[Merged] Vaccine/autism CT discussion - Page 3

Clayton Moore · 11th May 2011, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Indeed, vaccines were oh-so profitable that the number of pharma companies producing them dropped from two dozen to 2-3 over the last few decades. After all, there was money to be not made.

http://www.iirusa.com/vbc/welcome.xml

You might want to check out the conference again.

TSR · 11th May 2011, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Pre seems to be MMR with thimerosal
Post seems to be MMR without thimerosal

.
... ignoring the teeny tiny fact that "... (MMR) vaccines do not and never did contain thimerosal. Varicella (chickenpox), inactivated polio (IPV), and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have also never contained thimerosal."

Not to mention that the last lots of childhood vaccine to use thimerosal expired in January 2003 -- tell us all: what has happened to ASD rates since then? Well, as of 2009 the rate had doubled over 2003's numbers.

.

Travis · 11th May 2011, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

http://www.iirusa.com/vbc/welcome.xml

You might want to check out the conference again.

What does it matter if it is profitable?

You what's also profitable? Building MRI machines! Do you think they'll kill you? You know what else is profitable? Building elevators or lifts! Do you avoid them?

If you spend your life avoiding anything built or made for profit you'll end up in a cave.

TSR · 11th May 2011, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

That just means everyone got the same regimen of vaccines and some, I think 1 out 110 is the latest number, are stricken with autism.

.
No, not "just". Those 1-2 per 1000 (as of 2006) are then compared with the others to see what risk factors the two groups may share.
.

Sword_Of_Truth · 11th May 2011, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Quote:

Child 2. MMR at 15 months - head banging 2 weeks later.
Hyperactive from 18 months.
Endoscopy - aphthoid ulcer at hepatic flexure
Caecum: lymphoid nodular hyperplasia with erythematous rim and pale swollen
core.
Histology, Ileum mild inflammation, colon moderate inflammation
Acute and chronic inflammation.
Treated CT3211 [a dietary treatment]
INDETERMINATE COLITIS** ? CROHN’S DISEASE

You don't have a clue. That's what multiple vaccines do to babies.

I hate Crohn's disease. It is an evil soul destroying force. If Crohn's disease was a person, I would wish Crohn's disease on him. He'd deserve it.

My sister, my father and my aunt have Crohn's. And I can say with absolute certainty that you don't know a damn thing about it.

Between my mom, dad, 2 brothers, 2 sisters, 4 aunts, 4 uncles and 19 cousins however, all but one of us have been properly vaccinated and only three have Crohn's.

There goes your theory.

This is what NOT vaccinating babies does to them.

I know you don't care Clayton, because that child isn't white. But for those of us who do care, no child of any skin color will ever suffer like that again because of vaccines.

Suck it down, mein herr.

kookbreaker · 11th May 2011, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

http://www.iirusa.com/vbc/welcome.xml

You might want to check out the conference again.

OK, let's look at these:

Intercell - Makes vaccines, but none of them seem to be for children
Nabi - They make nicotine addiction fighting stuff
Biosante - The only vaccine they make fights cancer
GlobeImmune - Most of their products are for fighting cancer and hepatitis, although they do seem to have a product for fighting influenza in the research stage.
Novavax - These guys make vaccines for h1n1, the flu, and are working on Herpes and HIV
Syntiron - Their vaccines seem to be for fighting bacterial infections
Bavarian-Nordic - Makes vaccines for Smallpox and HPV.
Medicago - Vaccines for H1n1. Influenza and h5n1
Merck- makes vaccines. So does GSK
Vaxinnate- Makes influenza vaccines

So this big conference seems to mostly include pharma companies that produce or develop vaccines for rather adult conditions.

I stand by my statement.

tsig · 11th May 2011, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr...#ixzz1M1xa4grU

Did you read the article?

Is Measles a dangerous disease in the US? It wasn't in the 50s. Certainly almost everyone who died from measles in the 50s would have been saved today with 50 years of advances in medical treatment and diet knowledge.

Dieing isn't dangerous?

Sword_Of_Truth · 11th May 2011, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

http://www.iirusa.com/vbc/welcome.xml

You might want to check out the conference again.

FYI, groups involved in sinister conspiracies to make children sick and make money for themselves don't announce public conferences advertising their dates and locations on splashy webpages.

Corsair 115 · 11th May 2011, 11:06 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

If you spend your life avoiding anything built or made for profit you'll end up in a cave.

And not even then if I own the cave as I'll ask for rent if he wants to stay in there. Which means profit for me!

Travis · 11th May 2011, 11:24 PM

A Cave in a disputed zone with no property rights!

abaddon · 12th May 2011, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Did you know vaccine "testing" of vaccines is done only on healthy children?
And that 60% of children are not considered healthy enough to participate. Which is super scary in that almost all children will be required to receive the vaccine.

What is super scary is that you cannot figure out why this is so.

Tolls · 12th May 2011, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by TSR

.
... ignoring the teeny tiny fact that "... (MMR) vaccines do not and never did contain thimerosal. Varicella (chickenpox), inactivated polio (IPV), and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have also never contained thimerosal."

Not to mention that the last lots of childhood vaccine to use thimerosal expired in January 2003 -- tell us all: what has happened to ASD rates since then? Well, as of 2009 the rate had doubled over 2003's numbers.

.

Also ignoring the fact that the Sweden study:

Quote:

A study, done in Sweden in 1998, also showed no evidence of association between the MMR vaccine and autism. The study compared the number of autism cases in children from two Swedish towns before 1982, when local doctors first started using the MMR vaccine, and after 1982. The results showed no difference in the rate of autism between the two groups of children in either town (Gillberg & Heijbel 1998).

From page 4 here.

Or the Danish study.

Quote:

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, looked at all children born in January 1991 until December 1998.

Over 440,000 children who had been given the MMR vaccine and over 100,000 who had not.

Clayton Moore · 12th May 2011, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Dieing isn't dangerous?

Only if you ingest it.

Travis · 12th May 2011, 05:40 AM

I know I cut death out of my diet. It was really bitter anyways.

Clayton Moore · 12th May 2011, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Indeed, vaccines were oh-so profitable that the number of pharma companies producing them dropped from two dozen to 2-3 over the last few decades. After all, there was money to be not made.

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

OK, let's look at these:

Intercell - Makes vaccines, but none of them seem to be for children
Nabi - They make nicotine addiction fighting stuff
Biosante - The only vaccine they make fights cancer
GlobeImmune - Most of their products are for fighting cancer and hepatitis, although they do seem to have a product for fighting influenza in the research stage.
Novavax - These guys make vaccines for h1n1, the flu, and are working on Herpes and HIV
Syntiron - Their vaccines seem to be for fighting bacterial infections
Bavarian-Nordic - Makes vaccines for Smallpox and HPV.
Medicago - Vaccines for H1n1. Influenza and h5n1
Merck- makes vaccines. So does GSK
Vaxinnate- Makes influenza vaccines

So this big conference seems to mostly include pharma companies that produce or develop vaccines for rather adult conditions.

I stand by my statement.

Good for you. Whatever. SMH.

excaza · 12th May 2011, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Did you know vaccine "testing" of vaccines is done only on healthy children?

I cannot possibly imagine why.

Tolls · 12th May 2011, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Good for you. Whatever. SMH.

Nothing to say about the fact that two of the MMR studies I cited (including one of the biggest) involved comparing children who had the MMR jab vs those who hadn't? And TSRs point about MMR never containing thimerosal?

Clayton Moore · 12th May 2011, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by abaddon

What is super scary is that you cannot figure out why this is so.

Yeah sure. But it's okay to require the less healthy children to get the vaccine.

Isn't likely that the less healthy 60% of the children would be more susceptible to negative reactions when given vaccines?

Shouldn't the threshold of requiring vaccines be that they are at least as healthy as the study group?

Maybe the less healthy 60% of the children are more prone to be stricken with autism.

What is that, some sort of upside down control group policy? We're not allowing 60% of the children participate
in the study because it make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 50% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 60% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 70% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 80% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 90% participate in the survey make the results worse?

I wonder at which threshold the instances of negative responses might begin spiking?

I wonder if parents are ever informed that their children, when getting a vaccine, are not healthy enough to participate in a vaccine study?

kookbreaker · 12th May 2011, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Good for you. Whatever. SMH.

Oh. I was especially impressed by how you turned up the surly. That will surely make everyone come to your 'save the killer virii' campaign.

Dave Rogers · 12th May 2011, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Good for you. Whatever. SMH.

So, basically, you're not interested in evidence that doesn't say what you want it to?

Dave

excaza · 12th May 2011, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Yeah sure. But it's okay to require the less healthy children to get the vaccine.

After the trial is over and the vaccine is approved for use.

Quote:

Isn't likely that the less healthy 60% of the children would be more susceptible to negative reactions when given vaccines?

Sounds like someone has absolutely no clue how or why experimental trials work. It's likely that their reactions during the test will not actually be because of the medication being tested. Hence why healthy test subjects are chosen. Is the concept of controlling your variables in an experimental study too difficult for you to comprehend?

Quote:

Shouldn't the threshold of requiring vaccines be that they are at least as healthy as the study group?

No, because that makes no sense.

Quote:

What is that, some sort of upside down control group policy? We're not allowing 60% of the children participate
in the study because it make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 50% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 60% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 70% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 80% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 90% participate in the survey make the results worse?

It has nothing to do with 'better' or 'worse.' It has to do with being able to establish the cause for whatever negative result may come up. If you've got a subject who isn't healthy and has some sort of reaction, you have no idea if it's the result of the medication or because of a pre-existing ailment. This would invalidate any of the conclusions of the experiment, or at the very least make the results questionable and the medication likely wouldn't be approved.

Quote:

I wonder if parents are ever informed that their children, when getting a vaccine, are not healthy enough to participate in a vaccine study?

I'm not sure why you think it should matter.

Clayton Moore · 12th May 2011, 08:09 AM

[quote=Tolls;7175006]Also ignoring the fact that the Sweden study:

From page 4 here.

Quote:

Page 2
AUTISM RESEARCH AT THE NICHD
2
Why do people think
that vaccines can
cause autism?
Some parents and families of children with
autism believe that the Measles/Mumps/
Rubella (MMR) vaccine caused their children’s
autism. These parents report that their
children were “normal” until they received the
MMR vaccine. Then, after getting the vaccine,
their children started showing symptoms of
autism. Because the symptoms of autism begin
to occur around the same time as the child’s
MMR vaccination, parents and families see the
vaccine as the cause of the autism. However,
just because the events happen around the
same time does not mean that one caused the
other. Although children receive many other
vaccines in addition to the MMR vaccine,
these other vaccines have not been identified as
possible causes of autism.
These parents’ beliefs and observations were
reinforced by a small study of bowel disease
and autism, published by Wakefield and his
colleagues in 1998 (Wakefield et al 1998).

reinforced reinforced reinforced

Understand that parents noticed their children had a negative reaction to the MMR vaccine prior to Wakefield/1998. And that it likely took many, many parents NOTICING long before 1998 to make Wakefield become concerned enough to take on a study of a possible connection between MMR and autism.

kookbreaker · 12th May 2011, 08:12 AM

Ummm. So? Stupid people trying to find something to blame got their wish via a corrupt study. The parents were in no way being scientific, they just latched onto something to blame besides their own genetics.

excaza · 12th May 2011, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

reinforced reinforced reinforced

Understand that parents noticed their children had a negative reaction to the MMR vaccine prior to Wakefield/1998. And that it likely took many, many parents NOTICING long before 1998 to make Wakefield become concerned enough to take on a study of a possible connection between MMR and autism.

This is a horrendously dishonest cherrypick. You completely fail to take note of the other statements made in the text you've quoted.

Quote:

These parents report that their children were “normal” until they received the MMR vaccine. Then, after getting the vaccine, their children started showing symptoms of autism. Because the symptoms of autism begin to occur around the same time as the child’s MMR vaccination, parents and families see the vaccine as the cause of the autism.

derp.

Clayton Moore · 12th May 2011, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by excaza

After the trial is over and the vaccine is approved for use.

Sounds like someone has absolutely no clue how or why experimental trials work. It's likely that their reactions during the test will not actually be because of the medication being tested. Hence why healthy test subjects are chosen. Is the concept of controlling your variables in an experimental study too difficult for you to comprehend?

No, because that makes no sense.

It has nothing to do with 'better' or 'worse.' It has to do with being able to establish the cause for whatever negative result may come up. If you've got a subject who isn't healthy and has some sort of reaction, you have no idea if it's the result of the medication or because of a pre-existing ailment. This would invalidate any of the conclusions of the experiment, or at the very least make the results questionable and the medication likely wouldn't be approved.

I'm not sure why you think it should matter.

Being unhealthy doesn't necessarily mean you have an ailment. I just believe excluding 60% hides a lot of potential negative reactions that would have nothing to do with pre-existing ailments.

excaza · 12th May 2011, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Being unhealthy doesn't necessarily mean you have an ailment.

I'm not going to play semantic games with you.

Quote:

I just believe

Fortunately, your belief is not fact.

Quote:

excluding 60% hides a lot of potential negative reactions that would have nothing to do with pre-existing ailments.

And including those 60% would also introduce a whole boatload of effects that have nothing to do with the drug. That is the reason why experimental trials are set up the way they are. It's really not a difficult concept, but apparently it's one you're not getting.

CACTUSJACKmankin · 12th May 2011, 08:28 AM

Ith a conthpiwathy!!!
Courtesy of a DaVinci Code-style NWO/illuminati conspiracy website and Fox News.

Clayton Moore · 12th May 2011, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by excaza

This is a horrendously dishonest cherrypick. You completely fail to take note of the other statements made in the text you've quoted.

derp.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
reinforced reinforced reinforced

Understand that parents noticed their children had a negative reaction to the MMR vaccine prior to Wakefield/1998. And that it likely took many, many parents NOTICING long before 1998 to make Wakefield become concerned enough to take on a study of a possible connection between MMR and autism.

This is a horrendously dishonest cherrypick. You completely fail to take note of the other statements made in the text you've quoted.

Quote:
These parents report that their children were “normal” until they received the MMR vaccine. Then, after getting the vaccine, their children started showing symptoms of autism. Because the symptoms of autism begin to occur around the same time as the child’s MMR vaccination, parents and families see the vaccine as the cause of the autism.

The fact that it took until 1998 for a study to be done is kind of a reverse cherry pick.

Why do all you name callers think many thousands of parents are incorrect when they connect MMR shots with an onset of autism symptoms?

Dave Rogers · 12th May 2011, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Why do all you name callers think many thousands of parents are incorrect when they connect MMR shots with an onset of autism symptoms?

(1) Because autism is most commonly first detected at about the same age that MMR vaccination is delivered, leading to a false association, and,
(2) Because multiple statistical studies have shown no significant difference in the prevalence of autism between populations who have and have not received the MMR vaccination.

In case you need clarification, (1) is why parents make the connection, and (2) is what proves them incorrect.

Mind you, since I haven't been calling anybody names, maybe you weren't asking me.

Dave

Clayton Moore · 12th May 2011, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Oh. I was especially impressed by how you turned up the surly. That will surely make everyone come to your 'save the killer virii' campaign.

Quote:

Indeed, vaccines were oh-so profitable that the number of pharma companies producing them dropped from two dozen to 2-3 over the last few decades. After all, there was money to be not made.

That's what you said. You said nothing about vaccines for children.

Tolls · 12th May 2011, 08:55 AM

[quote=Clayton Moore;7175946]

Originally Posted by Tolls

Also ignoring the fact that the Sweden study:

From page 4 here.

reinforced reinforced reinforced

Understand that parents noticed their children had a negative reaction to the MMR vaccine prior to Wakefield/1998. And that it likely took many, many parents NOTICING long before 1998 to make Wakefield become concerned enough to take on a study of a possible connection between MMR and autism.

First you cherry pick by ignoring the Sweden and Danish studies (both larger than Wakefield, and the latter by several orders of magnitude), then you cherry pick that quote.

Two can play at that game:

Quote:

These parents’ beliefs and observations were
reinforced by a small study of bowel disease
and autism, published by Wakefield and his
colleagues in 1998 (Wakefield et al 1998).

small small small

See?

Or, put another way, a study of 500,000 trumps a study involving 12.

Tolls · 12th May 2011, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

(1) Because autism is most commonly first detected at about the same age that MMR vaccination is delivered, leading to a false association, and,
(2) Because multiple statistical studies have shown no significant difference in the prevalence of autism between populations who have and have not received the MMR vaccination.

In case you need clarification, (1) is why parents make the connection, and (2) is what proves them incorrect.

Mind you, since I haven't been calling anybody names, maybe you weren't asking me.

Dave

I'll answer, since I called him a scaremongering arse.
What Dave said...

And (2) is what is shown quite clearly in the Danish study.

Clayton Moore · 12th May 2011, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Ummm. So? Stupid people trying to find something to blame got their wish via a corrupt study. The parents were in no way being scientific, they just latched onto something to blame besides their own genetics.

You mean parents are stupid if they noticed that their child had a negative reaction to a vaccination and spoke up/out about it?

And you're saying millions of children world wide, at age of 1 or 2, are genetically disposed to become autistic no matter their lineage?

TSR · 12th May 2011, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

You mean parents are stupid if they noticed that their child had a negative reaction to a vaccination and spoke up/out about it?

.
And these parents determined that it was the vaccine and nothing else ... how?
.

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

And you're saying millions of children world wide, at age of 1 or 2, are genetically disposed to become autistic no matter their lineage?

.
Yes, that's exactly what we are saying.

One notes that you continue to run from your gaff about thimerosal in MMR vaccine, and what happened to autism rates after the former was removed altogether...
.

excaza · 12th May 2011, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Why do all you name callers think many thousands of parents are incorrect when they connect MMR shots with an onset of autism symptoms?

Because a.) they're not doctors, and b.)

Quote:

Because the symptoms of autism begin to occur around the same time as the child’s MMR vaccination, parents and families see the vaccine as the cause of the autism.

Perhaps you should read that over and over again until it sinks in and you stop repeatedly asking the same stupid question.

000063 · 12th May 2011, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Yeah sure. But it's okay to require the less healthy children to get the vaccine.

Isn't likely that the less healthy 60% of the children would be more susceptible to negative reactions when given vaccines?

Shouldn't the threshold of requiring vaccines be that they are at least as healthy as the study group?

Maybe the less healthy 60% of the children are more prone to be stricken with autism.

What is that, some sort of upside down control group policy? We're not allowing 60% of the children participate
in the study because it make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 50% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 60% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 70% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 80% participate in the survey make the results worse?
Would allowing only the healthiest 90% participate in the survey make the results worse?

I wonder at which threshold the instances of negative responses might begin spiking?

I wonder if parents are ever informed that their children, when getting a vaccine, are not healthy enough to participate in a vaccine study?

Speculation.

excaza · 12th May 2011, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

You mean parents are stupid if they noticed that their child had a negative reaction to a vaccination and spoke up/out about it?

They didn't have a negative reaction to the vaccine.

Quote:

And you're saying millions of children world wide, at age of 1 or 2, are genetically disposed to become autistic no matter their lineage?

Ignoring the fact that genetics and lineage are the exact same thing, yes.

Clayton Moore · 12th May 2011, 10:04 AM

[quote=Tolls;7176125]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

First you cherry pick by ignoring the Sweden and Danish studies (both larger than Wakefield, and the latter by several orders of magnitude), then you cherry pick that quote.

Two can play at that game:

small small small

See?

Or, put another way, a study of 500,000 trumps a study involving 12.

Maybe he didn't have sufficient funding to a large study. But he did have access to autistic children who became autistic after a recent vaccine dose.

kookbreaker · 12th May 2011, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

That's what you said. You said nothing about vaccines for children.

But you were complaining about vaccines causing Autism in children, and 'poisoning our children'. I went on the assumption that most reasonable would make: that I was referring to vaccines made for children, not cancer vaccines, h1n1 vaccines, influenza vaccines that are meant for adults.

I'm sorry your attempt at pwnage fell flat but don't try to salvage it with a batch of micro-pedantic nitpicking.

excaza · 12th May 2011, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Maybe he didn't have sufficient funding to a large study.

Or maybe he picked exactly the sample he needed to get the results he was looking for?

Quote:

But he did have access to autistic children who became autistic after a recent vaccine dose.

Children become autistic after being born, should we start banning births?

11th May 2011, 01:53 PM	#82
TSR Do you know what this notorious criminal did? Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 4,788	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore Pre seems to be MMR with thimerosal Post seems to be MMR without thimerosal . ... ignoring the teeny tiny fact that "... (MMR) vaccines do not and never did contain thimerosal. Varicella (chickenpox), inactivated polio (IPV), and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have also never contained thimerosal." Not to mention that the last lots of childhood vaccine to use thimerosal expired in January 2003 -- tell us all: what has happened to ASD rates since then? Well, as of 2009 the rate had doubled over 2003's numbers. .
	__________________ My apologies once again for not being allowed to use the obvious shorthand term for a person who knowingly posts untruths. Apparently someone finds that term uncivil, demonstrated and deserved as it is. . "My family is not my weakness, Max. It's my strength." Vince Faraday aka The Cape Last edited by TSR; 11th May 2011 at 02:05 PM.

11th May 2011, 04:57 PM	#83
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,941	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore http://www.iirusa.com/vbc/welcome.xml You might want to check out the conference again. What does it matter if it is profitable? You what's also profitable? Building MRI machines! Do you think they'll kill you? You know what else is profitable? Building elevators or lifts! Do you avoid them? If you spend your life avoiding anything built or made for profit you'll end up in a cave.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

11th May 2011, 06:21 PM	#84
TSR Do you know what this notorious criminal did? Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 4,788	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore That just means everyone got the same regimen of vaccines and some, I think 1 out 110 is the latest number, are stricken with autism. . No, not "just". Those 1-2 per 1000 (as of 2006) are then compared with the others to see what risk factors the two groups may share. .
	__________________ My apologies once again for not being allowed to use the obvious shorthand term for a person who knowingly posts untruths. Apparently someone finds that term uncivil, demonstrated and deserved as it is. . "My family is not my weakness, Max. It's my strength." Vince Faraday aka The Cape

11th May 2011, 06:37 PM	#86
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,177	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore http://www.iirusa.com/vbc/welcome.xml You might want to check out the conference again. OK, let's look at these: Intercell - Makes vaccines, but none of them seem to be for children Nabi - They make nicotine addiction fighting stuff Biosante - The only vaccine they make fights cancer GlobeImmune - Most of their products are for fighting cancer and hepatitis, although they do seem to have a product for fighting influenza in the research stage. Novavax - These guys make vaccines for h1n1, the flu, and are working on Herpes and HIV Syntiron - Their vaccines seem to be for fighting bacterial infections Bavarian-Nordic - Makes vaccines for Smallpox and HPV. Medicago - Vaccines for H1n1. Influenza and h5n1 Merck- makes vaccines. So does GSK Vaxinnate- Makes influenza vaccines So this big conference seems to mostly include pharma companies that produce or develop vaccines for rather adult conditions. I stand by my statement.
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,177	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

11th May 2011, 11:06 PM	#89
Corsair 115 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Tranquility Base Posts: 8,564	Originally Posted by Travis If you spend your life avoiding anything built or made for profit you'll end up in a cave. And not even then if I own the cave as I'll ask for rent if he wants to stay in there. Which means profit for me!
	__________________ "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

11th May 2011, 12:57 PM	#81
Clayton Moore Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 6,184	Originally Posted by kookbreaker Indeed, vaccines were oh-so profitable that the number of pharma companies producing them dropped from two dozen to 2-3 over the last few decades. After all, there was money to be not made. http://www.iirusa.com/vbc/welcome.xml You might want to check out the conference again.

11th May 2011, 06:27 PM	#85
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore Quote: Child 2. MMR at 15 months - head banging 2 weeks later. Hyperactive from 18 months. Endoscopy - aphthoid ulcer at hepatic flexure Caecum: lymphoid nodular hyperplasia with erythematous rim and pale swollen core. Histology, Ileum mild inflammation, colon moderate inflammation Acute and chronic inflammation. Treated CT3211 [a dietary treatment] INDETERMINATE COLITIS ? CROHN’S DISEASE You don't have a clue. That's what multiple vaccines do to babies. I hate Crohn's disease. It is an evil soul destroying force. If Crohn's disease was a person, I would wish Crohn's disease on him. He'd deserve it. My sister, my father and my aunt have Crohn's. And I can say with absolute certainty that you don't know a damn thing about it. Between my mom, dad, 2 brothers, 2 sisters, 4 aunts, 4 uncles and 19 cousins however, all but one of us have been properly vaccinated and only three have Crohn's. There goes your theory. This is what NOT** vaccinating babies does to them. I know you don't care Clayton, because that child isn't white. But for those of us who do care, no child of any skin color will ever suffer like that again because of vaccines. Suck it down, mein herr.

11th May 2011, 07:13 PM	#87
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,763	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr...#ixzz1M1xa4grU Did you read the article? Is Measles a dangerous disease in the US? It wasn't in the 50s. Certainly almost everyone who died from measles in the 50s would have been saved today with 50 years of advances in medical treatment and diet knowledge. Dieing isn't dangerous?

11th May 2011, 07:22 PM	#88
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore http://www.iirusa.com/vbc/welcome.xml You might want to check out the conference again. FYI, groups involved in sinister conspiracies to make children sick and make money for themselves don't announce public conferences advertising their dates and locations on splashy webpages.

11th May 2011, 11:24 PM	#90
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,941	A Cave in a disputed zone with no property rights!
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

12th May 2011, 12:06 AM	#91
abaddon Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,580	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore Did you know vaccine "testing" of vaccines is done only on healthy children? And that 60% of children are not considered healthy enough to participate. Which is super scary in that almost all children will be required to receive the vaccine. What is super scary is that you cannot figure out why this is so.
abaddon Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,580

12th May 2011, 01:40 AM	#92
Tolls Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,123	Originally Posted by TSR . ... ignoring the teeny tiny fact that "... (MMR) vaccines do not and never did contain thimerosal. Varicella (chickenpox), inactivated polio (IPV), and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have also never contained thimerosal." Not to mention that the last lots of childhood vaccine to use thimerosal expired in January 2003 -- tell us all: what has happened to ASD rates since then? Well, as of 2009 the rate had doubled over 2003's numbers. . Also ignoring the fact that the Sweden study: Quote: A study, done in Sweden in 1998, also showed no evidence of association between the MMR vaccine and autism. The study compared the number of autism cases in children from two Swedish towns before 1982, when local doctors first started using the MMR vaccine, and after 1982. The results showed no difference in the rate of autism between the two groups of children in either town (Gillberg & Heijbel 1998). From page 4 here. Or the Danish study. Quote: The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, looked at all children born in January 1991 until December 1998. Over 440,000 children who had been given the MMR vaccine and over 100,000 who had not.
Tolls Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,123

12th May 2011, 03:23 AM	#93
Clayton Moore Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 6,184	Originally Posted by tsig Dieing isn't dangerous? Only if you ingest it.

12th May 2011, 05:40 AM	#94
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,941	I know I cut death out of my diet. It was really bitter anyways.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

12th May 2011, 06:36 AM	#95
Clayton Moore Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 6,184	Originally Posted by kookbreaker Indeed, vaccines were oh-so profitable that the number of pharma companies producing them dropped from two dozen to 2-3 over the last few decades. After all, there was money to be not made. Originally Posted by kookbreaker OK, let's look at these: Intercell - Makes vaccines, but none of them seem to be for children Nabi - They make nicotine addiction fighting stuff Biosante - The only vaccine they make fights cancer GlobeImmune - Most of their products are for fighting cancer and hepatitis, although they do seem to have a product for fighting influenza in the research stage. Novavax - These guys make vaccines for h1n1, the flu, and are working on Herpes and HIV Syntiron - Their vaccines seem to be for fighting bacterial infections Bavarian-Nordic - Makes vaccines for Smallpox and HPV. Medicago - Vaccines for H1n1. Influenza and h5n1 Merck- makes vaccines. So does GSK Vaxinnate- Makes influenza vaccines So this big conference seems to mostly include pharma companies that produce or develop vaccines for rather adult conditions. I stand by my statement. Good for you. Whatever. SMH.
	__________________ Shitat Matzliach is why the Holohoax works. The same neoconservative scum who engineered 9/11 and got the US into two wars want American troops to sacrifice their lives in Syria and Iran. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhc7M...Mc4eb2TClVRQws http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/#aevideo http://www2.ae911truth.org/actionale...rBuilding7.php

12th May 2011, 06:41 AM	#96
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 3,632	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore Did you know vaccine "testing" of vaccines is done only on healthy children? I cannot possibly imagine why.
	__________________

12th May 2011, 07:13 AM	#97
Tolls Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,123	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore Good for you. Whatever. SMH. Nothing to say about the fact that two of the MMR studies I cited (including one of the biggest) involved comparing children who had the MMR jab vs those who hadn't? And TSRs point about MMR never containing thimerosal?
Tolls Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,123

12th May 2011, 07:22 AM	#98
Clayton Moore Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 6,184	Originally Posted by abaddon What is super scary is that you cannot figure out why this is so. Yeah sure. But it's okay to require the less healthy children to get the vaccine. Isn't likely that the less healthy 60% of the children would be more susceptible to negative reactions when given vaccines? Shouldn't the threshold of requiring vaccines be that they are at least as healthy as the study group? Maybe the less healthy 60% of the children are more prone to be stricken with autism. What is that, some sort of upside down control group policy? We're not allowing 60% of the children participate in the study because it make the results worse? Would allowing only the healthiest 50% participate in the survey make the results worse? Would allowing only the healthiest 60% participate in the survey make the results worse? Would allowing only the healthiest 70% participate in the survey make the results worse? Would allowing only the healthiest 80% participate in the survey make the results worse? Would allowing only the healthiest 90% participate in the survey make the results worse? I wonder at which threshold the instances of negative responses might begin spiking? I wonder if parents are ever informed that their children, when getting a vaccine, are not healthy enough to participate in a vaccine study?
	__________________ Shitat Matzliach is why the Holohoax works. The same neoconservative scum who engineered 9/11 and got the US into two wars want American troops to sacrifice their lives in Syria and Iran. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhc7M...Mc4eb2TClVRQws http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/#aevideo http://www2.ae911truth.org/actionale...rBuilding7.php

12th May 2011, 07:52 AM	#99
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,177	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore Good for you. Whatever. SMH. Oh. I was especially impressed by how you turned up the surly. That will surely make everyone come to your 'save the killer virii' campaign.
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,177	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

12th May 2011, 08:00 AM	#100
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore Good for you. Whatever. SMH. So, basically, you're not interested in evidence that doesn't say what you want it to? Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

12th May 2011, 08:08 AM	#101
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 3,632	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore Yeah sure. But it's okay to require the less healthy children to get the vaccine. After the trial is over and the vaccine is approved for use. Quote: Isn't likely that the less healthy 60% of the children would be more susceptible to negative reactions when given vaccines? Sounds like someone has absolutely no clue how or why experimental trials work. It's likely that their reactions during the test will not actually be because of the medication being tested. Hence why healthy test subjects are chosen. Is the concept of controlling your variables in an experimental study too difficult for you to comprehend? Quote: Shouldn't the threshold of requiring vaccines be that they are at least as healthy as the study group? No, because that makes no sense. Quote: What is that, some sort of upside down control group policy? We're not allowing 60% of the children participate in the study because it make the results worse? Would allowing only the healthiest 50% participate in the survey make the results worse? Would allowing only the healthiest 60% participate in the survey make the results worse? Would allowing only the healthiest 70% participate in the survey make the results worse? Would allowing only the healthiest 80% participate in the survey make the results worse? Would allowing only the healthiest 90% participate in the survey make the results worse? It has nothing to do with 'better' or 'worse.' It has to do with being able to establish the cause for whatever negative result may come up. If you've got a subject who isn't healthy and has some sort of reaction, you have no idea if it's the result of the medication or because of a pre-existing ailment. This would invalidate any of the conclusions of the experiment, or at the very least make the results questionable and the medication likely wouldn't be approved. Quote: I wonder if parents are ever informed that their children, when getting a vaccine, are not healthy enough to participate in a vaccine study? I'm not sure why you think it should matter.
	__________________ Last edited by excaza; 12th May 2011 at 08:09 AM.

12th May 2011, 08:09 AM	#102
Clayton Moore Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 6,184	[quote=Tolls;7175006]Also ignoring the fact that the Sweden study: From page 4 here. Quote: Page 2 AUTISM RESEARCH AT THE NICHD 2 Why do people think that vaccines can cause autism? Some parents and families of children with autism believe that the Measles/Mumps/ Rubella (MMR) vaccine caused their children’s autism. These parents report that their children were “normal” until they received the MMR vaccine. Then, after getting the vaccine, their children started showing symptoms of autism. Because the symptoms of autism begin to occur around the same time as the child’s MMR vaccination, parents and families see the vaccine as the cause of the autism. However, just because the events happen around the same time does not mean that one caused the other. Although children receive many other vaccines in addition to the MMR vaccine, these other vaccines have not been identified as possible causes of autism. These parents’ beliefs and observations were *reinforced* by a small study of bowel disease and autism, published by Wakefield and his colleagues in 1998 (Wakefield et al 1998). *reinforced reinforced reinforced* Understand that parents noticed their children had a negative reaction to the MMR vaccine prior to Wakefield/1998. And that it likely took many, many parents NOTICING long before 1998 to make Wakefield become concerned enough to take on a study of a possible connection between MMR and autism.
	__________________ Shitat Matzliach is why the Holohoax works. The same neoconservative scum who engineered 9/11 and got the US into two wars want American troops to sacrifice their lives in Syria and Iran. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhc7M...Mc4eb2TClVRQws http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/#aevideo http://www2.ae911truth.org/actionale...rBuilding7.php

12th May 2011, 08:12 AM	#103
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,177	Ummm. So? Stupid people trying to find something to blame got their wish via a corrupt study. The parents were in no way being scientific, they just latched onto something to blame besides their own genetics.
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,177	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

12th May 2011, 08:12 AM	#104
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 3,632	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore *reinforced reinforced reinforced* Understand that parents noticed their children had a negative reaction to the MMR vaccine prior to Wakefield/1998. And that it likely took many, many parents NOTICING long before 1998 to make Wakefield become concerned enough to take on a study of a possible connection between MMR and autism. This is a horrendously dishonest cherrypick. You completely fail to take note of the other statements made in the text you've quoted. Quote: These parents report that their children were “normal” until they received the MMR vaccine. Then, after getting the vaccine, their children started showing symptoms of autism. Because the symptoms of autism begin to occur around the same time as the child’s MMR vaccination, parents and families see the vaccine as the cause of the autism. derp.
	__________________

12th May 2011, 08:18 AM	#105
Clayton Moore Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 6,184	Originally Posted by excaza After the trial is over and the vaccine is approved for use. Sounds like someone has absolutely no clue how or why experimental trials work. It's likely that their reactions during the test will not actually be because of the medication being tested. Hence why healthy test subjects are chosen. Is the concept of controlling your variables in an experimental study too difficult for you to comprehend? No, because that makes no sense. It has nothing to do with 'better' or 'worse.' It has to do with being able to establish the cause for whatever negative result may come up. If you've got a subject who isn't healthy and has some sort of reaction, you have no idea if it's the result of the medication or because of a pre-existing ailment. This would invalidate any of the conclusions of the experiment, or at the very least make the results questionable and the medication likely wouldn't be approved. I'm not sure why you think it should matter. Being unhealthy doesn't necessarily mean you have an ailment. I just believe excluding 60% hides a lot of potential negative reactions that would have nothing to do with pre-existing ailments.
	__________________ Shitat Matzliach is why the Holohoax works. The same neoconservative scum who engineered 9/11 and got the US into two wars want American troops to sacrifice their lives in Syria and Iran. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhc7M...Mc4eb2TClVRQws http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/#aevideo http://www2.ae911truth.org/actionale...rBuilding7.php

12th May 2011, 08:23 AM	#106
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 3,632	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore Being unhealthy doesn't necessarily mean you have an ailment. I'm not going to play semantic games with you. Quote: I just believe Fortunately, your belief is not fact. Quote: excluding 60% hides a lot of potential negative reactions that would have nothing to do with pre-existing ailments. And including those 60% would also introduce a whole boatload of effects that have nothing to do with the drug. That is the reason why experimental trials are set up the way they are. It's really not a difficult concept, but apparently it's one you're not getting.
	__________________ Last edited by excaza; 12th May 2011 at 08:25 AM.

12th May 2011, 08:28 AM	#107
CACTUSJACKmankin Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 279	Ith a conthpiwathy!!! Courtesy of a DaVinci Code-style NWO/illuminati conspiracy website and Fox News.

12th May 2011, 08:39 AM	#108
Clayton Moore Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 6,184	Originally Posted by excaza This is a horrendously dishonest cherrypick. You completely fail to take note of the other statements made in the text you've quoted. derp. Quote: Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post reinforced reinforced reinforced Understand that parents noticed their children had a negative reaction to the MMR vaccine prior to Wakefield/1998. And that it likely took many, many parents NOTICING long before 1998 to make Wakefield become concerned enough to take on a study of a possible connection between MMR and autism. This is a horrendously dishonest cherrypick. You completely fail to take note of the other statements made in the text you've quoted. Quote: These parents report that their children were “normal” until they received the MMR vaccine. Then, after getting the vaccine, their children started showing symptoms of autism. Because the symptoms of autism begin to occur around the same time as the child’s MMR vaccination, parents and families see the vaccine as the cause of the autism. The fact that it took until 1998 for a study to be done is kind of a reverse cherry pick. Why do all you name callers think many thousands of parents are incorrect when they connect MMR shots with an onset of autism symptoms?
	__________________ Shitat Matzliach is why the Holohoax works. The same neoconservative scum who engineered 9/11 and got the US into two wars want American troops to sacrifice their lives in Syria and Iran. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhc7M...Mc4eb2TClVRQws http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/#aevideo http://www2.ae911truth.org/actionale...rBuilding7.php

12th May 2011, 08:44 AM	#109
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore Why do all you name callers think many thousands of parents are incorrect when they connect MMR shots with an onset of autism symptoms? (1) Because autism is most commonly first detected at about the same age that MMR vaccination is delivered, leading to a false association, and, (2) Because multiple statistical studies have shown no significant difference in the prevalence of autism between populations who have and have not received the MMR vaccination. In case you need clarification, (1) is why parents make the connection, and (2) is what proves them incorrect. Mind you, since I haven't been calling anybody names, maybe you weren't asking me. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

12th May 2011, 08:51 AM	#110
Clayton Moore Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 6,184	Originally Posted by kookbreaker Oh. I was especially impressed by how you turned up the surly. That will surely make everyone come to your 'save the killer virii' campaign. Quote: Indeed, vaccines were oh-so profitable that the number of pharma companies producing them dropped from two dozen to 2-3 over the last few decades. After all, there was money to be not made. That's what you said. You said nothing about vaccines for children.
	__________________ Shitat Matzliach is why the Holohoax works. The same neoconservative scum who engineered 9/11 and got the US into two wars want American troops to sacrifice their lives in Syria and Iran. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhc7M...Mc4eb2TClVRQws http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/#aevideo http://www2.ae911truth.org/actionale...rBuilding7.php

12th May 2011, 08:55 AM	#111
Tolls Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,123	[quote=Clayton Moore;7175946] Originally Posted by Tolls Also ignoring the fact that the Sweden study: From page 4 here. *reinforced reinforced reinforced* Understand that parents noticed their children had a negative reaction to the MMR vaccine prior to Wakefield/1998. And that it likely took many, many parents NOTICING long before 1998 to make Wakefield become concerned enough to take on a study of a possible connection between MMR and autism. First you cherry pick by ignoring the Sweden and Danish studies (both larger than Wakefield, and the latter by several orders of magnitude), then you cherry pick that quote. Two can play at that game: Quote: These parents’ beliefs and observations were reinforced by a *small* study of bowel disease and autism, published by Wakefield and his colleagues in 1998 (Wakefield et al 1998). *small small small* See? Or, put another way, a study of 500,000 trumps a study involving 12.
Tolls Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,123

12th May 2011, 08:56 AM	#112
Tolls Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,123	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (1) Because autism is most commonly first detected at about the same age that MMR vaccination is delivered, leading to a false association, and, (2) Because multiple statistical studies have shown no significant difference in the prevalence of autism between populations who have and have not received the MMR vaccination. In case you need clarification, (1) is why parents make the connection, and (2) is what proves them incorrect. Mind you, since I haven't been calling anybody names, maybe you weren't asking me. Dave I'll answer, since I called him a scaremongering arse. What Dave said... And (2) is what is shown quite clearly in the Danish study.
Tolls Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,123

12th May 2011, 09:06 AM	#113
Clayton Moore Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 6,184	Originally Posted by kookbreaker Ummm. So? Stupid people trying to find something to blame got their wish via a corrupt study. The parents were in no way being scientific, they just latched onto something to blame besides their own genetics. You mean parents are stupid if they noticed that their child had a negative reaction to a vaccination and spoke up/out about it? And you're saying millions of children world wide, at age of 1 or 2, are genetically disposed to become autistic no matter their lineage?
	__________________ Shitat Matzliach is why the Holohoax works. The same neoconservative scum who engineered 9/11 and got the US into two wars want American troops to sacrifice their lives in Syria and Iran. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhc7M...Mc4eb2TClVRQws http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/#aevideo http://www2.ae911truth.org/actionale...rBuilding7.php Last edited by Clayton Moore; 12th May 2011 at 09:08 AM.

12th May 2011, 09:13 AM	#114
TSR Do you know what this notorious criminal did? Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 4,788	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore You mean parents are stupid if they noticed that their child had a negative reaction to a vaccination and spoke up/out about it? . And these parents determined that it was the vaccine and nothing else ... how? . Originally Posted by Clayton Moore And you're saying millions of children world wide, at age of 1 or 2, are genetically disposed to become autistic no matter their lineage? . Yes, that's exactly what we are saying. One notes that you continue to run from your gaff about thimerosal in MMR vaccine, and what happened to autism rates after the former was removed altogether... .
	__________________ My apologies once again for not being allowed to use the obvious shorthand term for a person who knowingly posts untruths. Apparently someone finds that term uncivil, demonstrated and deserved as it is. . "My family is not my weakness, Max. It's my strength." Vince Faraday aka The Cape

12th May 2011, 09:47 AM	#115
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 3,632	Originally Posted by Clayton Moore Why do all you name callers think many thousands of parents are incorrect when they connect MMR shots with an onset of autism symptoms? Because a.) they're not doctors, and b.) Quote: Because the symptoms of autism begin to occur around the same time as the child’s MMR vaccination, parents and families see the vaccine as the cause of the autism. Perhaps you should read that over and over again until it sinks in and you stop repeatedly asking the same stupid question.
	__________________