Poll: What is your opinion of Vaccines/Vaccine Policy?
Vaccines saved the world. Bring them on.
I don't entirely trust big pharma, but vaccines have done more good than harm.
Some vaccines are effective and useful. Some are not.
Vaccines are of questionable value, like many pharmaceuticals, but I might want one if an epidemic hits.
Vaccines cause more health problems than they prevent. Parents and individuals should have the right to refuse any/all of them.
Vaccines are part of a population-reduction conspiracy on the part of the global elite and are intended to sterilize/kill as many as possible.
[Show Results]
 
Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2014, 06:31 AM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(28-04-2014 08:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-04-2014 08:19 PM)Magellan35 Wrote:  Another thing: Inflammation is an indication of high cytokine production in response to presence of a substance or antigen that produces a strong immune reaction. High cytokine counts are linked to numerous birth defects and complications.

Clearly, a pregnant woman should avoid anything that causes significant inflammation, including deliberately inducing it with a vaccine, if the principle of primum non nocere (first do no harm) is applied.

Name all the vaccinations that are normally given to pregnant women. I know of not one. Your point is a strawman. There is NOT ONE.
Just more proof you have NO experience in clinical medicine, you have no clue what your are talking about, and you are totally incompetent to even begin discussing this subject.

Seasonal flu vaccine. Do you read the news? No, you don't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 07:03 AM (This post was last modified: 29-04-2014 08:25 AM by Magellan35.)
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(28-04-2014 08:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-04-2014 06:42 PM)Magellan35 Wrote:  Inflammation is one response to vaccine. Not the only one. I said vaccines cause inflammation. Do you know how to read, period?

The inflammatory response elicited by vaccination is substantially milder and more transient than seen in infectious illness, arguing for the clinical value of vaccination.

Re-read that, you delusional twat.

Understand this, you delusional twat: Infectious illness causes inflammation IF the immune system fails to deal with the pathogen effectively when it hits passive immune barriers like skin and mucus. If the pathogen manages to get a foothold and replicates enough to start producing waste toxins, significant inflammation will develop. If the individual is malnourished or otherwise predisposed to poor production of natural anti-inflammatories, that inflammation may persist and lead to other complications.

That's a lot of ifs. Most people who are exposed to a potential pathogen never even show symptoms. Most of those who do show symptoms recover with no lingering morbidity. Those who have long-term damage from illness or who die are a tiny percentage of any population for most illnesses, unless we're talking about a malnourished third-world population to begin with.

But with a vaccine, inflammation is virtually guaranteed, because high cytokine counts (the cause of inflammation) are necessary for stimulation of antibody production. And inflammation in a mother is linked to birth defects (and miscarriage), which is exactly why the study abstract you call out states that further study is needed. Meanwhile, of course, they'll just go on recommending flu vaccine for pregnant (guinea pigs) women.

Since you didn't know that the flu shot is being strongly marketed to pregnant women, you probably didn't know any of the above either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 08:13 AM (This post was last modified: 29-04-2014 08:20 AM by Magellan35.)
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(28-04-2014 09:02 PM)sporehux Wrote:  Since most of the antivax crowd sCREAM Autism as their smoking gun, I thought i'd go to the horses mouth and see what the autism society has to say on the issue: surely they would know autism better then most:

" FROM autismsciencefoundation.org
A decade ago most researchers agreed that we needed to study vaccines in relation to autism. We had to reconcile the fact that the number of vaccines children were receiving was increasing, and at the same time, the number of children who were being diagnosed with autism also was on the rise.
Fortunately this was a question that could be studied – and answered – by science. We looked at children who received vaccines and those who didn’t, or who received them on a different, slower schedule. There was no difference in their neurological outcomes.
Multiple studies have been completed which investigated the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination in relation to autism. Researchers have also studied thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, to see if it had any relation to autism.
The results of studies are very clear; the data show no relationship between vaccines and autism. Read the studies themselves below and browse our recommended reading list."


http://www.autismsciencefoundation.org/a...cines.html


I call ignorant on the issue, but I have good reason to take the word of 99% of the scientific/medical community, the autism organisations and the WHO (world health organisation) that compulsory vaccinations are good for society.

