Vaccine-induced diseases - Page 3

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

A peer review is another big lie.

Maybe, but at the moment... it's all we have. Is it better to not undergo any review, because that is what you appear to be advocating?

I honestly understand what you are saying, I've heard it before, and while it is logical, and perhaps possible, you cannot expect others to just "take your word for it"?

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

Surely you realise that this requires a bit of conspirational thought, and a stretch of thought process for the majority?

Immunity is not about recollection. It is activated to destroy anything foreign.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by medusaatemydog

If there was someone to do research on what vaccination is actually doing to people they would omit the evidence and only publish what is acceptable to the pharmecutical bottom line.

It very likely has been studied, and the answers lie with the animal models already available.

If t1/2 is so confident in this assessment of host response, he/she should be able to demonstrate it with at least those studies. The onus is on him/her to do so, not me, or anyone else. That is my only point.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Immunity is not about recollection. It is activated to destroy anything foreign.

Recollection, as in memory, or memory cells? Please elaborate.

[shuttlt]

:

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

It very likely has been studied, and the answers lie with the animal models already available.

If t1/2 is so confident in this assessment of host response, he/she should be able to demonstrate it with at least those studies. The onus is on him/her to do so, not me, or anyone else. That is my only point.

Is it because the mice they used in experimental studies didn't develop autism so there's no way it can happen in humans?

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

Recollection, as in memory, or memory cells? Please elaborate.

Memory, memory cells, memory B cells, are part of immunologic recollection.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Memory, memory cells, memory B cells, are part of immunologic recollection.

You previously stated that immunity is not about "recollection"... what is it about, what are you meaning to imply?

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Is it because the mice they used in experimental studies didn't develop autism so there's no way it can happen in humans?

Who said anything about autism? You are sort of bouncing around all over the place, no offence.

You have made several claims about the disease process and the vaccination process. You have cited references, that don't totally demonstrate your claims, you've just put your own spin on them. This is okay. But you are portraying them as fact and when asked to furnish evidence, you say stuff like what I'm quoting above?

If what you say is true, go dig up the animal models, break them down for us and demonstrate it.

I'm on your side.

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

You previously stated that immunity is not about "recollection"... what is it about, what are you meaning to imply?

That our immune system is designed to destroy anything foreign like vaccines. It does not confer recollection without destruction. And that vaccines are actually the body's first encounter with the disease.

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

Who said anything about autism? You are sort of bouncing around all over the place, no offence.

You have made several claims about the disease process and the vaccination process. You have cited references, that don't totally demonstrate your claims, you've just put your own spin on them. This is okay. But you are portraying them as fact and when asked to furnish evidence, you say stuff like what I'm quoting above?

If what you say is true, go dig up the animal models, break them down for us and demonstrate it.

I'm on your side.

What I am saying is that you cannot extrapolate animal studies to humans. No way. That is very unscientific.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

And that vaccines are actually the body's first encounter with the disease.

Ok. Baby steps here. I totally agree. And I also agree that this first encounter could never happen in nature.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

That our immune system is designed to destroy anything foreign like vaccines. It does not confer recollection without destruction. And that vaccines are actually the body's first encounter with the disease.

This is a fairly standard view, no?

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

This is a fairly standard view, no?

That vaccines contain diseases? And that exposure to these diseases in the vaccine would prevent natural diseases?

[Th1Th2]

*

Human trials are based on animal experimentation. Yes it's unethical.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Human trials are based on animal experimentation. Yes it's unethical.

Be that as it may, this does not change the fact that you are making unsubstantiated claims. Which again, is okay - just acknowledge that you are doing so, and claim your opinion.

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

Be that as it may, this does not change the fact that you are making unsubstantiated claims. Which again, is okay - just acknowledge that you are doing so, and claim your opinion.

Because I treat vaccines as poisons, do you? Its only worth discussing toxic effects.

[medusaatemydog]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

It very likely has been studied, and the answers lie with the animal models already available.

.

What about the studies that were are not made available that did not show the results to market the pharmecutical.

Journals and Pharmecutical companies are NOTORIOUS for not publishing studies that show the negative outcomes of thier product. If it has been studied and i'm sure it has ...the studies that show the actual damage of all this would be destroyed, unpublished, and certainly not public. Those researchers would be fired harassed and intimitaded. Considering that pharmecuticals now polluted and kill oceans, contaminate drinking water and are pushed on people for everything, i am convinced that pharma will say anything and do anything to keep you coming back

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by medusaatemydog

What about the studies that were are not made available that did not show the results to market the pharmecutical.

Those bear less, if any credibility. They are not the only studies out there. You investigate the authors, you investigate money trail, you investigate the methodology, that's really all you can do. My singular point, is that focus needs to be placed upon accurately, and efficiently conveying your points in a manner which stands up to scientific scrutiny...

If we are simply discussing the gross negligence that appears to occur with clinical trials.. fine, yes, pharmaceutical companies are far too involved in their own research and it will bias the consumer and any scientist that supports these kinds of studies has no credibility, or less credibility. We cannot say that about studies that corroborate t1/t2's view of disease, because he/she hasn't furnished any to support it. kwim?

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Because I treat vaccines as poisons, do you? Its only worth discussing toxic effects.

Surely you recognise that this is at the heart of the debate. The majority of people do not, based on the current evidence (good or bad is immaterial) and current systems in place which support the vaccine programme.