• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Vaccine/autism CT discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
RabbitHabits said:
Aluminum and Formaldehyde are both safe. Aluminum helps make the vaccine more effective, plus the amount of Aluminum is so minuet, baby formula has the exact same dose.
Production of Formaldehyde occurs naturally in the human body, so of course the minuscule amount in a vaccination is easily broken down by our bodies!

As for foreign tissue, the only thing you need to worry about for an infant would be allergies. "Influenza and yellow fever vaccines are produced in eggs, so egg
proteins are present in the final product and can cause allergic reaction. Measles and mumps vaccines are made in chick embryo cells in culture, not in eggs. The much smaller amount of remaining egg proteins found in the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine does not usually cause a reaction in egg allergic children."

Sources:

http: //ww w.aap. org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/ Documents/Vaccineingredients.pdf

http ://ww w.ncbi.nlm.nih .gov/pubmed/ 14871632

Conclusion: Your child will be fine after being vaccinated.
Click to expand...

That was hilarious.
Think about it. The companies that make FDA approved vaccines are the same companies that make the FDA approved drugs that you see law firms ambulance chasing for victims of on T.V.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
That was hilarious.
Think about it. The companies that make FDA approved vaccines are the same companies that make the FDA approved drugs that you see law firms ambulance chasing for victims of on T.V.
Click to expand...


Do you know the difference between drugs and vaccines?
 
Clayton Moore said:
That was hilarious.
Think about it. The companies that make FDA approved vaccines are the same companies that make the FDA approved drugs that you see law firms ambulance chasing for victims of on T.V.
Click to expand...

And you can prove they are the same companies?
What is the significance of "ambulance chasers"? Do you assume the opinion of a member of the public looking to make a claim trumps medical evidence?

Going to explain why discussing ones own child is in poor taste, but discussing the children of others is not?
 
Clayton Moore said:
That was hilarious.
Think about it. The companies that make FDA approved vaccines are the same companies that make the FDA approved drugs that you see law firms ambulance chasing for victims of on T.V.
Click to expand...

Not being from the US, I don't ever see direct to user advertising of prescription medications, but I can see how the ads negatively affect consumers.
The problem with drugs advertised on television in the US is that they aren't always truthful, the ads have a tendency to be more emotional as opposed to educational, and always put more emphasis on the positive effects of the drug, not the negatives, plus I don't think they are required to have the full FDA label either. All of this can mislead consumers and put pressure on healthcare professionals.
I'm not too familiar with the FDA and the US, or the surrounding politics, but the FDA does monitor the drug and the company when its out on the market, and they will make the necessary recalls if any problem arises.

All prescription drugs can cause harm, it's up to a trained medical professional to prescribe the drug that they see fit for that individual.

Here is an article you should read: ht tp ://ww w.sciencebasedmedicine. or g/index.php/gsk-pays-3-billion-fine /#more-21681

A quote from it:
There is a certain efficiency and motivation for innovation in the private sector approach to drug development. That seems worth preserving. But companies are chiefly motivated by profit, and when billions of dollars are at stake there is a huge motivation to bend the rules. We take for granted that companies are going to distort information when marketing their products to the public. Experienced and savvy consumers view all commercial and marketing activity with a skeptical eye and we do need to take some personal responsibility for protecting ourselves (let the buyer beware).
Click to expand...
 
Clayton Moore said:
That was hilarious.
Think about it. The companies that make FDA approved vaccines are the same companies that make the FDA approved drugs that you see law firms ambulance chasing for victims of on T.V.
Click to expand...

So, because these companies made mistakes(or lieing) in drugs they are making mistakes(or lieing) with vaccines as well.

That's YOUR measure of the validity of what they say is it?

May I remind YOU that YOU said there should be a lot of cell phone videos of the second aircraft impact on 9/11. There were no video capable cell phones in 2001. You were wrong, therefore by YOUR measure you are wrong about everything else as well.

Guess you should hang it up and move along now, right?
 
Last edited:
RabbitHabits said:
Not being from the US, I don't ever see direct to user advertising of prescription medications, but I can see how the ads negatively affect consumers.
The problem with drugs advertised on television in the US is that they aren't always truthful, the ads have a tendency to be more emotional as opposed to educational, and always put more emphasis on the positive effects of the drug, not the negatives, plus I don't think they are required to have the full FDA label either. All of this can mislead consumers and put pressure on healthcare professionals.
I'm not too familiar with the FDA and the US, or the surrounding politics, but the FDA does monitor the drug and the company when its out on the market, and they will make the necessary recalls if any problem arises.