Those particular organizations suffer from tremendous political pressure to maintain the party line that vaccines have nothing to do with autism. For a very fair discussion of whether vaccines have/have had anything to do with autism, see the following: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q65OrjUWbRQ

I also posted a link to 80 or so studies linking vaccines to neural damage associated with ASD, but here it is again: http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.ca/20...k.html?m=1

Are you aware that WHO leadership perform research for and are irrovocably tied to several pharmaceutical companies? I think such conflicts of interest are relevant. --http://www.rokotusinfo.fi/yhd/kirjeenvaihtoa/who_0912_html
http://news.sciencemag.org/2009/11/round...nk-edition
http://focusonline.ca/?q=node/447 (perform text search for "WHO", but the entire article is brilliant)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 08:24 AM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(29-04-2014 08:13 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  Those particular organizations suffer from tremendous political pressure to maintain the party line that vaccines have nothing to do with autism.

"LOL CONSPIRACY" is the beloved recourse of the vapid and paranoid.

(29-04-2014 08:13 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  For a very fair discussion of whether vaccines have/have had anything to do with autism, see the following: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q65OrjUWbRQ

Yes, because real science comes from youtube.

Spend some time synthesizing virology journals and people might have reason to take you seriously.

I won't hold my breath.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 08:28 AM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(29-04-2014 08:24 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(29-04-2014 08:13 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  Those particular organizations suffer from tremendous political pressure to maintain the party line that vaccines have nothing to do with autism.

"LOL CONSPIRACY" is the beloved recourse of the vapid and paranoid.

(29-04-2014 08:13 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  For a very fair discussion of whether vaccines have/have had anything to do with autism, see the following: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q65OrjUWbRQ

Yes, because real science comes from youtube.

Spend some time synthesizing virology journals and people might have reason to take you seriously.

I won't hold my breath.

Nice attempt to call me a conspiracy theorist because I think people follow their financial interests. You're a genius.

Real science comes from labs and universities. Where was the video from again? A univerversity. You can't argue the science, so you come at me with this pathetic attempt at dismissal?

You are dismissed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 08:33 AM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(29-04-2014 07:03 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  
(28-04-2014 08:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  The inflammatory response elicited by vaccination is substantially milder and more transient than seen in infectious illness, arguing for the clinical value of vaccination.

Re-read that, you delusional twat.

Understand this, you delusional twat: Infectious illness causes inflammation IF the immune system fails to deal with the pathogen effectively when it hits passive immune barriers like skin and mucus. If the pathogen manages to get a foothold and replicates enough to start producing waste toxins, significant inflammation will develop. If the individual is malnourished or otherwise predisposed to poor production of natural anti-inflammatories, that inflammation may persist and lead to other complications.

That's a lot of ifs. Most people who are exposed to a potential pathogen never even show symptoms. Most of those who do show symptoms recover with no lingering morbidity. Those who have long-term damage from illness or who die are a tiny percentage of any population for most illnesses, unless we're talking about a malnourished third-world population to begin with.

It took me a while to figure out if you were actually being that stupid.

Let us pretend for a moment that vaccination were a purely personal matter (it's not). It is then a matter of risk management. Do you know what human beings, naively, are fucking terrible at? Risk management.

On what grounds do you make such profoundly ignorant and shallow statements? Would you care to take your chances with smallpox and polio exposure? I mean, since apparently "most" people don't exhibit symptoms, and "most" of those who do recover with no long-term effects?

Although, it might be hard to round up a smallpox dose. The remaining samples are under pretty tight lock and key. Would you settle for measles and hepatitis?

Delusional ignorance like yours kills people. Congratulations.

But, then, woo has never been big on maths.

(29-04-2014 07:03 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  But with a vaccine, inflammation is virtually guaranteed, because high cytokine counts (the cause of inflammation) are necessary for stimulation of antibody production. And inflammation in a mother is linked to birth defects (and miscarriage), which is exactly why the study abstract you call out states that further study is needed. Meanwhile, of course, they'll just go on recommending flu vaccine for pregnant (guinea pigs) women.

Hey. Shithead.

You know what's a more dangerous source of inflammation than a vaccine reaction?

The fucking disease.

(29-04-2014 07:03 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  Since you didn't know that the flu shot is being strongly marketed to pregnant women, you probably didn't know any of the above either.

The study your incompetent ass expressly cited literally endorses the opposite of your thesis.

Can you read?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
29-04-2014, 08:36 AM (This post was last modified: 29-04-2014 08:43 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(29-04-2014 08:28 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  Nice attempt to call me a conspiracy theorist because I think people follow their financial interests. You're a genius.

Attempt?

Nah, bro, you have more than demonstrated your idiocy.

Dismissing centuries of scientific consensus on the basis of "lol conspiracy" is as fatuous as it is inadequate.

Because seriously. These are your exact words:
(27-04-2014 07:48 PM)Magellan35 Wrote:  Those who develop [vaccines] know all too well that they cause autism, SIDS, diabetes, MS, arthritis, asthma, and any number of other syndromes and diseases, but there is no chance in hell of them ever admitting it or letting on that more people now die or suffer morbidity from vaccine-induced health problems than would die if we stopped vaccinating and encouraged better diet and exercise (which would not keep the medical industry massively profitable).

The raving of a paranoid hack is not compelling.

(29-04-2014 08:28 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  Real science comes from labs and universities. Where was the video from again? A univerversity.

A guest speaker with no credentials.

Real results get published in real journals, mate.

(29-04-2014 08:28 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  You can't argue the science...

I note that you don't seem to have that problem.

(29-04-2014 08:28 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  ... so you come at me with this pathetic attempt at dismissal?

You are dismissed.

And you're not capable of processing reality.

So there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
29-04-2014, 08:37 AM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(29-04-2014 08:33 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(29-04-2014 07:03 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  Understand this, you delusional twat: Infectious illness causes inflammation IF the immune system fails to deal with the pathogen effectively when it hits passive immune barriers like skin and mucus. If the pathogen manages to get a foothold and replicates enough to start producing waste toxins, significant inflammation will develop. If the individual is malnourished or otherwise predisposed to poor production of natural anti-inflammatories, that inflammation may persist and lead to other complications.

That's a lot of ifs. Most people who are exposed to a potential pathogen never even show symptoms. Most of those who do show symptoms recover with no lingering morbidity. Those who have long-term damage from illness or who die are a tiny percentage of any population for most illnesses, unless we're talking about a malnourished third-world population to begin with.

It took me a while to figure out if you were actually being that stupid.

Let us pretend for a moment that vaccination were a purely personal matter (it's not). It is then a matter of risk management. Do you know what human beings, naively, are fucking terrible at? Risk management.

On what grounds do you make such profoundly ignorant and shallow statements? Would you care to take your chances with smallpox and polio exposure? I mean, since apparently "most" people don't exhibit symptoms, and "most" of those who do recover with no long-term effects?

Although, it might be hard to round up a smallpox dose. The remaining samples are under pretty tight lock and key. Would you settle for measles and hepatitis?

Delusional ignorance like yours kills people. Congratulations.

But, then, woo has never been big on maths.

(29-04-2014 07:03 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  But with a vaccine, inflammation is virtually guaranteed, because high cytokine counts (the cause of inflammation) are necessary for stimulation of antibody production. And inflammation in a mother is linked to birth defects (and miscarriage), which is exactly why the study abstract you call out states that further study is needed. Meanwhile, of course, they'll just go on recommending flu vaccine for pregnant (guinea pigs) women.

Hey. Shithead.

You know what's a more dangerous source of inflammation than a vaccine reaction?

The fucking disease.

(29-04-2014 07:03 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  Since you didn't know that the flu shot is being strongly marketed to pregnant women, you probably didn't know any of the above either.

The study your incompetent ass expressly cited literally endorses the opposite of your thesis.

Can you read?

Same old bullshit fear-mongering. You should go wash your hands for the hundredth time today.

Fear sells vaccines. Go get yours.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 08:41 AM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(29-04-2014 08:37 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  Same old bullshit fear-mongering. You should go wash your hands for the hundredth time today.

Fear sells vaccines. Go get yours.

That's a delightfully vacuous dodge.

Actual statistics are not fear-mongering.

But you are pretty good at conjuring phantasmal bogeymen to hide from. That's nothing if not fear-based.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
29-04-2014, 09:01 AM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(29-04-2014 08:41 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(29-04-2014 08:37 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  Same old bullshit fear-mongering. You should go wash your hands for the hundredth time today.

Fear sells vaccines. Go get yours.

That's a delightfully vacuous dodge.

Actual statistics are not fear-mongering.

But you are pretty good at conjuring phantasmal bogeymen to hide from. That's nothing if not fear-based.

Your "actual statistics" will demonstrate that the vast majority of people on this planet who die from infectious disease in any given year are old, infirm, malnourished, overexposed to environmental toxins, and/or have a genetic predisposition that hinders immune response or complicates recovery.

Death is sad. People die. All of this terrified intervention to "prevent death" doesn't prevent death (or do you know someone immortal?). It is you who fails to see reality for what it is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: