Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[Clayton Moore]

So here's the deal.
When children's vaccines are tested, only 40% of children are healthy enough to participate in a test/study. Yet 100%, minus a few exceptions, are usually required by law to receive the "tested" vaccine.

So here's the deal.

A specific criteria is needed to determine how healthy a child is.
Parents should know how "medically healthy" their children are.

Parents should ask their child's pediatrician if Bobby or Betty is within the 40%.

Then parents could help the healthy children percentage to rise to 60%, 70%, etc.

 

[TSR]

So here's the deal.
When children's vaccines are tested, only 40% of children are healthy enough to participate in a test/study. Yet 100%, minus a few exceptions, are usually required by law to receive the "tested" vaccine.

So here's the deal.

A specific criteria is needed to determine how healthy a child is.
Parents should know how "medically healthy" their children are.

Parents should ask their child's pediatrician if Bobby or Betty is within the 40%.

Then parents could help the healthy children percentage to rise to 60%, 70%, etc.

So here's the deal: there's a difference between "medically healthy" and "healthy enough to participate in a clinicial trial".

So here's the deal:
No doctor is giving the vaccine to a child they know to be unhealthy.

So here's the deal:
There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that vaccines cause autism.

So here's the deal:
You know this, but cannot publicly admit to error, which is why you tried to artificially narrow the field of studies and *still* had to run because your criteria was met and didn't support your nonsense.



So here's the deal:
Everyone else here knew this more than a year ago when you started this thread, and pointed you to information which any rational being would have seen blew your crank fantasy out of the water.

And we've been pointing and laughing ever since.

 

[Clayton Moore]

So here's the deal: there's a difference between "medically healthy" and "healthy enough to participate in a clinicial trial".

So here's the deal:
No doctor is giving the vaccine to a child they know to be unhealthy.

So here's the deal:
There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that vaccines cause autism.

So here's the deal:
You know this, but cannot publicly admit to error, which is why you tried to artificially narrow the field of studies and *still* had to run because your criteria was met and didn't support your nonsense.



So here's the deal:
Everyone else here knew this more than a year ago when you started this thread, and pointed you to information which any rational being would have seen blew your crank fantasy out of the water.

And we've been pointing and laughing ever since.

Here's the real deal. Vaccines are pretty much BAD medicine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdoa7T2RdzE

BTW Pointing and laughing isn't behavior intelligent people brag about.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Bad medicine, supported by a wealth of literature and studies, and countered by you tube.

And is having an avatar suggesting others are dumb something you think intelligent people indulge in? Is that not the same as bragging you complain of in others?

 

[AdinDraco]

Here's the real deal. Vaccines are pretty much BAD medicine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdoa7T2RdzE

BTW Pointing and laughing isn't behavior intelligent people brag about.

Unevidenced assertion and 2 ad-homs (the utube clip is just hyena's laughing). Please don't ignore the points raised and just attack the only thing that you feel you have a chance against ie the perceived tone.

Edit: Darn, Tomtomkent beat me to it and said it much better.

 

[000063]

So here's the deal.
When children's vaccines are tested, only 40% of children are healthy enough to participate in a test/study.
...

That's a round unsourced number in a statement from you, so I'm going to assume it's incorrect based on the statistical likelihood arising from those factors. Time to first lie, two sentences.

So here's the deal: there's a difference between "medically healthy" and "healthy enough to participate in a clinicial trial".
....

Wow, that was fast. It's an implied lie, or maybe just a misinterpretation of the evidence, but still.

And now Clay's one-liner sneering at the ignorant in lieu of presenting actual evidence, plus the usual unbacked assertion.

Here's the real deal. Vaccines are pretty much BAD medicine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdoa7T2RdzE

BTW Pointing and laughing isn't behavior intelligent people brag about.

So predictable.

 

[Dcdrac]

After 300 odd years of testing I think we can say vaccines given by injection have been shown to be very effective...

 

[TSR]

Here's the real deal. Vaccines are pretty much BAD medicine.

All actual evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Because *everyone* knows that the state of the art in medicine is researched, advanced and made public via yootube.

More pointing.

More laughing.

It's what we big kids do when presented with comedy such as your lame attempts to distract from your impotent failure to support your OP.

First it was vaccines cause it.
Then it was combinations of vaccines cause it.
Then it was contamination that causes it.
Then it was giving them to medically unhealthy kids is the cause.

First it was no studies.
Then it was no studies from the States.
Then it was run away and pretend no one saw you ignore when such studies were cited.

And you never *did* address the nappie issue.

Yeah, pretty much pointing and laughing at is all you're good for in this thread...

 

[Dcdrac]

This might be a good palce to look for information about vaccines

http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/timelines/all

 

[Giordano]

So here's the deal.
When children's vaccines are tested, only 40% of children are healthy enough to participate in a test/study. Yet 100%, minus a few exceptions, are usually required by law to receive the "tested" vaccine.

So here's the deal.

A specific criteria is needed to determine how healthy a child is.
Parents should know how "medically healthy" their children are.

Parents should ask their child's pediatrician if Bobby or Betty is within the 40%.

Then parents could help the healthy children percentage to rise to 60%, 70%, etc.

This has been explained to you before!
I've explained this to you before!

When one tests any medical treatment, one wants to be certain the patient has no other condition that would complicate evaluating the efficiency and possible risks of the treatment you are testing. If the kid has a rash before the vaccine, you would not be able to test if the vaccine causes a rash. Get the idea? Simple logic, not a conspiracy.

Good debate- you use facts to counter an argument.
Bad debate- you don't respond, you lay low for weeks and months, and then re-post your same argument hoping everyone forget your prior refuted post.

 

[CORed]

Bad medicine, supported by a wealth of literature and studies, and countered by you tube.

And is having an avatar suggesting others are dumb something you think intelligent people indulge in? Is that not the same as bragging you complain of in others?

I just figured he spends a lot of time looking in the mirror.

 

[Mudcat]

After 300 odd years of testing I think we can say vaccines given by injection have been shown to be very effective...

What is it with revisionists and denial of well known science??? Over in the 9/11 sub forum we have Dusty claiming all the steel in the WTC turned into dust or foam despite the fact that steel has been in use for over four thousand years and it's well established properties do not allow for such a thing. This couldn't possibly make sense any more than "vaccines causes Autism" does.

 

[jaydeehess]

This bears repeating..

This has been explained to you before!
I've explained this to you before!

When one tests any medical treatment, one wants to be certain the patient has no other condition that would complicate evaluating the efficiency and possible risks of the treatment you are testing. If the kid has a rash before the vaccine, you would not be able to test if the vaccine causes a rash. Get the idea? Simple logic, not a conspiracy.

.

I am amazed that in this thread, every arguement Clayton has made has been roundly and unequivocably shown to be false yet CM continues to illustrate his ignorance.

Clayton, you have been pwned at every step. Tuck your tail and run.

 

[jaydeehess]

OTOH if the treatment is designed to treat only an end stage of a disease, say Stage IV pancreatic cancer, one will choose only patients who are that sick. This would likely be due to the risk to the patient and the fact that the disease itself is all but a death sentence. In such a case, at worst the medicine contributes to death that was soon to take the patient, had they been left untreated, or treated with older therapies. The patient WILL have been told of the risk of such an experimental drug but really has nothing to lose. In such a case there may even be NO control group. Efficacy is determned by survivability beyond normal expectations of the average course of the untreated disease.(as determined by history)

 

[Clayton Moore]

What is it with revisionists and denial of well known science??? Over in the 9/11 sub forum we have Dusty claiming all the steel in the WTC turned into dust or foam despite the fact that steel has been in use for over four thousand years and it's well established properties do not allow for such a thing. This couldn't possibly make sense any more than "vaccines causes Autism" does.

Any medicine methodology that has caused seizures, mild or essentially instant death, is bad medicine.

Then there is the danger of a seizure, unnoticed, mild, or otherwise.

What are the consequences of vaccine related seizures that don't result in death?

With death being the 100% .

99%
98%

90%

80%

50%

40%

Do you get it yet?

 

[TSR]

What are the consequences of vaccine related seizures that don't result in death?

Why don't you tell us, since this strikes to the core for your whine?

And what about the nappies?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Any medicine methodology that has caused seizures, mild or essentially instant death, is bad medicine.

Then there is the danger of a seizure, unnoticed, mild, or otherwise.

What are the consequences of vaccine related seizures that don't result in death?

With death being the 100% .

99%
98%

90%

80%

50%

40%

Do you get it yet?

You seem to be asking what the consequences are for something you have not been able to prove exists.

You have shown no evidence for any statistically significant trend of seizures resulting from vaccines so there is nothing to "get".

One has to wonder why you fail to "get it".

 

[Mudcat]

Any medicine methodology that has caused seizures, mild or essentially instant death, is bad medicine.

Which is why no such medicine is used.

Then there is the danger of a seizure, unnoticed, mild, or otherwise.

What are the consequences of vaccine related seizures that don't result in death?

With death being the 100% .

Any idea when you'll be presenting varifiable evidence that supports all this?

Do you get it yet?

Honestly I had trouble parsing your entire post.

 

[Clayton Moore]

You seem to be asking what the consequences are for something you have not been able to prove exists.

You have shown no evidence for any statistically significant trend of seizures resulting from vaccines so there is nothing to "get".

One has to wonder why you fail to "get it".

I'm not talking about any trend BS. I'm talking about live, vibrant children dying immediately after receiving a vaccine inoculation.

A measles vaccination program in India was halted after four children died almost immediately after receiving the shot. “Four children died within minutes of receiving a vaccine for measles followed by drops of Vitamin A solution on Saturday,” reports MedGuru.

Indian newspaper reports carried eyewitness accounts of what happened. “The four children were reported to have fainted soon after they were vaccinated and witnesses reported seeing the children’s eyes roll back as they began to have seizures,” reports Blitz.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/vaccine-deaths-and-injuries-skyrocket-as-cover-up-implodes.html

 

[Clayton Moore]

Which is why no such medicine is used.

Any idea when you'll be presenting varifiable evidence that supports all this?



Honestly I had trouble parsing your entire post.

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Any medicine methodology that has caused seizures, mild or essentially instant death, is bad medicine.
Which is why no such medicine is used.
Originally Posted by Clayton
Then there is the danger of a seizure, unnoticed, mild, or otherwise.

What are the consequences of vaccine related seizures that don't result in death?

With death being the 100% .
Any idea when you'll be presenting varifiable evidence that supports all this?


Originally Posted by Clayton
Do you get it yet?
Honestly I had trouble parsing your entire post.

I truly don't understand how you can respond as if there are no children dying immediately and within 24 hours of a vaccine inoculation.


Are their deaths some sort of joke to you?