines, Gatti and Montanari revealed, for the first time, what no one knew: Vaccines had more than aluminum salts adjuvants, Polysorbate-80, and other inorganic chemicals in them, they also harbored stainless steel, tungsten, copper, and other metals and rare elements that don’t belong in shots given to fetuses, pregnant women, newborns, babies and toddlers developing their lungs, immune and nervous systems.”

All for the love of money. Well, what else? The well being of mankind? Are you our of your fuc.........

Tick tock.

[Ocean1]

All for the love of money. Well, what else?

Because that's what makes them work?

[mashman]

Because that's what makes them work?

Makes what work?

[Ocean1]

Makes what work?

Vaccines. Occam's razor says the most likely reason any particular ingredient exists is because it's functionally beneficial.

Either that or the bogymans are sticking it in there to dispose of vast quantities of toxic metals cheaply.

Or they secretly don't like all dem needy sick people and have decided to kill them.

Or the toxic sludge is designed to expose sheeple to the radioactive vapour trails, allowing the lizards to hypnotize them.

Or sommat.

Maybe.

[mashman]

Vaccines. Occam's razor says the most likely reason any particular ingredient exists is because it's functionally beneficial.

Either that or the bogymans are sticking it in there to dispose of vast quantities of toxic metals cheaply.

Or they secretly don't like all dem needy sick people and have decided to kill them.

Or the toxic sludge is designed to expose sheeple to the radioactive vapour trails, allowing the lizards to hypnotize them.

Or sommat.

Maybe.

Yes, they only serve a financial purpose. Well done. I had almost given up on you. Judging by the way the industry is protected from the findings of new scientific evidence, the promoted results are entirely financial irrespective of efficacy and a question mark over exactly what is in there and is these vaccine by accident, not design (shows you didn't read the article) effects on the human body. Myopic as always and now we potentially we know why.

[TheDemonLord]

Judging by the way the industry is protected from the findings of new scientific evidence

But didn't you just say that almost 50% of Medical research may be invalid?

You can't have it both ways sunny-Jim - either Research that is peer reviewed is Valid (and so your claims about "Research" being hidden have some form of merit) - or the entire field is corrupt and so too is this bit of "Research"...

[Ocean1]

the promoted results are entirely financial irrespective of efficacy

Well they wouldn't be very fucking financial if the product wasn't efficacious, would they?

Nor would there be a great deal of product efficacy if there wasn't any finance involved.

[husaberg]

But didn't you just say that almost 50% of Medical research may be invalid?

You can't have it both ways sunny-Jim - either Research that is peer reviewed is Valid (and so your claims about "Research" being hidden have some form of merit) - or the entire field is corrupt and so too is this bit of "Research"...
To be fair the guy that said it was the guy that published Andrew Wakefield then said the lancet didn't need to retract it. it was 12 years before they finally did.
Despite it being being proven to be a fraud that years before.

[RDJ]

But didn't you just say that almost 50% of Medical research may be invalid?

You can't have it both ways sunny-Jim - either Research that is peer reviewed is Valid (and so your claims about "Research" being hidden have some form of merit) - or the entire field is corrupt and so too is this bit of "Research"...

Context is critical - one horse in a race is always faster than another, but which horse...? Hint for the insightless; peer-reviewed research in some fields is much less likely to be valid than in other fields. You can do your own research on whether diversity-intersectionality-queer-people-of-furriness studies are more or less likely to lead to invalid conclusions, than in hard-repeatable-science-fields' studies, or not, whatever.

And as Fleming proved with penicillin, sometimes data are the plural of anecdote. For example, when I was training, before there was a hepatitis B vaccine, hep B was an actual epidemic in New Zealand and many people mostly but not exclusively Maori, died from it, and it was not a nice process for the sick. in training it was not uncommon for one or two students every few years' class to not be able to practice in 'invasive' fields of medicine (like surgery) after graduating, because they contracted Hep B during training and remained antigen positive. Even Hep A could have someone need to repeat a year because they couldn't study while they were sick for weeks.

Once Hep A and B in the vaccines came on the market, these occupational cases simply vanished. Unfortunately, because of less-than-near-complete uptake of the vaccine, we still have preventable Hep B cases in the general population. We also have the scourge of hepatitis C, against which every medical person I know wishes we had a vaccine already.

Now you can make fun of the science all you like and you can question the motives of the vaccine manufacturers and doctors and nurses who recommend and administer it all you like, we still have freedom of speech in most regards. But in the end, you're like the homeless guys sleeping outside a nice family home, drinking Thunderbird, belching and cursing the inexplicable success of the house’s inhabitants because they get up, go to work, try to improve their and other people's lives, draw conclusions from facts, test those conclusions, implement changes as best they can in what they see as useful, with what they have to work with, and get paid at the end of it.

[Katman]

But didn't you just say that almost 50% of Medical research may be invalid?

You can't have it both ways sunny-Jim - either Research that is peer reviewed is Valid (and so your claims about "Research" being hidden have some form of merit) - or the entire field is corrupt and so too is this bit of "Research"...

Making sense of these things called words really isn't your forte, is it?

[mashman]

Well they wouldn't be very fucking financial if the product wasn't efficacious, would they?

Nor would there be a great deal of product efficacy if there wasn't any finance involved.

Depends on how you sell them and how influential your client base is when it comes to white lies.

So negative Moriarty. The need would still exist. Why would peoples drive to want to solve that need not exist simply because money doesn't? Stop projecting and accept what the experts are saying. Money is destroying trust in medical science.

[TheDemonLord]

Making sense of these things called words really isn't your forte, is it?

Whereas you are still struggling with making sense.

Point being - if you are going to have a dig at Peer Review and Research - lambasting it as mostly invalid, you then cannot cite a piece of research to further your view point.

[Ocean1]

Depends on how you sell them and how influential your client base is when it comes to white lies.

So negative Moriarty. The need would still exist. Why would peoples drive to want to solve that need not exist simply because money doesn't? Stop projecting and accept what the experts are saying. Money is destroying trust in medical science.

Ohyeah, teh whole pharmaceutical industry depends on lies. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1645/20130433.figures-only

You still don't geddit, do you? Money is a unit of value. Money is a measure of work done, services supplied, products made. No money: no medical science.

But next time you go see the doc just explain that your need is more important that his and I'm sure he'll waive what little you already pay for his services.

[Katman]

Whereas you are still struggling with making sense.

Point being - if you are going to have a dig at Peer Review and Research - lambasting it as mostly invalid, you then cannot cite a piece of research to further your view point.

You rightly pointed out that the Editor of The Lancet states that possibly half of published research is invalid but then go on to draw the conclusion that either peer reviewed articles are valid or the entire field is corrupt.

[Katman]

No money: no medical science.

It's the incentive of making ever increasing amounts of money that has corrupted a significant percentage of scientific research.

[Ocean1]

It's the incentive of making ever increasing amounts of money that has corrupted a significant percentage of scientific research.

Sounds like a conspiracy to me, you should report that shit.

[TheDemonLord]

You rightly pointed out that the Editor of The Lancet states that possibly half of published research is invalid but then go on to draw the conclusion that either peer reviewed articles are valid or the entire field is corrupt.

You are almost there - There's a reason I use a superficially arbitrary standard:

1: The Editor never states which or what articles he thinks is BS - this Ambiguity is being abused by people who wish to use it as a reason to dismiss any published articles that are in direct conflict with their PoV.

2: In the stated opinion, to bolster it, they are using a published article (which has been subjected to the same scrutiny as the articles that are being dismissed) to bolster their PoV.

You can't pick and choose - currently It's one standard for the evidence that supports the viewpoint and a different standard for evidence that rebuts it.

[Katman]

You are almost there - There's a reason I use a superficially arbitrary standard:

1: The Editor never states which or what articles he thinks is BS - this Ambiguity is being abused by people who wish to use it as a reason to dismiss any published articles that are in direct conflict with their PoV.

2: In the stated opinion, to bolster it, they are using a published article (which has been subjected to the same scrutiny as the articles that are being dismissed) to bolster their PoV.

You can't pick and choose - currently It's one standard for the evidence that supports the viewpoint and a different standard for evidence that rebuts it.

So perhaps instead of automatically dismissing any article or study that questions vaccine safety and/or efficacy as simply being written by crackpots with an agenda, you could try considering the possibility that it might just fall into the category of valid research.

[mashman]

Ohyeah, teh whole pharmaceutical industry depends on lies. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1645/20130433.figures-only

You still don't geddit, do you? Money is a unit of value. Money is a measure of work done, services supplied, products made. No money: no medical science.

But next time you go see the doc just explain that your need is more important that his and I'm sure he'll waive what little you already pay for his services.

Oi, big boy. Eye of the prize and off my ass. You're a weak individual aincha. Hygiene and sanitation. Vaccines indeed.

bwaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa... I did say stop projecting.

They'd certainly owe me after the repeated misdiagnosis that landed me in hospital a couple of year ago. I'm sure the doctor chose to be a doctor because of the money they could earn :facepalm:. Geddit yet? Of course you don't :wari:

[TheDemonLord]

So perhaps instead of automatically dismissing any article or study that questions vaccine safety and/or efficacy as simply being written by crackpots with an agenda, you could try considering the possibility that it might just fall into the category of valid research.

Sure.

I've given you the standard of proof required.

It's not particularly high.

Problem is, that nothing you've ever posted comes even remotely close to meeting it.

Then - suppose for a minute, there was a study that did meet the criteria - you would have to weigh it against the MASSIVE amount of literature and data we have on the subject.

The fact that most of what you post as "research" is exceptionally poorly done, by verifiable Crackpots (and in some cases, convicted criminals) with a Financial agenda and you, as you are fond of reminding us, are always telling us - that financial incentives causes corruption.

[Katman]

The fact that most of what you post as "research" is exceptionally poorly done, by verifiable Crackpots (and in some cases, convicted criminals) with a Financial agenda and you, as you are fond of reminding us, are always telling us - that financial incentives causes corruption.

Are you suggesting that anyone who questions vaccine safety or efficacy has a greater financial agenda in doing so than the pharmaceutical companies that produce the vaccines?

[Katman]

I've given you the standard of proof required.

Take a read of the post quoted below.


And It's hilarious - because the burden of proof that we are asking is exceptionally low - show us a study, published in a respectable journal, by respectable researchers, with a sufficiently large sample size, showing a causal link.

Did you notice the number of 'outs' you gave yourself?

So you're wanting to have the call on which journal is 'respectable', which researchers are 'respectable', and what a 'sufficiently large sample size' is.

[TheDemonLord]

Are you suggesting that anyone who questions vaccine safety or efficacy has a greater financial agenda in doing so than the pharmaceutical companies that produce the vaccines?

Depends on how you calculate it:

a company that earns $2,000,000,000, that risks loosing $500,000,000 - that's a 25% loss in revenue.
an individual that earns $100,000, that could potentially gain $100,000,000 - that's a 100,000% increase in revenue.

a 25% loss vs a 100,000% increase - who has the greater financial agenda?



Did you notice the number of 'outs' you gave yourself?

So you're wanting to have the call on which journal is 'respectable', which researchers are 'respectable', and what a 'sufficiently large sample size' is.

Oh Gosh! You mean I'm actually enforcing some form of Standards?!? Heaven Forbid!

You know that these are the same standards I apply equally right?

[Katman]

Depends on how you calculate it:

a company that earns $2,000,000,000, that risks loosing $500,000,000 - that's a 25% loss in revenue.
an individual that earns $100,000, that could potentially gain $100,000,000 - that's a 100,000% increase in revenue.

a 25% loss vs a 100,000% increase - who has the greater financial agenda?

Seriously?

You pluck bullshit figures out of thin air and you expect me to take you seriously?

Fuck off shitforbrains.

[Katman]

Oh Gosh! You mean I'm actually enforcing some form of Standards?!? Heaven Forbid!

You know that these are the same standards I apply equally right?

The articles and studies that I've presented have come from peer-reviewed journals.

