New Study Shows Vaccines Cause Brain Changes Found in Autism - Page 3

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Ema-adama- I agree, it would have made a lot more sense to study these things before implementing them, wouldn't it? Unfortunately that's not where we are, so I do think that those studies are relevant. I'm excited for any new research on the subject.

Yes, it would have made sense to do it the other way around. However, there seems to be a certain amount of resistance to studying the safety of these metals being INJECTED! And rather a lot of noise to say that it is actually fine. Digging a bit deeper, it becomes clear just how much is not known, making it very difficult to trust authorities who say that it is safe. (or people who say that it is not safe - no one has a whole lot of evidence to rely on. Although there is no shortage of hypotheses)

There just is no evidence to back up a statement of injected aluminum or mercury being safe or negligable.

[babygirlie]

according to my ped all vaccines have heavy toxic metals in them. there's just no way around it. He also supports vaccines uses but also supports parental decisions.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

(One of these days I'm going to have to break down and buy a subscription to the online medical journals. It seems like sometimes that's the only way to get the full version of some articles online )

That'd easily run in the tens of thousands of dollars annually. Better to buddy up with someone who has institutional access.

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by caned & able

very funny...

vaxes are injected intramuscularly and enter the bloodstream from there, bypassing the natural portals as the nose, mouth, stomach, and the natural filtering systems of the body as the lungs, liver, kidneys, and intestines.

So, does this analysis make vaccines safer?

I'm not trying to be funny. You made a statement. It was untrue. You can try to parse it out by saying that injecting things intramuscularly is the same, because things end up in the bloodstream, but it's not. When you take in something through the GI or respiratory system, it ends up in the bloodstream too.

[pumpkinhead]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Pumpkinhead- Thank you! From the abstract it seems like that's exactly the kind of study I'm interested in reading. Tomorrow I'll try to find the full version. (One of these days I'm going to have to break down and buy a subscription to the online medical journals. It seems like sometimes that's the only way to get the full version of some articles online )

Ema-adama- I agree, it would have made a lot more sense to study these things before implementing them, wouldn't it? Unfortunately that's not where we are, so I do think that those studies are relevant. I'm excited for any new research on the subject.

You are most welcome .

If you have a medical library near you, they often have older journal articles (it's odd to be calling 2003 old, isn't it? ) still in hard copy form.

[Delicateflower]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

With regard to cuts and scrapes. You do not have adjuvants (aluminum)present in the wound. It is not the same thing. I am not aware of a case of infection of pertussis or measles through an open wound.

Measles isn't injected intramuscularly, it's subcutaneous. But regardless, we know that both vaccines give good immune response and immunisation when given through the modes they are (intramuscular for one and subcutaneous for the other).

If you really want to be picky about mode of delivery and adequate immune response, how about polio? Delivering it the 'natural' way, through the mouth results in more side effects than the IM route.

[ASusan]

Originally Posted by pumpkinhead

I don't think it's even really fair to refer to this as a "New Study" because it's really just preliminary research. A pilot study isn't the same thing as a published study.

It is published in a peer-reviewed journal. It may be a pilot study in the sense that they don't use a lot of primates (esp for the control group) and would like to use it to establish a finding so they can get more support for their research in the future and test further hypotheses. But it is still a new finding. (That's part of the fun of pilot studies - they usually present something new.)

[Angela512]

Originally Posted by Delicateflower

Measles isn't injected intramuscularly, it's subcutaneous. But regardless, we know that both vaccines give good immune response and immunisation when given through the modes they are (intramuscular for one and subcutaneous for the other).

There are still studies being conducted that question the safety of injecting anything into the body. There is a question of the kind of "unseen harm" that can happen by doing vaccinations this way (not including the heavy metals). And, I do think that the "good immune response and immunisation [sic]" part is still very much debatable.

If you really want to be picky about mode of delivery and adequate immune response, how about polio? Delivering it the 'natural' way, through the mouth results in more side effects than the IM route.

Doesn't mean that it is SAFE...whatever the method of delivery is. I have to do more reading up about each polio vaccine and the side effects, and all...but most doctors today believe that NO vaccines cause problems. Doesn't mean that they do not.

Maybe instead of injecting every single person with heavy metals, etc. they should just create an "exposure tank". Let people get exposed the natural way and avoid the preservatives, dead animal cells, and heavy metals being injected directly into their bodies. I would more than willing to get "vaccinated" that way...and know I have a much higher chance of having life-long immunity than getting shot up with a bunch of junk and having limited immunity. Just MHO.

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by Delicateflower

Measles isn't injected intramuscularly, it's subcutaneous. But regardless, we know that both vaccines give good immune response and immunisation when given through the modes they are (intramuscular for one and subcutaneous for the other).

If you really want to be picky about mode of delivery and adequate immune response, how about polio? Delivering it the 'natural' way, through the mouth results in more side effects than the IM route.

