Somebody school me on the alleged connection between vaccines and autism
Jonas.dini
Confirm Email Posts: 2,507 ✭✭
I always thought this was just a conspiracy theory and that there was no science really to support it, but someone I know is very sure. I think all you can find is junk science, but I'm not actually a bio/chemist myself so I can't really say that with total certainty... what can y'all tell me about this?
Comments
-
Never mind, I just schooled myself, it's utter ?
-
Jonas.dini wrote: »Never mind, I just schooled myself, it's utter ?
I dunno, my daughters Kindergarten teacher was telling me that the doc gave her daughter too many vaccines at once and in a week her daughter had problems, later her daughter was showing signs of being autistic and she's now suing the doctor. Teacher seemed genuine about it, so I dunno. I hear it's happened and can but then I hear it's BS, like you said. Of course who says it's BS? The one's giving the shots, go figure right? -
Jonas.dini wrote: »Never mind, I just schooled myself, it's utter ?
-
i see you have discovered the correct answer
? .. vaccinations stimulate the immune system. repeated vaccinations exhaust the immune system, giving a false sense of security while opening the door for all kinds of illness and dis ease. they encourage medical dependency while reinforcing the belief in a inefficient body. just another tactic in destabilizing us while keeping us in fear.. -
yeah it was ? , even the people who originally did the study retracted the study and admit its ? .
-
Here's how I know at least that there is no real evidence:
There has never ever been even one credible peer reviewed study that can demonstrate it with scientific methods. Only one ever published (in 1998) has been utterly discredited as fraud and no one has been able to replicate the results.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/06/autism.vaccines/index.html -
Time is short so I'ma make two points and bounce.
1.) Its not absolute truth that its utter ? . It just means that science has not proven its valdity yet. Science hasn't not done a lot of things yet. Vaccines are big business so dude may have been coerced to retract. Its possible.
2.) National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) and the the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) are fundamentally flawed and thoroughly corrupt structures. They are the only way evidence can be gathered to prove or disprove vaccine safety. Proof from a medical doctor here: http://therefusers.com/articles/crucial-evidence-for-vaccine-safety-is-missing-the-giant-has-been-sleeping/
BONUS POINT
3.) This whole thing feels like a strawman thread because autism isnt the only documented adverse effect of vaccines that people use as evidence to support refusing vaccines. A lot of money would be lost if medical science gave us evidence that a cornerstone of the industry is ? . The medical industry is not designed to fix you -
-
Ok, when it came out that A high ranking official from the Standford Medical school was on the take from Pharmaceutical companies to promote their products and with all that we know about the medical industry, and their profit over health agenda, and the constant commercial highlighting class action lawsuits against some pharamceutical company for releasing garbage to the American people, and the corrupt ways of the FDA in protecting these people, why would it be so hard to believe or suspect some shady business is going on with vaccines in light of the SV40 fiasco?
-
Jonas.dini wrote: »Here's how I know at least that there is no real evidence:
There has never ever been even one credible peer reviewed study that can demonstrate it with scientific methods. Only one ever published (in 1998) has been utterly discredited as fraud and no one has been able to replicate the results.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/06/autism.vaccines/index.html
A study conducted by peers who have been outed as on the take from Pharamceutical companies?
http://www.propublica.org/article/medical-schools-policies-on-faculty-and-drug-company-speaking-circuit/single
The paper trail-
http://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/ -
Medical Industrial Complex aside, there is no peer reviewed scientific study to demonstrate a correlation, and the only one that ever did exist has been labeled fraudulent by the scientific community... and as such it is not going to fly as a research paper topic in a college-level course. Agreed?
-
3.) This whole thing feels like a strawman thread
I see what u mean, but that's not my intention -
You mean a peer review by those on the take from Pharmaceutical companies?
http://www.propublica.org/article/medical-schools-policies-on-faculty-and-drug-company-speaking-circuit/single
The Paper trail-
http://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/Jonas.dini wrote: »Medical Industrial Complex aside, there is no peer reviewed scientific study to demonstrate a correlation, and the only one that ever did exist has been labeled fraudulent by the scientific community... and as such it is not going to fly as a research paper topic in a college-level course. Agreed? -
Jonas.dini wrote: »Medical Industrial Complex aside, there is no peer reviewed scientific study to demonstrate a correlation, and the only one that ever did exist has been labeled fraudulent by the scientific community... and as such it is not going to fly as a research paper topic in a college-level course. Agreed?
Of course it is agreed. But I think your missing the point. The peers are who? They come from the same pool as the scientists and doctors on the take. If I work for a University, Private Company, or Research company I am not an independent scientist. Remember that scientist are paid employees of Pharmaceuticals in most cases who depend on funding from the same people they would have to study. Don't you think that is a conflict of interest?
That is like a county judge finding his co-worker(cop) guilty in a police brutality case and awarding the victim a settlement from his boss. There is an inherent contradiction built in that scenario. -
Of course it is agreed. But I think your missing the point. The peers are who? They come from the same pool as the scientists and doctors on the take. If I work for a University, Private Company, or Research company I am not an independent scientist. Remember that scientist are paid employees of Pharmaceuticals in most cases who depend on funding from the same people they would have to study. Don't you think that is a conflict of interest?
That is like a county judge finding his co-worker(cop) guilty in a police brutality case and awarding the victim a settlement from his boss. There is an inherent contradiction built in that scenario.
An independent scientists can get on a peer review committee. -
But anyway, I do see your point and it is interesting and I agree that big-pharm is too much in bed with medical research... but that doesn't change the fact that there is no science to support the notion at hand.
-
Jonas.dini wrote: »Medical Industrial Complex aside, there is no peer reviewed scientific study to demonstrate a correlation, and the only one that ever did exist has been labeled fraudulent by the scientific community... and as such it is not going to fly as a research paper topic in a college-level course. Agreed?
No. its a correlation between mercury,thimerosal, autism and vaccines.. Mercury can interfere with the calcium within the cell and play a major role in the transmission of signals that direct the development process as well as neuron function. its alot of alternative info out there, im not gonna get all jenny mccarthy on the subject tho. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »An independent scientists can get on a peer review committee.[/QUOTE
In theory.
Name me one independent scientist who has that distinction?. The only independent ones I know have been blackballed and are lone wolfs who depend on books and publications outlining the corruption of the medical industry, to support themselves. -
Jonas.dini wrote: »An independent scientists can get on a peer review committee.[/QUOTE
In theory.
Name me one independent scientist who has that distinction?. The only independent ones I know have been blackballed and are lone wolfs who depend on books and publications outlining the corruption of the medical industry, to support themselves.
I think you're mischaracterizing the way that peer review committees work. -
melanated khemist wrote: »No. its a correlation between mercury,thimerosal, autism and vaccines.. Mercury can interfere with the calcium within the cell and play a major role in the transmission of signals that direct the development process as well as neuron function. its alot of alternative info out there, im not gonna get all jenny mccarthy on the subject tho.
Is any of this based on a peer reviewed scientific study? -
Uknowwhat... I think I'll take a step back and say that I can't say with certainty that it is ? , but certainly it hasn't been proven, and furthermore it is considered toxic in the scientific community because of that disgraced study.
Thanks for the commentary y'all. -
Damn Jonas 5 stars with this one, lots of got info in here
-
bottom line vaccines aint ? . all that "aid" in Africa leads to "aids" in Africa, or atleast what "they" diagnose as "aids".. vaccines play a major role in that also.
-
Last Of My Kind wrote: »Damn Jonas 5 stars with this one, lots of got info in here
Thanks man, I feel like I learned a bit about this today, not really the nuts and bolts of the science on it but just about the 'debate' -
melanated khemist wrote: »bottom line vaccines aint ? . all that "aid" in Africa leads to "aids" in Africa, or atleast what "they" diagnose as "aids".. vaccines play a major role in that also.
That conspiracy theory has also been completely debunked. ? did not come from vaccination experiments. It came from Africans eating apes that had SIV.