All prescription drugs can cause harm, it's up to a trained medical professional to prescribe the drug that they see fit for that individual.

Here is an article you should read: ht tp ://ww w.sciencebasedmedicine. or g/index.php/gsk-pays-3-billion-fine /#more-21681

A quote from it:
Click to expand...


Quote:
There is a certain efficiency and motivation for innovation in the private sector approach to drug development. That seems worth preserving. But companies are chiefly motivated by profit, and when billions of dollars are at stake there is a huge motivation to bend the rules. We take for granted that companies are going to distort information when marketing their products to the public. Experienced and savvy consumers view all commercial and marketing activity with a skeptical eye and we do need to take some personal responsibility for protecting ourselves (let the buyer beware).



I was talking about FDA approved prescription drugs injuring, possibly killing patients. Law firms have been soliciting clients who have been victims of those FDA approved prescription drugs via T.V. commercials.

So who is to blame? The drug companies? The FDA? The doctors who prescribe the FDA approved drugs? The patients/victims?

Somebody is to blame. Law firms don't get involved with contingency law suits on a lark.

The vaccine companies? The FDA? The doctors who prescribe the FDA approved vaccine? The patients/victims?

The difference. You can't sue vaccine makers.
 
Last edited:
Law firms get involved in law suits with less than solid cases fairly often. Lawsuits are quite often settled on the basis of "nuisance", or in other words, "we can win this, but it will cost us $x.xx. We can offer to settle this for $x-1 and it will be cheaper for the bottom line."

And the existence of the "vaccine court"(a judicial body administering a no-fault system of compensation similar to workman's comp) would disprove your own claim that "youcan't sue vaccine makers".
 
Clayton Moore said:
That was hilarious.
Think about it. The companies that make FDA approved vaccines are the same companies that make the FDA approved drugs that you see law firms ambulance chasing for victims of on T.V.
Click to expand...
So because the system works and firms are policed by the occasional lawsuit, this bothers you?

Out of curiosity, what other system in your life runs with 100% efficiency?
 
Border Reiver said:
Law firms get involved in law suits with less than solid cases fairly often. Lawsuits are quite often settled on the basis of "nuisance", or in other words, "we can win this, but it will cost us $x.xx. We can offer to settle this for $x-1 and it will be cheaper for the bottom line."

And the existence of the "vaccine court"(a judicial body administering a no-fault system of compensation similar to workman's comp) would disprove your own claim that "youcan't sue vaccine makers".
Click to expand...

Think no fault.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Think no fault.
Click to expand...

I did.

The way it works is fairly simple. You get injured as a result of a faulty product or in a set of defined circumstances, establish that your injury is the result of the vaccine, or other cause and compensation is paid according to the established schedule.
 
Border Reiver said:
I did.

The way it works is fairly simple. You get injured as a result of a faulty product or in a set of defined circumstances, establish that your injury is the result of the vaccine, or other cause and compensation is paid according to the established schedule.
Click to expand...

Funny how the facts never seem to agree with CM? :rolleyes:
 
TheRedWorm said:
So I'm guessing that's a no.
Click to expand...

No need to guess- just look over the rest of this or Clayton's other anti-vaccination threads. The interesting thing to me is that someone can be so certain their anti-vaccination view is right (and 99% of doctors and biologists are wrong) even though they themselves admit to knowing almost nothing about the immune system, medicine, or biology. Imagine the level of conspiracy and evil collusion Clayton must believe takes place between academic scientists, medical doctors, the FDA, NIH, state health departments, and pharmaceutical firms to suppress "the truth." In fact the rest of the world must be in it, and the conspiracy must go back to Pasteur!

I've urged Clayton to read up on the immune system-I think it would greatly reduce his concerns...
 
Robrob said:
Funny how the facts never seem to agree with CM? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Here are some facts for you.


http://www.aapsonline.org/testimony/mandvac.htm
FACT SHEET ON MANDATORY VACCINES

The Centers for Disease Control admits that the reported number of adverse effects of vaccines is probably only 10% of actual adverse effects.

The Physician's Desk Reference cites adverse reactions to the hepatitis B in less than 1 percent. However, if more than 70 million American children receive the vaccine, that means more than 700,000 children are likely to suffer adverse reactions.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom