• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Vaccine/autism CT discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clayton Moore said:
All three concern in your face bald face lies.
Click to expand...
Yes, but so do TV psychics, at least all but one religion and bitcoin... there is no shortage of "lies" to choose. Why those ones? The 9/11 and holocaust stuff kind of falls together but the MMR thing is a bit of an outlier. You might just as well go for Morgellons, or electrosensitivity.
 
Clayton Moore said:
I note, by your lack of response
Click to expand...
Did you respond to something I said? My apologies, the board usually emails me when someone responds to me, and I haven't seen one.

Clayton Moore said:
that you feel that inhaling and ingesting germs is just as dangerous as receiving them through a puncture of the skin.
Click to expand...
The method of delivery only matters, so far as I understand, when it affects the survivability of said germs.

Clayton Moore said:
The plethora of questions I've received are nothing more than an attempt to confuse the issue.
Click to expand...
From one coming in late in the game, and having had to play catch-up, the vast majority of what I've seen are kindly attempts to educate you on the issue. People who took time out of their day to tell you that you're unreasonably putting the lives of children and infants too young to be inoculated at risk all for the sake of a sick trend, made by a man already proven to be a liar and a scam artist looking to line his own pocket. Please read up on the history of Wakefield.

Clayton Moore said:
Are you a doctor? is a favorite
Click to expand...
Neither of us are doctors, but that doesn't make us incapable of learning the difference between a reasonable argument and one made from pure incredulity. The people here have taken the time to address your concerns, and I've seen that you largely can't be bothered to change your opinion.

And I will say again that anyone unwilling to change their minds, when shown to be wrong, particularly when the very lives of young children and infants are at stake, is a despicable human being.

And I will close out by again begging that you read up on the history of Andrew Wakefield, and why the whole anti-vaxxer movement is founded on the words of a liar who didn't care who he hurt so long as it made his pocketbook a bit heavier.
 
Didn't the whole mercury thing start independently of Wakefield? He was more interested in things that might be associated with gut disorders that he could attach a patent to.
 
Clayton Moore said:
I doubt if you know much about either either.

Why are germs more dangerous through the skin?

All my life I've been told a puncture wound is much more dangerous than the average cut.
Click to expand...

Anthrax is more dangerous inhaled than ingested, which is still more dangerous than in a skin wound.
 
shuttlt said:
Yes, but so do TV psychics, at least all but one religion and bitcoin... there is no shortage of "lies" to choose. Why those ones? The 9/11 and holocaust stuff kind of falls together but the MMR thing is a bit of an outlier. You might just as well go for Morgellons, or electrosensitivity.
Click to expand...

tredaptive vioxx

Where does the dishonesty that these and other drugs, past, present, and future, were properly tested and honestly approved, begin/end?

The reason for the snafus? Greed.

The problems the vaccine onslaught is wreaking on our children seems obvious to myself and hundreds of thousands of parents. You say no way.

Yet everyone can see the misdeeds of the drug manufacturers and the resulting danger to patients.

Can anyone honestly believe drug companies would shortcut in their drug research and testing but not shortcut their vaccine research and testing?
 
Clayton Moore said:
I note, by your lack of response, that you feel that inhaling and ingesting germs is just as dangerous as receiving them through a puncture of the skin.

The plethora of questions I've received are nothing more than an attempt to confuse the issue.

Are you a doctor? is a favorite
Click to expand...
Oh this is rich Clay. The plethora of questions have been in direct response to your claims. You haven't answered a single one, only raise the spectre of more absurdity. So why should we provide responses when you don't have the courtesy of doing so?

Este
 
Clayton Moore said:
tredaptive vioxx

Where does the dishonesty that these and other drugs, past, present, and future, were properly tested and honestly approved, begin/end?

The reason for the snafus? Greed.

The problems the vaccine onslaught is wreaking on our children seems obvious to myself and hundreds of thousands of parents. You say no way.

Yet everyone can see the misdeeds of the drug manufacturers and the resulting danger to patients.

Can anyone honestly believe drug companies would shortcut in their drug research and testing but not shortcut their vaccine research and testing?
Click to expand...

I guess your inability to document your "hundreds of thousands of parents" ascertation will not stop you from repeating it, will it?

No one here is claiming drug manufacturers are immune to greed. But they and their products are under a lot more regulation, oversight, and inspection than most industries. And that includes international, federal state, and city agencies, independent scientists, and hundreds of thousands of doctors. So for people to cover up the damage you claim vaccines cause, it would require an unbelievably massive conspiracy by people who are not in the industry. Including large numbers of people dedicated to the public health and who also vaccinate their own children!

By the way, you do realize that the value and safety of vaccination was established as early as the 1800s, way before any pharmaceutical firms existed? Do you realize that people such as Jenner and Pasteur publically proved the value of vaccines at that time in front of skeptical audiences, without the incentive or help of drug company money?
 
Giordano said:
By the way, you do realize that the value and safety of vaccination was established as early as the 1800s, way before any pharmaceutical firms existed? Do you realize that people such as Jenner and Pasteur publically proved the value of vaccines at that time in front of skeptical audiences, without the incentive or help of drug company money?
Click to expand...

That's rich. 2012 drug research and testing is riddled with inconsistency and criminality but the
safety of vaccination was established as early as the 1800s
Click to expand...
 
Mr

Giordano said:
No one here is claiming drug manufacturers are immune to greed. But they and their products are under a lot more regulation, oversight, and inspection than most industries. And that includes international, federal state, and city agencies, independent scientists, and hundreds of thousands of doctors. So for people to cover up the damage you claim vaccines cause, it would require an unbelievably massive conspiracy by people who are not in the industry. Including large numbers of people dedicated to the public health and who also vaccinate their own children!
Click to expand...

I'd never dispute that you're an intelligent and caring person.

But you just proclaimed vaccines were established to be safe in the 1800s.

You're accepting a 200 year premise without reservation. That's just dam scary. Indeed, you're convinced that vaccine safety has no limits or boundaries. Somehow the unthinkable, the incessant increasing pollution of babies bodies away from a mother's breast has become a required norm.

Vaccines are known to have caused fevers and seizures.

Fevers and seizures are known to have caused brain damage.

Even Homer Simpson would see a likely connection.
 
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
I doubt if you know much about either either.

Why are germs more dangerous through the skin?

All my life I've been told a puncture wound is much more dangerous than the average cut.



ehcks said:
Anthrax is more dangerous inhaled than ingested, which is still more dangerous than in a skin wound.
Click to expand...

What does anthrax have to do with what I said?
 
Clayton Moore said:
I'd never dispute that you're an intelligent and caring person.

But you just proclaimed vaccines were established to be safe in the 1800s.

You're accepting a 200 year premise without reservation. That's just dam scary. Indeed, you're convinced that vaccine safety has no limits or boundaries. Somehow the unthinkable, the incessant increasing pollution of babies bodies away from a mother's breast has become a required norm.

Vaccines are known to have caused fevers and seizures.

Fevers and seizures are known to have caused brain damage.

Even Homer Simpson would see a likely connection.
Click to expand...

Yes, the concept of vaccination, and the basic safety of the idea, were established as early as the 1800s- ever hear of Jenner and Pastuer? Why do you think ridicule can negate historical fact? Yes, each new vaccine has to be tested afresh. But if anything, as technology and knowledge has improved, the safety of vaccines has further improved.

No, I'm not convinced vaccine safety has no limits. Very rarely some vaccines have had problems, but the vaccines in general use today have been shown to be safer than the risks of the diseases they protect against. I am a biological scientist and I not only trust vaccines enough to vaccinate my own children, but I am deeply grateful to every person who helped develop those vaccines. Wiithout those vaccines, there is a significant chance that at least one of my children would have died young of an infectious disease..

I will not even bother to respond to your favorite, but erroneous vaccine/fever/seizure/brain damage theory- it's already been discredited here by others. Stating that Homer Simpson would agree with your theory may not be the plus you think it is.

"the unthnkable, the incessant increasing pollution of babies bodies away from a mother's breast" has some nice alliteration in it, but otherwise is pure claptrap. I trust scientific facts, not emotional histronics.
 
There are several "germs" that are less dangerous if injected than by other routes. Influenza can only infect you if you breath it in, not if you inject it. In fact some influenza vaccines are introduced as aerosols into your lungs- an all natural approach. Does this approach satisfy you, Clayton?

But this discussion is basically silly: vaccines only contain non-infectious subunits, dead, or attenuated microbes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom