Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[sophia8]

Leaving aside the fact that it's all been tested, is that stuff actually different between different vaccines?

He's talking about all those eeeevil toxins that anti-vaxxers all believe are in vaccines. So giving your sweet, tiny, little babykins nine doses of

heavy metals, live viruses/or strands of DNA-RNA “heat treated virus”, antibiotics, formaldehyde, detergent, diploid cells (aborted fetal tissue), mycoplasma, phenol dye & excipient buffers

all at once, well....

 

[swright777]

Of course the people who vaccinate infants have an agenda. That agenda being to help those infants reach adulthood without dying from preventable diseases. A pretty noble agenda IMO.

 

[dafydd]

Just the fact that the CDC and the medical community are saying 9 injections of vaccines are safe discredits vaccine schedules. As in if the cook's drunk, drunk with power and greed in this instance, I don't trust anything he serves me to put into my body and heaven forbid anyone's infant or child.


How can you possibly think 9 vaccine injections could be safe?

Forgive me if I ask for more
From what I can give

LUIS FONSI - PERDONAME LYRICS

Answer Bram's question or be branded as a cowardly wimp!!!!!!

 

[Tomtomkent]

You sidestepped those two posts. Do the math with 9 vaccine injections.

Your speculation on how many effects stack or the limits of immune processing are not valid answers to the questions and points raised.

Are you in any danger of providing evidence beyond your ill informed opinion?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Think of what's being done. Remove the weakened virus or killed virus material and just inject the baby with the rest of each "vaccine." Inventory what entered the baby. You think anybody without some sort of agenda would inject an infant with those foreign materials?

Because that is exactly what is being done over and over and over. The virus material doesn't neutralize the foreign bodies/materials.

If you have vaccines 1 through 9.

Do you think the safety of administering the vaccines in low to high sequence has ever been studied in comparison to the odds in low to high sequence then evens low to high sequence?

Do you think the safety of administering the vaccines in low to high sequence has ever been studied in comparison to the evens in low to high sequence then odds low to high sequence?

Or high to low?


Do you think the Dtap makers have safety tested their vaccine with the latest and greatest vaccines added to the schedule? And vice versa?

How many proceses can an infantimmune system handle?

Nine is not such a large lumber when you consider how many forms of infection a baby that crawls arund, smelling things, shoving stuff inits mouth, living in a far from sterile world encouters.

Nine is a meaningless number unless you know what the capacity of the immune system is. Clayton has no idea if a baby can handle nine vaccines, he just thinks it is a big number.

I am long past caring about what the chap thinks, I await to see what he can prove. Though I suspect that to be nowt.

 

[dafydd]

No more responding until Clayton answers Bram's question?

 

[swright777]

Answer Bram's question or be branded as a cowardly wimp!!!!!!

... again.

 

[Giordano]

I'm on board: no other topics until Clayton answers Bram's question.

Clayton?

 

[Clayton Moore]

I'm on board: no other topics until Clayton answers Bram's question.

Clayton?

Why should I respond to posters who have made it their job to stalk me and post personal attacks?

 

[zooterkin]

Why should I respond to posters who have made it their job to stalk me and post personal attacks?

I'm guessing you have as much evidence for that statement as you do that vaccination causes autism.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I'm guessing you have as much evidence for that statement as you do that vaccination causes autism.

Bingo.

 

[Clayton Moore]

... again.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8730881&postcount=1037

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Why should I respond to posters who have made it their job to stalk me and post personal attacks?

Stalking?

How about calling you on your claims? Because that's what I do.

It's not my fault that you don't know how to respond.

ETA: And yes, I know you were talking about me. Because I don't know anyone else you might be talking about.

 

[dafydd]

Why should I respond to posters who have made it their job to stalk me and post personal attacks?

My brother has an autistic daughter. Would you recommend euthanasia? You did say that autism was a death sentence. Have you changed you mind about that? You are not worth stalking.

 

[Clayton Moore]

You did say that autism was a death sentence.

No I did not.

 

[dafydd]

Bingo.

None. Ok, got it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No I did not.

Then can you explain why you felt the need to compare the two in the following post with out stating your view differed from that implied by a weighted question?

If you knew today that you would become autistic tomorrow would you consider becoming autistic a death sentence?

If you did not intend it to be read as though you were calling a death sentence, even when others made it clear that was how it was read why did you not apologise for the obvious offence caused and clarify your view?

 

[Giordano]

No I did not.

Then why didn't you just say, "No, of course I'm not suggesting that autism is a death sentence or worse," as soon as the question was raised? Why don't you just say that now?

I assure you that denying the acquisition is much less satisfying to those who think poorly of you than not replying at all (which allows accusations of you being afraid to address the issue).

 

[Giordano]

Clayton,

I just reviewed the original "death sentence" post (#3111) and I am left puzzled. Perhaps you can tell me what you meant by it, and just ignore any back and forth since on this thread.

Your post was in reply to a statement that even if vaccines increased one's chances of developing autism, autism would be better than dying of an infectious disease. You replied, "If you knew today that you would become autistic tomorrow would you consider becoming autistic a death sentence?" - your bolding. What did you intend to say, if you didn't intend to dispute the first post? Honestly, I'm not trying to put you on the spot- just trying to figure it out.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Then can you explain why you felt the need to compare the two in the following post with out stating your view differed from that implied by a weighted question?



If you did not intend it to be read as though you were calling a death sentence, even when others made it clear that was how it was read why did you not apologise for the obvious offence caused and clarify your view?

I should apologize because people are unable to comprehend common English?

Their self serving interpretation caused their own angst. SNAFU