That they are accepted for publication suggests that the editorial staff of the journal considers the researchers to be acceptable.

[TheDemonLord]

Seriously?

You pluck bullshit figures out of thin air and you expect me to take you seriously?

Fuck off shitforbrains.

Awwww.

What's the matter? Don't like the fact that an individual who wins a case against ol' Big Pharma has FAR more to gain than Big Pharma has to loose?

Plus, those figures weren't entirely picked out of thin air....

[Katman]

Awwww.

What's the matter? Don't like the fact that an individual who wins a case against ol' Big Pharma has FAR more to gain than Big Pharma has to loose?

Plus, those figures weren't entirely picked out of thin air....

The authors who write these articles aren't taking "a case against ol' Big Pharma". (In a lawsuit sense).

And the figures you used are entirely plucked out of thin air.

[TheDemonLord]

The articles and studies that I've presented have come from peer-reviewed journals.

That they are accepted for publication suggests that the editorial staff of the journal considers the researchers to be acceptable.

And I've read almost all of the ones you've posted.

There are opinion based articles - which are devoid of actual experimental data.
There are articles with a woefully low sample size (was it 5 or was it 10?)
Most of which are published in journals that are considered "Predatory"
And the researchers - well, you've got convicted Fraudsters and Doctors who have been stripped of their license.

[TheDemonLord]

The authors who write these articles aren't taking "a case against ol' Big Pharma". (In a lawsuit sense).

And the figures you used are entirely plucked out of thin air.

Keep telling yourself that.

Awfully inconvenient for your favourite line of questioning - Qui Bono....

[Katman]

Keep telling yourself that.

Awfully inconvenient for your favourite line of questioning - Qui Bono....

Dude, they've written an article. They're not sitting across from a pharmaceutical company in a Court of Law.

[TheDemonLord]

Then you should fuck off back and read the ones you dismissed without bothering to read the first time around.

Why?

Let's play this at a pure numbers games - assume that you've got a study, amongst the pile of rubbish that you post, that meets all the relevant criteria (which you don't - FYI) - Now, we have to weigh that single paper, that has not had it's findings replicated against hundreds of papers that have had their findings replicated disproving any causal links between Vaccines and Autism.

Even if I grant you, that what you claim is true, you still have an overwhelming amount of Evidence you have to refute - which is why you resort to the hand waive of "almost 50% may not be true" - so you can dismiss it out of hand.

[TheDemonLord]

Dude, they've written an article. They're not sitting across from a pharmaceutical company in a Court of Law.

And why did they write the article? Out of the goodness of their heart? Or so they can then level a class action lawsuit (which they've tried before, but been thrown out due to lack of evidence) and win lots and lots of $$$.

Wakefield, Grier etc. all tried this and are all nothing more than trumped up common Conmen.

[Katman]

Why?

Let's play this at a pure numbers games - assume that you've got a study, amongst the pile of rubbish that you post, that meets all the relevant criteria (which you don't - FYI) - Now, we have to weigh that single paper, that has not had it's findings replicated against hundreds of papers that have had their findings replicated disproving any causal links between Vaccines and Autism.

Even if I grant you, that what you claim is true, you still have an overwhelming amount of Evidence you have to refute - which is why you resort to the hand waive of "almost 50% may not be true" - so you can dismiss it out of hand.

Dude, I get the fact that you love vaccines.

I also get the fact that you'd argue any story whatsoever - as long as I had an opposing view.

Perhaps it's time that you just accept there is plenty of evidence that supports the questioning of vaccine safety and efficacy.

[Katman]

And why did they write the article? Out of the goodness of their heart?

I'm sure a great many of them carry out the research and write the articles through nothing other than a strong conviction in the idea of inquiring and integrous research.

The fact that you dismiss every one of them as nothing but a crackpot with an agenda speaks volumes about your own agenda.

[TheDemonLord]

Dude, I get the fact that you love vaccines.

I really don't. What I love is facts and reality. What I hate is seeing gullible parents hoodwinked by Conmen and Conwomen and endangering not only themselves, but everyone around them.


I also get the fact that you'd argue any story whatsoever - as long as I had an opposing view.

Demonstrably not true.

I've often agreed with your perception of Riders and Hazard Awareness. I've agreed that there is enough evidence to warrant a better study, with the correct species of Mouse/Rat, in regards to Monsantano and Glyphosphate.


Perhaps it's time that you just accept there is plenty of evidence that supports the questioning of vaccine safety and efficacy.

Again - provide something that meets the barest minimum criteria.

Then you have to prove that it is a greater danger to public health than not going vaccinated.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm sure a great many of them carry out the research and write the articles through nothing other than a strong conviction in the idea of inquiring and integrous research.

And so why did they take every opportunity to testify as an expert witness?
Why did they come up with "Treatments" that costed thousands of dollars to "Cure" the individual?

As you say - Cui Bono and follow the money.

Your figureheads are just as corrupt (if not more so) than "Big Pharma" you rail against.


The fact that you dismiss every one of them as nothing but a crackpot with an agenda speaks volumes about your own agenda.

Based on their actions, they are crackpots.

Remember how they Chemically Castrated Children?

[Katman]

Based on their actions, they are crackpots.

Remember how they Chemically Castrated Children?

Do you judge everyone in the pharmaceutical industry based on the actions of Martin Shkreli?

[Scubbo]

looking forward to the Poliomyelitis epidemic nuking all the unvaxxed newbornes :weep:

hope the parents love looking after a paralyzed kid for the rest of it's/their life

[Ocean1]

Oi, big boy. Eye of the prize and off my ass. You're a weak individual aincha. Hygiene and sanitation. Vaccines indeed.

Graph says: "Uptake of measles vaccination and associated decline in the incidence of measles"


They'd certainly owe me after the repeated misdiagnosis that landed me in hospital a couple of year ago. I'm sure the doctor chose to be a doctor because of the money they could earn

Of course he did. You don't know many doctors, do you? But you go find a cheaper one, I'm sure the outcome will be far superior.

[Ocean1]

looking forward to the Poliomyelitis epidemic nuking all the unvaxxed newbornes :weep:

hope the parents love looking after a paralyzed kid for the rest of it's/their life

It's OK, dude, the state will take care of them.

[Scubbo]

It's OK, dude, the state will take care of them.

NZ's kit ready to roll

https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/04/10/sf25027_sq-0f6b5b41a3919281ad4df2dd7ad6a3fc10621d55-s900-c85.jpg

[mashman]

Graph says: "Uptake of measles vaccination and associated decline in the incidence of measles"

Of course he did. You don't know many doctors, do you? But you go find a cheaper one, I'm sure the outcome will be far superior.

Graph says measles was statistically on the way out the door anyway. (http://www.vaccinedecision.info/cgi-bin/viewcontent.cgi?article_id=37). Good old science claiming success.

I've known enough. Some even give a shit.

[Ocean1]

Graph says measles was statistically on the way out the door anyway. (http://www.vaccinedecision.info/cgi-bin/viewcontent.cgi?article_id=37). Good old science claiming success.

I've known enough. Some even give a shit.

:laugh::laugh::laugh: I'm surprised there wasn't a direct quote from Mickey Mouse in the firs page.

Fuck of you delusional idiot.

[mashman]

:laugh::laugh::laugh: I'm surprised there wasn't a direct quote from Mickey Mouse in the firs page.

Fuck of you delusional idiot.

Wasssup butercup? Sauce not to your liking eh sir. Not happy with the way measles was already well on the way out despite the globalisation that was taking place throughout that era. Or is it the usual cd. I know it's all 3.

[Graystone]

:laugh::laugh::laugh: I'm surprised there wasn't a direct quote from Mickey Mouse in the firs page.

Fuck of you delusional idiot.

It is funny how the anti-vaccers can take complex factors provided by advances in the medical community, like diagnosis trends (autism etc), and fatality rates (measles), yet pick both to suit their agenda. It's almost like they have not heard of the basic 'control group', double blind test etc. Double blind being an interesting turn of phrase for these fools, as none are so blind as those who refuse to see!

[Katman]

It's almost like they have not heard of the basic 'control group', double blind test etc. Double blind being an interesting turn of phrase for these fools, as none are so blind as those who refuse to see!

So I assume you can point us towards a few 'double blind' tests for the safety and efficacy of childhood vaccines then.

[mashman]

So I assume you can point us towards a few 'double blind' tests for the safety and efficacy of childhood vaccines then.

As well as those studies that have tested the vaccines upon vaccines upon vaccines. Funny, science spews up more evidence, as well as the guys who've put their hand up and said that they've lied, as well as respected medicals journals questioning the damage that money has done to the industry that opens up the potential for health issues further down the line in instance numbers by far greater than the number who die of measles, and yet some people believe that all's well in fairytopia land. Silly buggas.

[husaberg]

http://www.skepticalob.com/2009/10/latest-argument-of-vaccine.html

[Graystone]

So I assume you can point us towards a few 'double blind' tests for the safety and efficacy of childhood vaccines then.

Hehehe, read what husaberg posted, he saved me the trouble. You do make it too easy sometimes.

[Katman]

Hehehe, read what husaberg posted, he saved me the trouble. You do make it too easy sometimes.

I did read it.

That was why I was confident to call you on your 'double blind' claim

[husaberg]

Hehehe, read what husaberg posted, he saved me the trouble. You do make it too easy sometimes.
The rest is explained here.
Of course some will always think they know more about medicine than a doctor......:tugger:
http://www.skepticalob.com/2015/05/the-extraordinary-conceitedness-of-being-an-anti-vaxxer.html

[Katman]

The rest is explained here.
Of course some will always think they know more about medicine than a doctor......:tugger:
http://www.skepticalob.com/2015/05/the-extraordinary-conceitedness-of-being-an-anti-vaxxer.html

What about the growing number of medical professionals and scientific researchers who are asking the same questions?

Are they 'lay people' too?

[Graystone]

I did read it.

That was why I was confident to call you on your 'double blind' claim

What claim?

The correct answer would have been to point out why double blind tests are unsuitable, but you would have had to have heard of them and understood them for that...

[TheDemonLord]

What about the growing number of medical professionals and scientific researchers who are asking the same questions?

Are they 'lay people' too?

How many are we up to? 20? 30?

Although, to be fair, if we don't include Naturopaths, homeopaths, other "Doctors" and people who've had their licences revoked - it's probably about 5

[Katman]

What claim?

The correct answer would have been to point out why double blind tests are unsuitable, but you would have had to have heard of them and understood them for that...

Well it certainly seemed that you were misinformed about the trial process for childhood vaccines.

I'm pleased to see you're better educated today.

[Katman]

How many are we up to? 20? 30?

I'm sure you'd find there's a whole lot more than that if you were bothered to look - which you're clearly not.

[husaberg]

What about the growing number of medical professionals and scientific researchers who are asking the same questions?

Are they 'lay people' too?

Are these growing number of medical professionals you refer to, like your pilots for truth 911 you refered to previously
Ie when someone looks at it we find its predominately made up of bagagge handlers and flight attendants and not pliots.

But seriously, you need to figure out the difference between normal sceptiscism and what you post, which is almost all made up of unsubstaniated claims backed by zero evidence.

As for the double blind tests for vaccine
do you think its ethical to expose unvaccinated children to polio to test your gut feelings. Oh wait you have no children.
Perhaps you will be able to find heaps of people will to expose children to life threatening diseases in the antivax movement.
But you might find less so in the medical world willing to take part in it for obvious reasons regarding the health and welfare of the children.
I guess its a real shame for you that mengele never finished his work on children in WW2.
Do you understand why what you are suggesting is actually abhorrent.?

[Katman]

Do you understand why what you are suggesting is actually abhorrent.?

Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I wrote.

I didn't make any suggestion.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm sure you'd find there's a whole lot more than that if you were bothered to look - which you're clearly not.

Yeah.

Sure.

Where are they then?

Cause of the ones you've posted or referenced - virtually none of them have valid Medical Credentials.

[TheDemonLord]

Are these growing number of medical professionals you refer to, like your pilots for truth 911 you refered to previously
Ie when someone looks at it we find its predominately made up of bagagge handlers and flight attendants and not pliots.

But seriously, you need to figure out the difference between normal sceptiscism and what you post, which is almost all made up of unsubstaniated claims backed by zero evidence.

As for the double blind tests for vaccine
do you think its ethical to expose unvaccinated children to polio to test your gut feelings. Oh wait you have no children.
Perhaps you will be able to find heaps of people will to expose children to life threatening diseases in the antivax movement.
But you might find less so in the medical world willing to take part in it for obvious reasons regarding the health and welfare of the children.
I guess its a real shame for you that mengele never finished his work on children in WW2.
Do you understand why what you are suggesting is actually abhorrent.?

To be fair - we do have a control group - who are exposed to Pathogens without a Vaccine.

We call it "The Third World" - and wouldn't you know it! Child Mortality from preventable diseases is massively greater than the First world.

It's just a shame that viruses aren't precision guided munitions - cause then Katman would be up in arms about it...

[husaberg]

Yeah.

Sure.

Where are they then?

Cause of the ones you've posted or referenced - virtually none of them have valid Medical Credentials.

He once posted someone who only pretended to be a doctor.
David Geier.

[Katman]

We call it "The Third World" - and wouldn't you know it! Child Mortality from preventable diseases is massively greater than the First world.

It's a shame they don't have the same standards of hygiene and nutrition.

Then you might be able to draw some sort of valid comparison.

[Graystone]

Well it certainly seemed that you were misinformed about the trial process for childhood vaccines.

I'm pleased to see you're better educated today.

Sometimes, things are not as they seem :innocent: Attention and knowledge will help you find the truth!

[TheDemonLord]

It's a shame they don't have the same standards of hygiene and nutrition.

Then you might be able to draw some sort of valid comparison.

Oh, you mean like Japan? Where they stopped the MMR vaccine and had hundreds of Deaths due to multiple Measles outbreaks, whereas the UK during the same time period had none?

Like that valid comparison?

[Katman]

Oh, you mean like Japan? Where they stopped the MMR vaccine and had hundreds of Deaths due to multiple Measles outbreaks, whereas the UK during the same time period had none?

Like that valid comparison?

In 2000 Japan had an estimated 200,000 cases of measles. They had 88 deaths.

That's a 0.044% rate of deaths for those infected.

The population of Japan at the time would have been at least 120 million.

I'll leave you to work out the deaths per capita.

[husaberg]

In 2000 Japan had an estimated 200,000 cases of measles. They had 88 deaths.

That's a 0.044% rate of deaths for those infected.

The population of Japan at the time would have been at least 120 million.

I'll leave you to work out the deaths per capita.

Well lets see

The MMR scare caused a low percentage of mumps vaccination (less than 30%), In the same time period UK vs Japan.
There were up to 2002 measles-caused deaths in Japan while there were none in the UK
So how many of these what you deem insignificant deaths are easily preventable deaths of children.
Note the majority of children were still vaccinated for measles only it was 70% rather than near 100% they were also vaccinated at a later age.


Another interesting part of willingness to downplay these preventable deaths as being insignificant statistics.
This is not consistent with how you treat the possible deaths of a couple of children in Afghanistan in a war zone as being a NZ war crime yet the deaths of children due to Wakefeilds false trial as being so insignificant. This smacks of utter hypocrisy.

So if you are happy to use those Japanese figures, you will be happy to then accept these same figures used out of Japan prove that when the MMR vaccine was stopped the rates of Autism rose.
Yet you have clearly stated that you believe the combination vaccine causes autism, Thus maybe you need to explain why the Japanese figures that you are so happy to use above actually disprove your theory rather nicely.

With his colleagues Yasuo Shimizu and Michael Rutter of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, UK, Honda looked at the records of 31,426 children born in one district of Yokohama between 1988 and 1996. The team counted children diagnosed as autistic by the age of 7.
They found the cases continued to multiply after the vaccine withdrawal, ranging from 48 to 86 cases per 10,000 children before withdrawal to 97 to 161 per 10,000 afterwards. The same pattern was seen with a particular form of autism in which children appear to develop normally and then suddenly regress – the form linked to MMR by Wakefield.
The study cannot rule out the possibility that MMR triggers autism in a tiny number of children, as some claim, but it does show there is no large-scale effect. The vaccine “cannot have caused autism in the many children with autism spectrum disorders in Japan who were born and grew up in the era when MMR was not available”, Honda concludes.

[TheDemonLord]

Well lets see

So how many of these what you deem insignificant deaths are easily preventable deaths of children.
Note the majority of children were still vaccinated for measles only it was 70% rather than near 100% they were also vaccinated at a later age solely due to Andrew Wakefeild derived concerns.

Another interesting part of willingness to downplay these preventable deaths as being insignificant statistics.
This is not consistent with how you treat the possible deaths of a couple of children in Afghanistan in a war zone as being a NZ war crime yet the deaths of children due to Wakefeilds false trial as being so insignificant. This smacks of utter hypocrisy.

So if you are happy to use those Japanese figures, you will be happy to then accept these same figures used out of Japan prove that when the MMR vaccine was stopped the rates of Autism rose.
Yet you have clearly stated that you believe the combination vaccine causes autism, Thus maybe you need to explain why the Japanese figures that you are so happy to use above actually disprove your theory rather nicely.

As a point of correction - Japan's withdrawal of the MMR vaccine had nothing to do with Andrew Wakefield - they used a different strain of the Mumps virus for their Vaccine (The Urabe strain) which in something like 1 in 10,000 vaccinations caused aseptic meningitis (for comparison, getting the full blown virus has a rate of something like 1 in 1000). No one died from it, and I don't believe there were any cases of long-lasting side effects.

The main point however - that 2000 deaths vs 0 deaths - that's as close as you are going to get to a Double Blind test, 2 first world nations with world class health care.

And for the bonus point - depending on which metric you use - Japan also has the highest (or second highest) rate of Autism in the world. Which flies directly in the face of your theory - if it had ANY shred of truth to it, we would expect to see a decline or dip in Autism rates.

[TheDemonLord]

In 2000 Japan had an estimated 200,000 cases of measles. They had 88 deaths.

That's a 0.044% rate of deaths for those infected.

The population of Japan at the time would have been at least 120 million.

I'll leave you to work out the deaths per capita.

88 deaths in 1 year, vs 0 in the US, the UK, France, Germany etc. etc.

Do you see the difference - stop trying to use stats to muddy the waters - it's not a comparison per capita that matters, it's a comparison to it's Peers - which all had ZERO deaths.

[husaberg]

As a point of correction - Japan's withdrawal of the MMR vaccine had nothing to do with Andrew Wakefield - they used a different strain of the Mumps virus for their Vaccine (The Urabe strain) which in something like 1 in 10,000 vaccinations caused aseptic meningitis (for comparison, getting the full blown virus has a rate of something like 1 in 1000). No one died from it, and I don't believe there were any cases of long-lasting side effects.
Right you are although i think there were some deaths also some of the vaccine that was used had expired and was poorly made.

Official figures show there were three deaths while eight children were left with permanent handicaps ranging from damaged hearing and blindness to loss of control of limbs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-17509/Why-Japan-banned-MMR-vaccine.html#ixzz5Dd8ZyEzT

[Woodman]

I sense a katman dummy spit.............

[husaberg]

I sense a katman dummy spit.............
All evidence suggests he is a swallower:msn-wink:

[Katman]

Yet you have clearly stated that you believe the combination vaccine causes autism

If you really believe I have ever said that then I challenge you to quote one post of mine which shows me saying it.

The fact is that I don't know for certain whether it does or not.

All I have ever said is that there appears to be evidence that suggests there may well be a connection between vaccines and neurological disorders and that a) there needs to be far more testing done, b) a degree of caution should be exercised in the manner in which vaccines are administered and c) that if there is any question that any ingredients in vaccines are actually doing harm then we need to demand safer vaccines.