Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[Giordano]

I can read.

http://www.nature.com/nature/insights/6968.html






Protein folding symposium Protein folding and disease
The Horizon Symposia series launched with this meeting at Palazzo Arzaga in Italy on 3rd-5th October 2002.

http://www.nature.com/horizon/proteinfolding/index.html

Already explained to you, just a few post up. A few misfolded proteins cause disease. Some cause Hollidaise sauce. Most are inert.

Were any misfolded vaccines implicated as causing autism at this conference?

Have you shown us any scientific study that indicates vaccines cause autism?

 

[dafydd]

Already explained to you, just a few post up. A few misfolded proteins cause disease. Some cause Hollidaise sauce.

I love Hollandaise and Bearnaise sauce. I've been fat fingering them into my system for years. Help!!!!!

 

[Giordano]

That made absolutely no sense.

I suspect you were able to figure this out by now, but just in case, I'll simplify it even further:

You observe that a substance has promise for the prevention or treatment of a dangerous disease. You clearly would like to help people who have the disease, but you also want to be certain the substance really works and is safe. So you test it, right? How does this testing scheme seem to you?

Test the substance in cells grown in a petri plate. If it looks like it works and doesn't hurt the cells:
Test the substance in a variety of different animals. If it looks like it works and doesn't hurt the animals:
Test the substance in a small number of human volunteers. If it looks like it works (recognizing the statistics of small samples are tricky) and if it doesn't hurt the volunteers:
Test the substance in a larger number of human volunteers. Study how the substance is metabolized, what it is converted into, how long it stays in the body, and how it is excreted. If it looks like it works and doesn't hurt this group:
Test the substance in a still larger group of volunteers. If it works and doesn't hurt this group:
Allow it to be used by doctors to treat the disease. But continue to monitor it and require any adverse effects to be reported. If there are problems, limit or ban further use of the drug.

Clayton, the question I asked you was: if this testing strategy was put into place, would it overcome your concern that a given "substance," when put in the body, might be dangerous? Remember, the substance has the promise to help treat a disease that itself is dangerous: you can't just say it is safer to do nothing...

 

[dafydd]

There you are Clayton, even a child could understand that.

 

[Giordano]

BTW Wakefield wasn't the soul source of the Lancet paper. If Wakefield had done something unethical in relation to the children who were discussed in the Lancet paper their parents would have sued him into next week.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/lancet-retracts-wakefield-article/



http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/04/the-lancet-should-reinstate-the-andrew-wakefield-paper.html


http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/wakefield’s-lancet paper vindicated/


PDF Download:
http://childhealthsafety.files.word...il-exchanges-autistic-conditions-vaccines.pdf

Did you read these links? They don't show Wakefield in a positive light at all.

Do you think having 10 of your coauthors and the journal retract your big paper is an endorsement? Do you think having a 5 member tribunal of the GMC conclude that you are guilty of falsification, dishonesty, and medical abuse of developmentally challenged children a postive assessment? Is being struck off the medical registry and banned from practicing medicine in the UK a good thing?

And by the way, your last link does not directly relate to Wakefield's "findings" and certainly does not exonerate him in any way.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I suspect you were able to figure this out by now, but just in case, I'll simplify it even further:

You observe that a substance has promise for the prevention or treatment of a dangerous disease. You clearly would like to help people who have the disease, but you also want to be certain the substance really works and is safe. So you test it, right? How does this testing scheme seem to you?

Test the substance in cells grown in a petri plate. If it looks like it works and doesn't hurt the cells:
Test the substance in a variety of different animals. If it looks like it works and doesn't hurt the animals:
Test the substance in a small number of human volunteers. If it looks like it works (recognizing the statistics of small samples are tricky) and if it doesn't hurt the volunteers:
Test the substance in a larger number of human volunteers. Study how the substance is metabolized, what it is converted into, how long it stays in the body, and how it is excreted. If it looks like it works and doesn't hurt this group:
Test the substance in a still larger group of volunteers. If it works and doesn't hurt this group:
Allow it to be used by doctors to treat the disease. But continue to monitor it and require any adverse effects to be reported. If there are problems, limit or ban further use of the drug.

Clayton, the question I asked you was: if this testing strategy was put into place, would it overcome your concern that a given "substance," when put in the body, might be dangerous? Remember, the substance has the promise to help treat a disease that itself is dangerous: you can't just say it is safer to do nothing...

Treat what disease? How does a vaccine treat a disease?

 

[dafydd]

Treat what disease? How does a vaccine treat a disease?

You read, but you do not comprehend.

''You observe that a substance has promise for the prevention or treatment of a dangerous disease.''

''But continue to monitor it and require any adverse effects to be reported. If there are problems, limit or ban further use of the drug.''

Vaccines were not mentioned. Giordiano did not get through to you. I have no idea how it could be made any simpler.

 

[Clayton Moore]

You read, but you do not comprehend.

''You observe that a substance has promise for the prevention or treatment of a dangerous disease.''

''But continue to monitor it and require any adverse effects to be reported. If there are problems, limit or ban further use of the drug.''

Vaccines were not mentioned. Giordiano did not get through to you. I have no idea how it could be made any simpler.

The thread is about vaccines and autism.

[Split Thread] Vaccine/autism CT discussion

 

[dafydd]

The thread is about vaccines and autism.

The debate about that ended pages ago. There is no connection. The post was clear to those who can understand.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I suspect you were able to figure this out by now, but just in case, I'll simplify it even further:

You observe that a substance has promise for the prevention or treatment of a dangerous disease. You clearly would like to help people who have the disease, but you also want to be certain the substance really works and is safe. So you test it, right? How does this testing scheme seem to you?

Test the substance in cells grown in a petri plate. If it looks like it works and doesn't hurt the cells:
Test the substance in a variety of different animals. If it looks like it works and doesn't hurt the animals:
Test the substance in a small number of human volunteers. If it looks like it works (recognizing the statistics of small samples are tricky) and if it doesn't hurt the volunteers:
Test the substance in a larger number of human volunteers. Study how the substance is metabolized, what it is converted into, how long it stays in the body, and how it is excreted. If it looks like it works and doesn't hurt this group:
Test the substance in a still larger group of volunteers. If it works and doesn't hurt this group:
Allow it to be used by doctors to treat the disease. But continue to monitor it and require any adverse effects to be reported. If there are problems, limit or ban further use of the drug.

Clayton, the question I asked you was: if this testing strategy was put into place, would it overcome your concern that a given "substance," when put in the body, might be dangerous? Remember, the substance has the promise to help treat a disease that itself is dangerous: you can't just say it is safer to do nothing...

BTW childhood vaccines aren't tested on children.

 

[dafydd]

BTW childhood vaccines aren't tested on children.

Evidence? Vaccines are thoroughly tested, as you would know if you knew anything about the subject.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-flu-vaccines-tested-on-children-1800577.html

 

[Chris Haynes]

And then when you are done with that, you can read this table on thimerosal amounts in vaccines in the American pediatric schedule. Then tell us which on that this are only available with thimerosal. That means that none of the vaccines that have the word "free" in the thimerosal column.

Note that several of the influenza vaccines do not have thimerosal, so it is not influenza vaccine.

Mr. Moore, you seem to have trouble answering this very simple question. This is the third time I have asked. Do you have issues reading the table? All you have to do is tell us which vaccines only come with thimerosal, with no thimerosal-free versions.

 

[dafydd]

Mr. Moore, you seem to have trouble answering this very simple question. This is the third time I have asked. Do you have issues reading the table? All you have to do is tell us which vaccines only come with thimerosal, with no thimerosal-free versions.

You are attempting to introduce facts into the anti-vacc world. It is doomed to failure.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Evidence? Vaccines are thoroughly tested, as you would know if you knew anything about the subject.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-flu-vaccines-tested-on-children-1800577.html

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
BTW childhood vaccines aren't tested on children.

 

[crhkrebs]

The thread is about vaccines and autism.

[Split Thread] Vaccine/autism CT discussion

Yes, but it was you who initially linked to the study that showed that vaccinations treated mice with Alzheimer's disease. The vaccines produced antibodies against the beta-amyloid proteins that formed around affected brain cells. The mice then showed some neurological improvement.

Have you forgotten that already? Do you remember that you tried to implicate vaccines with Alzheimer's disease? Remember that?

As explained above, you totally failed with the "vaccines cause autism" argument a few pages ago. And you've been dodging it ever since.

By the way, I applaud your use of the "jaw dropping" smilie in your comment above. Most appropriate!

 

[crhkrebs]

BTW Wakefield wasn't the soul source of the Lancet paper. If Wakefield had done something unethical in relation to the children who were discussed in the Lancet paper their parents would have sued him into next week.

Thanks for your expert legal opinion.

Here is a good summary on the (non-)relationship between MMR and Autism from the AMA.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/phy...ric-vaccination/relationship-between-mmr.page

Oh look.......autism begins in utero and has a genetic basis (those pesky twin studies again!)

 

[Giordano]

The thread is about vaccines and autism.

[Split Thread] Vaccine/autism CT discussion

Did you miss the part about, "treatment or prevention" of a disease?

Or do you think a vaccine is not a substance? That would be odd because I was quoting your own post that referred to vaccines as substances. And of course vaccines are composed of substances.

Or do you have a big problem with me including vaccines informally in a larger category of drugs because they are tested in the same way? That would be odd, because I do recall quite a few of your posts in this thread that cited problems with drugs used for treatment of diseases when you were trying to attack the safety of vaccines.

But I know that you don't want us to get distracted from the core of my post or from my question to you. Heaven forbid!

So, to clarify, I am explicitedly asking: if vaccines were tested in the fashion I described, would that satisfy your concerns?

 

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
BTW childhood vaccines aren't tested on children.

You've posted this at least three times, but that doesn't make it correct. At minimum you somehow missed reading posts 3175 and 3186. And yes, the latter includes the USA studies you demanded. Oh wait, does that mean that you did read post 3175 but chose to pretend you hadn't? Or does BTW mean something other than "by the way?"- like some form of negation of what follows?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Dunno about you, but I can expect to live twice as long as the vast majority of my forefathers. Perhaps you have it exactly backwards... staying "natural" was actually what was killing us early! Hooray, chemicals!



Are you seriously suggesting that modern science, the same modern science that pretty much DEMANDS that anything and everything be challenged, the same modern science where new graduating scientists can make their carreers by PROVING someone else wrong, has somehow fielded an entire world full of scientists who somehow all managed to agree to collude to "surpress the truth"?

I hope you don't take offense at my saying so, but that's seriously nutty.

It's not so much a suppression of the truth as it is looking the other way and not rocking the vaccine trillions of dollars gravy train.

For about a century the government of the largest country in the world lied to its citizens with impunity. Whatever the communists said was the absolute truth. To this day whatever the government of the most populated country in the world says is pretty much the truth or else.

It didn't matter a hoot what 10s of thousands of freethinking Clayton Solzhenitsyns or Clayton Xiaonings thought.

In the case of Chinese dissident Wang Xiaoning an American corporation provided evidence that led to his conviction.

 

[Giordano]

When I've seen fish caught on a line, they eventually stop flopping around. But Clayton's arguments, when caught on a fact, seem to keep flopping around for pages and pages...