Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[Estellea]

I enjoy being the smartest person in the conversation.

Bwahahahaha!

Este

 

[Dcdrac]

far as i can tell Clayton you are having a discussion with yourself, you have not attempted to discuss anything with anyone here.

 

[pakeha]

...Veterans of the Gulf War were given untested vaccines and it may turn out that these are the cause of Gulf War Syndrome. It may not. What does that have to do with MMR and autism? These things are not the same.

Yes.
Interesting how Clayton avoids discussing how vaxx cause autism by deflecting attention to Gulf War Vets.

 

[Dcdrac]

yes clayton where is your rock solid verifable independent proof that MMR causes autism and that vaccines casue asthma?

 

[000063]

Asthma without symptoms? The definition of asthma is its symptoms.

Do you know the definition of circular logic?

Last time I looked evolution is forward not reverse, stronger not weaker.

That has nothing to do with vaccines. Or anything in the post you replied to.

 

[dafydd]

That has nothing to do with vaccines. Or anything in the post you replied to.

None of his posts ever do reply. I move that all of Clayton's posts should be diverted to a forum just for him where he can talk to himself. That would give us all something to read on long winter evenings.

 

[Clayton Moore]

FTFM

Why are you here then? Why won't you provide evidence for your claim that something is a lie? Argument by assertion is so juvenile Clay.

Este

I enjoy being the smartest person in the conversation

I enjoy being the smartest person in the conversation and usually the only honest person.

 

[Dcdrac]

I enjoy being the smartest person in the conversation and usually the only honest person.

you can prove this???

 

[Mojo]

I enjoy being the smartest person in the conversation and usually the only honest person.

How do you know?

 

[TheRedWorm]

How do you know?

Pretty sure that he's just out-and-out trolling now.

 

[Robrob]

I enjoy being the smartest person in the conversation and usually the only honest person.

Which explains your inability to use facts to convince anyone of the multitude of CT in which you believe?

 

[Kid Eager]

I enjoy being the smartest person in the conversation and usually the only honest person.

Oblivious to the bitter end, I see...

 

[FrederickEason]

What originally was the abc vaccine concept has become the azAZAAZZ of implementation. Vaccines are destabilizing millions of years of human evolution quicker than quicksand.

The only way an organism can evolve immunity to a disease is if the disease is either fatal or sterilizing.

For a vaccine to interfere in such evolution, it would need to prevent either death or sterility.

To say a vaccine "destabilizes" evolution is to say it prevents "natural" causes of death or sterility.

Therefore, assuming Clayton is referring to the vaccine's "interference" in "natural" immunization (and not some quack theory proposing that vaccines directly alter the DNA in a man's sperm or a woman's eggs, which is just as likely to be supported by Clayton), I propose that Clayton is advocating a form of eugenics.

If Clayton is indeed bothered by the use of vaccines to prevent death and sterilization by disease, and if Clayton does indeed believe "evolved immunity" is superior, then it would follow that Clayton would prefer that a person who contracts a disease die or become sterile than be protected by a vaccine.

The weak ones die off, while the strong stay and improve the species. Classic eugenics argument.

 

[Clayton Moore]

The only way an organism can evolve immunity to a disease is if the disease is either fatal or sterilizing.

For a vaccine to interfere in such evolution, it would need to prevent either death or sterility.

To say a vaccine "destabilizes" evolution is to say it prevents "natural" causes of death or sterility.

Therefore, assuming Clayton is referring to the vaccine's "interference" in "natural" immunization (and not some quack theory proposing that vaccines directly alter the DNA in a man's sperm or a woman's eggs, which is just as likely to be supported by Clayton), I propose that Clayton is advocating a form of eugenics.

If Clayton is indeed bothered by the use of vaccines to prevent death and sterilization by disease, and if Clayton does indeed believe "evolved immunity" is superior, then it would follow that Clayton would prefer that a person who contracts a disease die or become sterile than be protected by a vaccine.

The weak ones die off, while the strong stay and improve the species. Classic eugenics argument.

Bingo. Sort of. The strong are being made chronically weak.

 

[tyr_13]

Bingo. Sort of. The strong are being made chronically weak.

How is it 'chronic weakness' to be made immune to a disease? If the outcome of your 'evolutionary immunity' are people immune to a virus, and vaccines make people immune to a virus, how is one immunity strength and the other weakness?

(Yes, I'm ignoring the other problems, which are huge, to his approach.)

 

[Clayton Moore]

The only way an organism can evolve immunity to a disease is if the disease is either fatal or sterilizing.

For a vaccine to interfere in such evolution, it would need to prevent either death or sterility.

To say a vaccine "destabilizes" evolution is to say it prevents "natural" causes of death or sterility.

Therefore, assuming Clayton is referring to the vaccine's "interference" in "natural" immunization (and not some quack theory proposing that vaccines directly alter the DNA in a man's sperm or a woman's eggs, which is just as likely to be supported by Clayton), I propose that Clayton is advocating a form of eugenics.

If Clayton is indeed bothered by the use of vaccines to prevent death and sterilization by disease, and if Clayton does indeed believe "evolved immunity" is superior, then it would follow that Clayton would prefer that a person who contracts a disease die or become sterile than be protected by a vaccine.

The weak ones die off, while the strong stay and improve the species. Classic eugenics argument.

Clayton Moore is saying that vaccine contents, not the vaccine concepts, are damaging people. Damaging the being that has evolved to the present. He is saying that the more the vaccine concept is polluted with additives injected through the skin, for whatever reason, the more likely the human body will be subjected to "breakdown."

Adjuvants do their assigned task but your body doesn't have an exit method for them. Like the mercury of fillings or from tuna the adjuvant substances can mess you up in MYSTERIOUS ways.

In other words your body isn't equipped to deal with many foreign substances that are entered into the body through the skin.

http://www.nvic.org/doctors-corner/Aluminum-and-Vaccine-Ingredients.aspx

In 1996, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a position paper on Aluminum Toxicity in Infants and Children which stated in the first paragraph, “Aluminum is now being implicated as interfering with a variety of cellular and metabolic processes in the nervous system and in other tissues.[3]

A review of the medical literature on aluminum reveals a surprising lack of scientific evidence that injected aluminum is safe. There is limited understanding of what happens to children when aluminum is injected into their bodies, including whether or not it accumulates in tissues and organs or is properly eliminated from the body. It is also unknown if genetic factors affect long term adverse health outcomes for those injected with aluminum containing vaccines.

Giving a vaccine(s) to an unhealthy infant/child is obviously unwise? Why is that?

Now tell us how a doctor knows whether an infant/child has been/is becoming ill but is symptom-less?

 

[Robrob]

Clayton Moore is saying that vaccine contents, not the vaccine concepts, are damaging people. Damaging the being that has evolved to the present. He is saying that the more the vaccine concept is polluted with additives injected through the skin, for whatever reason, the more likely the human body will be subjected to "breakdown."

Opinion presented as evidence.

Adjuvants do their assigned task but your body doesn't have an exit method for them. Like the mercury of fillings or from tuna the adjuvant substances can mess you up in MYSTERIOUS ways.

Evidence?

Giving a vaccine(s) to an unhealthy infant/child is obviously unwise? Why is that?

Is this an Arguement from Incredulity or are you really asking?

By the way, still waiting for the name of even one of those "vets" you claimed know who gave up their career rather than receive vaccinations.

 

[000063]

I enjoy being the smartest person in the conversation and usually the only honest person.

What's the punchline?

Clayton Moore is saying that vaccine contents, not the vaccine concepts, are damaging people. Damaging the being that has evolved to the present. He is saying that the more the vaccine concept is polluted with additives injected through the skin, for whatever reason, the more likely the human body will be subjected to "breakdown."...

Ah, there it is.

 

[FrederickEason]

In 1996, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a position paper on Aluminum Toxicity in Infants and Children which stated in the first paragraph, “Aluminum is now being implicated as interfering with a variety of cellular and metabolic processes in the nervous system and in other tissues."

Clayton, do you consider the American Academy of Pediatrics to be a reliable authority?

Did you know that they advocate vaccination of children?

High doses of aluminum can have neurotoxic effects. This is not denied by the medical community. What you don't seem to understand is that the amount of aluminum in vaccines is far from a high dose.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Pretty sure that he's just out-and-out trolling now.

That's his job. Why don't people see this?