Yes, measles vaccine is an effective vaccine, although we don't know for how long. Pertussis less so, but an immune response is triggered through vaccination. There does seem to be a different quality to the immunity for vaccine induced immunity and acquired immunity in the community for Pertussis. It seems the innate immune system is more important than was realized when the DTP and subsequent DTaP were developed.

My point is that not all antigens are equal, and just because you are exposed to antigens when you have an open wound, does not mean it is the same thing as injecting antigens, and their accompanying additives.

With regard to the polio vaccine, the OPV also offered a superior immune response to the IPV. Yes, a higher incidence of paralysis associated with the OPV, but also gut immunity (preventing transmission), which is not as developed with the IPV.

[pumpkinhead]

Originally Posted by ASusan

It is published in a peer-reviewed journal. It may be a pilot study in the sense that they don't use a lot of primates (esp for the control group) and would like to use it to establish a finding so they can get more support for their research in the future and test further hypotheses. But it is still a new finding. (That's part of the fun of pilot studies - they usually present something new.)

Lots of pilot studies are proven to be non-reproducible and therefore innaccurate. I'm not saying that it won't pan out, but I am saying that one has to be very judicious in the interpretation of results from a pilot study with an extrememly small sample size. It's probably published as a pilot study as the sample size is too small for it to be published as anything else.

[ASusan]

Originally Posted by pumpkinhead

Lots of pilot studies are proven to be non-reproducible and therefore innaccurate. I'm not saying that it won't pan out, but I am saying that one has to be very judicious in the interpretation of results from a pilot study with an extrememly small sample size. It's probably published as a pilot study as the sample size is too small for it to be published as anything else.

Agreed.

[caned & able]

I'm not trying to be funny. You made a statement. It was untrue. You can try to parse it out by saying that injecting things intramuscularly is the same, because things end up in the bloodstream, but it's not. When you take in something through the GI or respiratory system, it ends up in the bloodstream too.

The lungs, stomach, tonsils, adenoids, skin, and liver are nature's filters. The germs/bacteria/virii dead or alive, end up in the bloodstream filtered and without pharmacological additives as mercury, aluminium, formaldehyde, and other goodies.

If my statement is untrue, why shouldn't I be able to IV or inject my morning coffee intramusculary ... would that be just as safe and effective? The body protects itself from injury; if you are going to bypass the normal ports of entry, there will be a difference.

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by caned & able

If my statement is untrue, why shouldn't I be able to IV or inject my morning coffee intramusculary ... would that be just as safe and effective? The body protects itself from injury; if you are going to bypass the normal ports of entry, there will be a difference.

Actually, you can inject caffeine IV. It is often used in a medical setting as a treatment for severe headaches. Safe and extremely effective.

[Angela512]

Originally Posted by pumpkinhead

Lots of pilot studies are proven to be non-reproducible and therefore innaccurate. I'm not saying that it won't pan out, but I am saying that one has to be very judicious in the interpretation of results from a pilot study with an extrememly small sample size. It's probably published as a pilot study as the sample size is too small for it to be published as anything else.

The same goes for vaccine "safety" studies...but those are usually pushed under the rug, anyways. They are also done on a host of "lab animals" (not just mice or just rabbits, etc) and then the study on the animal that is most favorable is submitted/spoken about, etc. Doesn't mean that anything is safe...doesn't mean that there were virtually no side effects. I do believe that if studies are done, then ALL of the studies should be disclosed, instead of the one that makes something look/sound better than it is. And this should go for everything, on both sides.

[pumpkinhead]

Originally Posted by Angela512

The same goes for vaccine "safety" studies...but those are usually pushed under the rug, anyways. They are also done on a host of "lab animals" (not just mice or just rabbits, etc) and then the study on the animal that is most favorable is submitted/spoken about, etc. Doesn't mean that anything is safe...doesn't mean that there were virtually no side effects. I do believe that if studies are done, then ALL of the studies should be disclosed, instead of the one that makes something look/sound better than it is. And this should go for everything, on both sides.

I don't recall saying anything about vaccine safety studies. Why do you put "lab animals" in quotations? Are you implying they're not really animals? I'm genuinely confused. Most animal studies, depending on the study, begin with mice. In order to achieve any sort of study validity, they have to move on to species more closely related to humans. THey work their way up and must be proven safe before they can begin human trials. I'm not saying the system always works, but they're not just looking for the best results with the most appropriate animal. There's a process.

Meeeelllions of research studies are done every year. Some don't produce anything of medical significance. Sometimes this is due to interpretation, but sometimes it's because a hypothesis was just plain wrong and nothing beneficial comes out of the results. There would be absolutely nothing to gain from publishing the results of every single one.

[Juvysen]

[caned & able]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom

Actually, you can inject caffeine IV. It is often used in a medical setting as a treatment for severe headaches. Safe and extremely effective.

Then it should be common practice on every college campus and business.

[Juvysen]

My guess is the other chemical compounds in coffee (besides caffeine) make it less injectable.

[pumpkinhead]

Originally Posted by caned & able

Then it should be common practice on every college campus and business.

Excedrin works in a pinch.

Caffiene is also commonly given to premature infants to help them "remember" to breathe.