• 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.
Would anyone take 9 aspirins(different brands) at one time for a headache?

Do you think there has been a study of people taking 9 aspirins(different brands) at one time?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Would anyone take 9 aspirins(different brands) at one time for a headache?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would follow the directions on the label. Because the manufacturers actually know what they're talking about... Unlike you.
 
Disease and environmental effects certainly are worldwide, more now than ever before. Significant changes in diagnosis and classification are worldwide as well.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Would anyone take 9 aspirins(different brands) at one time for a headache?

Do you think there has been a study of people taking 9 aspirins(different brands) at one time?
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges.

Aspirin is aspirin, no matter what the brand. Vaccines are vaccines for different diseases.

You eat meals with 9 different ingredients don't you?
 
pakeha said:
That's interesting, CM.
Where did you find this idea?
Click to expand...
dafydd said:
Cue link to badly misinformed site.
Click to expand...
Clayton Moore said:
By thinking.

Hospital

More people = More contagions



Many adult patients contract deadly diseases in hospitals and DIE.
Click to expand...

Your psychic powers are awesome, dafydd.

Anyway.
CM, that's really ground-breaking reasoning.
More people = More contagions
Click to expand...
But, how do hospital births cause autism, do you reckon?
 
I think if someone blames vaccines and hospitals for a great deal of mankind's ills and they still use pretty much any modern medicine then they're a hypocrite.
 
If someone believes that giving 8 week old infants 9 vaccines during the same visit is reasonably safe they are way beyond all hope.

It's about profits. What's more important? The welfare of a million infants or 8 extra visits at at least $60 a visit.

The insurance company pays out $60,000,000.
Let's do the math.


9 separate visits would be $540,000,000.

Do my eyes deceive me? Did the insurance companies just save $480,000,000?

MMR $120,000,000 saving for a million children.

MMR 7.2 billion saving for 60 million children.

MMR booster ONE 7.2 billion saving for 60 million children.

MMR booster TWO 7.2 billion saving for 60 million children.
 
Clayton Moore said:
none are WORLDWIDE
Click to expand...

You don't think genetic factors are worldwide? What is the percentage of genetic code that changes worldwide?

If viral causes are not worldwide, then why would vaccination be the cause (as the vaccine would not be worldwide either).

How can you be sure environmental elements are not world wide? You dont for example consider oxygen to be worldwide? Mould? Atmospheric moisture?
 
Clayton Moore said:
If someone believes that giving 8 week old infants 9 vaccines during the same visit is reasonably safe they are way beyond all hope.

It's about profits. What's more important? The welfare of a million infants or 8 extra visits at at least $60 a visit. [...]
Click to expand...
What about someone who believes that giving 9 vaccines in one visit is not reasonably safe, without evidence for this belief, and in the face of evidence that the "too many vaccines" hypothesis is biologically implausible? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908388/

As for it being about profits... more visits means more chance of missing an appointment and being unprotected, spacing out shots leaves infants unprotected against serious infectious diseases for longer. Are you sure it's not about the welfare of the infants? If so, why are you so sure?
 
Clayton Moore said:
If someone believes that giving 8 week old infants 9 vaccines during the same visit is reasonably safe they are way beyond all hope.
Click to expand...
Poisoning the well, ad hom, not actually addressing the evidence.

It's about profits. What's more important? The welfare of a million infants or 8 extra visits at at least $60 a visit.

The insurance company pays out $60,000,000.
Let's do the math.


9 separate visits would be $540,000,000.

Do my eyes deceive me? Did the insurance companies just save $480,000,000?

MMR $120,000,000 saving for a million children.

MMR 7.2 billion saving for 60 million children.

MMR booster ONE 7.2 billion saving for 60 million children.

MMR booster TWO 7.2 billion saving for 60 million children.
Click to expand...

Even assuming all that is true, why do so few kids get autism? Why has no reputable medical study been able to produce a causal link?
 
Clayton Moore said:
If someone believes that giving 8 week old infants 9 vaccines during the same visit is reasonably safe they are way beyond all hope.

It's about profits. What's more important? The welfare of a million infants or 8 extra visits at at least $60 a visit.

The insurance company pays out $60,000,000.
Let's do the math.


9 separate visits would be $540,000,000.

Do my eyes deceive me? Did the insurance companies just save $480,000,000?

MMR $120,000,000 saving for a million children.

MMR 7.2 billion saving for 60 million children.

MMR booster ONE 7.2 billion saving for 60 million children.

MMR booster TWO 7.2 billion saving for 60 million children.
Click to expand...

What makes more money, giving vaccines, or treating the actual disease?

Do you realize how much money the physicians, hospitals and drug companies lose by keeping kids from getting sick?

Your arguments are completely backwards.
 
I just noticed that Clayton has completely changed his tune and made the insurance companies the bad guys, and the doctors just blindly go along with it.

Not a consistent thinker, are you Clayton?.
 
Clayton Moore said:
It's about profits.
Click to expand...

Nope. The National Health Service in the UK also uses the MMR vaccine and is a state owned health service. Most European countries have substantial state sectors in healthcare and it seems to be standard to bundle shots together worldwide.

The advantages are obvious: it saves on the number of trips that mothers need to take to the health clinic, reduces the number of injections a baby might have to endure, and there is absolutely no evidence that combining the vaccines has any side-effects.
 
Clayton Moore said:
If someone believes that giving 8 week old infants 9 vaccines during the same visit is reasonably safe they are way beyond all hope.

It's about profits. What's more important? The welfare of a million infants or 8 extra visits at at least $60 a visit.

The insurance company pays out $60,000,000.
Let's do the math.


9 separate visits would be $540,000,000.

Do my eyes deceive me? Did the insurance companies just save $480,000,000?

MMR $120,000,000 saving for a million children.

MMR 7.2 billion saving for 60 million children.

MMR booster ONE 7.2 billion saving for 60 million children.

MMR booster TWO 7.2 billion saving for 60 million children.
Click to expand...

So your WORLDWIDE conspiracy, across continents with nationalised or charitable healthcare is to make a profit smaller than the cost of maintaining the conspiracy?

Any evidence that any number of vaccinations will have ill effect in combination?
 
I'm surprised, Clayton, that you fell for putting a dollar value on the issue. As soon as you price something and point out there are costs involved, then money becomes a not uncritical variable.

In the UK, we have an agency known as NICE, which approves drugs for use by the National Health Service. An absolutely standard practice is to measure the effectiveness of the drug, e.g. a cancer drug, against its cost. Drugs that don't produce significant results but which cost a lot are not approved for prescription on the NHS. That's a simple cost-benefit analysis.

There are other cost-benefit analyses which work the other way. If a drug is proven to work, but produces side-effects, then the rate of side effects has to become considerable before the negatives outweigh the positives.

Gardasil, for example, has a reported rate of 1 death per 1 million doses, many of which do not appear to be connected to the drug; the rate of some critical side-effects is 0.2 per 100,000. That is about as good as it gets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom