Vaccine/autism CT discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomtomkent said:
Dont be barbaric.

You cast them into an open fire and listen for hisses and whispers from the spirit world in thecrackling of the flames.

Sheesh. Everyone thinks England is so old fashioned... stone! Pah!
Click to expand...

Call me old-fashioned, OK?
But what was good enough for my father and his father and his father is good enough for me!
 
Clayton Moore said:
The questions are merely inane banalities to disengage the thread from reality.
Click to expand...

Disengage the thread from reality... by asking for you to actually support your claims with evidence. You can look back and see what statements you made about antigens being injected into the bloodstream. True, your idea of what constitutes a bloodstream was incredibly flawed. But, even if we accept your flawed definition, you have yet to offer any reasonable explanation why antigens that are in the blood stream through an injection differ from those that enter through other routes.

You made the assertion, why is it inane, banal or disengaging from reality to examine your statements? Surely as the "most" inteligent person here you would expect people to pay due attention to your statements?


I am guessing you know it was not inane, banal or disengaging from reality. I am assuming that is a handwave because you don't like it when people ask questions that would mean trying to make your assertions fit into the real world, where they will be shown to be flawed. I quite expect you to be desperately hammering any combination of words that enters your head into the keyboard because despite your "most" inteligent status you have no idea if there is a difference between antigens entering the bloodstream through an injection or natural paths, and can not justify or support your original statement.

You could prove me wrong quite easily by answering the question Tomblvd asked and showing what you stated has a reality to be disengaged from.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Disengage the thread from reality... by asking for you to actually support your claims with evidence. You can look back and see what statements you made about antigens being injected into the bloodstream. True, your idea of what constitutes a bloodstream was incredibly flawed. But, even if we accept your flawed definition, you have yet to offer any reasonable explanation why antigens that are in the blood stream through an injection differ from those that enter through other routes.

You made the assertion, why is it inane, banal or disengaging from reality to examine your statements? Surely as the "most" inteligent person here you would expect people to pay due attention to your statements?


I am guessing you know it was not inane, banal or disengaging from reality. I am assuming that is a handwave because you don't like it when people ask questions that would mean trying to make your assertions fit into the real world, where they will be shown to be flawed. I quite expect you to be desperately hammering any combination of words that enters your head into the keyboard because despite your "most" inteligent status you have no idea if there is a difference between antigens entering the bloodstream through an injection or natural paths, and can not justify or support your original statement.

You could prove me wrong quite easily by answering the question Tomblvd asked and showing what you stated has a reality to be disengaged from.
Click to expand...

Poor Clayton, always walking into the flame of a blowtorch.
 
Clayton Moore said:
The questions are merely inane banalities to disengage the thread from reality.
Click to expand...

This is the "reality" of the thread:

This was said:

Can so many vaccines, given so early in life, overwhelm a child's immune system, suppressing it so it does not function correctly?

No evidence suggests that the recommended childhood vaccines can “overload” the immune system. In contrast, from the moment babies are born, they are exposed to numerous bacteria and viruses on a daily basis. Eating food introduces new bacteria into the body; numerous bacteria live in the mouth and nose; and an infant places his or her hands or other objects in his or her mouth hundreds of times every hour, exposing the immune system to still more antigens. When a child has a cold they are exposed to at least 4 to 10 antigens and exposure to “strep throat” is about 25 to 50 antigens.
Click to expand...

And you replied:

Unreal. Injections directly into a baby's bloodstream is the freaking same as the above? The above is just criminal.
Click to expand...

From that statement the obvious question arises, why is injecting antigens (vaccines) "directly into a baby's bloodstream" different from antigens getting into the body in any other way?

It cannot be a more direct and applicable question. It addresses you point completely.

Now either answer it or admit you have no clue about what you are talking about.

For God's sake have some guts.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Disengage the thread from reality... by asking for you to actually support your claims with evidence. You can look back and see what statements you made about antigens being injected into the bloodstream. True, your idea of what constitutes a bloodstream was incredibly flawed. But, even if we accept your flawed definition, you have yet to offer any reasonable explanation why antigens that are in the blood stream through an injection differ from those that enter through other routes.

You made the assertion, why is it inane, banal or disengaging from reality to examine your statements? Surely as the "most" inteligent person here you would expect people to pay due attention to your statements?


I am guessing you know it was not inane, banal or disengaging from reality. I am assuming that is a handwave because you don't like it when people ask questions that would mean trying to make your assertions fit into the real world, where they will be shown to be flawed. I quite expect you to be desperately hammering any combination of words that enters your head into the keyboard because despite your "most" inteligent status you have no idea if there is a difference between antigens entering the bloodstream through an injection or natural paths, and can not justify or support your original statement.

You could prove me wrong quite easily by answering the question Tomblvd asked and showing what you stated has a reality to be disengaged from.
Click to expand...

Dude, if a person doesn't get that through the skin, bloodstream or not, is not your body's battleground of choice then my answering their questions would be like talking to a wall.

What would be the chance in nature that the measles virus would arrive through the skin? Pretty close to zero?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Dude, if a person doesn't get that through the skin, bloodstream or not, is not your body's battleground of choice then my answering their questions would be like talking to a wall.

What would be the chance in nature that the measles virus would arrive through the skin? Pretty close to zero?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the subject of the thread?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Dude, if a person doesn't get that through the skin, bloodstream or not, is not your body's battleground of choice then my answering their questions would be like talking to a wall.

What would be the chance in nature that the measles virus would arrive through the skin? Pretty close to zero?
Click to expand...

Here's the question that Clayton Moore didn't answer:

why is injecting antigens (vaccines) "directly into a baby's bloodstream" different from antigens getting into the body in any other way?
Click to expand...


Talk to the wall, CM. Tell the wall what the answer to that question is.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Dude, if a person doesn't get that through the skin, bloodstream or not, is not your body's battleground of choice then my answering their questions would be like talking to a wall.

What would be the chance in nature that the measles virus would arrive through the skin? Pretty close to zero?
Click to expand...
Wow, you are right. Pretty close to zero.

But, measles is an airborne virus, so you are wrong again. What a surprise.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Dude, if a person doesn't get that through the skin, bloodstream or not, is not your body's battleground of choice then my answering their questions would be like talking to a wall.

What would be the chance in nature that the measles virus would arrive through the skin? Pretty close to zero?
Click to expand...

Not the bodies battleground of choice?

Do you think that might be why some antigens travel through tissue contact?
Sneaky blighters. And imagine, there are all kinds of pores, cuts, abrasions and entry points they can use...

You didnt address the thing about what would make that antigen differently to others. I nolonger think it is the QUESTION that is disjointing this thread from reality...
 
Clayton,

Maybe you can just give us a brief summary of your understanding of how the immune system works? How does it develop in the fetus and child, what are the types of cells involved, where in the body do these cells first encounter pathogens, how is this regulated, and what are the most important mechanisms that attack foreign antigens? You've presumably studied this in great detail to formulate your own views, which differ from those of most (other) scientists, so you should be able to present your understanding of these crucial processes in your own words without just linking to these obviously incorrect and prejudiced scientific websites or articles. Then we can see why you are correct in reaching your conclusions, and the "dumb people you see" will be more willing to see your point of view. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom