"72 papers showing vaccines cause autism" - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 50 Old 08-28-2013, 06:23 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,453
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
This site has compiled all the "76" studies that many anti vaccine proponents claim show there is a link between vaccines and autism and provides links to science writers who have gone through each and every study and debunked them.

http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2013/08/-those-lists-of-papers-that-claim-vaccines-cause-autism-part-1.html

Thought this might be helpful for those of us who don't have time to go through each and every study for ourselves.

So what do you guys think about these de bunkings?

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#2 of 50 Old 08-28-2013, 06:36 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,074
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)

I don't think it is difficult to poke holes in most studies.   People do it here all the time.

applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#3 of 50 Old 08-28-2013, 06:55 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I don't think it is difficult to poke holes in most studies.   People do it here all the time.


Hence, you can find an analogous list debunking all the conclusions of the papers finding no evidence of a link between autism and vaccines. Right?

teacozy likes this.
bakunin is offline  
#4 of 50 Old 08-28-2013, 06:58 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,453
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

I don't think it is difficult to poke holes in most studies.   People do it here all the time.

More like poking craters wink1.gif

Just glancing at the first 15 or so studies, at least two deal with methyl mercury which aren't even in vaccines, one has a sample size of 11 people, at least 3 have nothing to do with either vaccines or autism, one of the studies had only completed half of the experiment.... I could go on but you can look for yourself wink1.gif

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#5 of 50 Old 08-29-2013, 04:52 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

More like poking craters wink1.gif

Just glancing at the first 15 or so studies, at least two deal with methyl mercury which aren't even in vaccines, one has a sample size of 11 people, at least 3 have nothing to do with either vaccines or autism, one of the studies had only completed half of the experiment.... I could go on but you can look for yourself wink1.gif

First of all, I only saw one study (#11) that mentioned methyl mercury. It ALSO mentioned thimerosal.

Secondly, i think you have a double standard here.

You look at study #11 and say, " Oh, that has nothing to do with vaccines," when there aren't enough adequate studies on ethylmercury.

Ok, fine. But then you shouldn't accept the premise that ethylmercury is safe. There are studies indicating real harm, and other studies indicating...less harm. But not no harm. An increased risk of vocal tics is certainly not "no harm."

The site you quoted isn't holding the studies that claim no link between vaccines and autism to the same standard.

We can poke holes or craters in the studies on BOTH sides from now til the cows come home, and the only possible conclusion we can come to is, the studies on BOTH sides suck.

So then we look at anecdotal evidence, and that sucks, too--on BOTH SIDES.

We have the medical/pharmaceutical community (along with everyone who believes them) claiming that millions of vaccinated people are fine, just fine, therefore, vaccines are safel

Well, that totally ignores the smaller group who had severe reactions to the vaccines.

And we have the injured community claiming adverse reactions to vaccines. And the med/pharm reply is, "just a coincidence."

And I'll buy that some of those reactions may have been coincidence. But it's pretty clear that there IS a pattern of severe adverse effects in a subgroup of people. And the crappy studies that do show harm have not been adequately debunked. They still indicate problems, even if they're not foolproof.

What we're left with is the fact that vaccines WILL ruin some lives. The questions remain: how many is too many?

I say that, even if we accept the CDC numbers as correct (and come on, it's obvious that they are not), the number of adverse reactions is too many, because they are the result of an invasive procedure, and you know darn well that parents have rarely (if ever) been truly informed about even those risks, nor have they been TRULY informed about the risks of the diseases themselves.

50 years ago, if a 4-month-old got measles in the US, nobody even blinked. Ask anyone over 60, and they'll tell you it was not considered to be any more dangerous than any other virus. Common colds can morph into pneumonia; intestinal viruses were actually though to be more unpleasant than measles, though they were usually shorter-lived. Most parents over 60 would tell you that they'd prefer to spend a week with a child with the fever and rash of measles than 24 hours changing vomited-on or diarrhea-ed-on sheets and blankets.

But now it's,"OMG," a 4-month-old got MEASLES! He could have DIED!!!"

You can't possibly think that measles is any more dangerous today, with our advanced nutrition and medical care, than it was 50 years ago. Or do you?

If you think vaccination is so important, I wish you'd join us in demanding that adverse effects be admitted, that safer ones become available, and that unnecessary/useless ones (like the flu shot) be taken off the schedule. And that mandatory vaccination never, EVER be implemented; nobody should ever be FORCED to give their child a vaccine that ruins their life. Or coerced.

If vaccines were so safe and effective, this forum wouldn't exist.
Taximom5 is online now  
#6 of 50 Old 08-29-2013, 06:04 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

No, studies on both sides do not suck. In fact, studies showing a Guillain Barre syndrome link with the 1976 flu vaccine are considered important studies. But only two studies (I think) showed this link, others could not find an association.

 

I think that for one to say that the studies suck, one must be able to be an expert in science and the scientific method. Taximom5, I'm sorry, but your arguments lead me to conclude you are no expert in science nor the scientific method. Here's a few problems in your post:

- Measles is an incredibly contagious disease. Probably the most contagious of the ones vaccines exist for.

- 50 years, exactly when the measles vaccine was made public, measles infected about 500,000 people each year in the U.S. Assuming the death rate was the same as estimated today (1 in 1000 who get it die), it killed about 500 each year. Does that sound small to you?

- In 2003, measles killed over half a million children around the world, most of them in Africa. So I don't think in other countries they see this disease as no big deal.

- There is general agreement that vaccines (and antibiotics) have helped dramatically increase the expected life of people. Without a vaccine schedule this would have never happened.

- The fact that this forum exist does not prove that vaccines are unsafe nor ineffective, it proves that there is disagreement on how safe or effective they are AMONG the public. There is a big difference between this argument and your last sentence.

 

Safer vaccines would be good though. Maybe gelatin will not be needed for some of them in the future, or eggs, or life pathogens? Currently, there is no way around this in some cases, but it's not like they are not trying http://news.yale.edu/2013/03/12/yale-researchers-trick-bacteria-deliver-safer-vaccine

bakunin is offline  
#7 of 50 Old 08-29-2013, 07:45 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,074
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post




We can poke holes or craters in the studies on BOTH sides from now til the cows come home, and the only possible conclusion we can come to is, the studies on BOTH sides suck.

 

This.

applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#8 of 50 Old 08-30-2013, 08:51 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post
 

No, studies on both sides do not suck. In fact, studies showing a Guillain Barre syndrome link with the 1976 flu vaccine are considered important studies. But only two studies (I think) showed this link, others could not find an association.

 

I think that for one to say that the studies suck, one must be able to be an expert in science and the scientific method. Taximom5, I'm sorry, but your arguments lead me to conclude you are no expert in science nor the scientific method. Here's a few problems in your post:

- Measles is an incredibly contagious disease. Probably the most contagious of the ones vaccines exist for.

- 50 years, exactly when the measles vaccine was made public, measles infected about 500,000 people each year in the U.S. Assuming the death rate was the same as estimated today (1 in 1000 who get it die), it killed about 500 each year. Does that sound small to you?

- In 2003, measles killed over half a million children around the world, most of them in Africa. So I don't think in other countries they see this disease as no big deal.

- There is general agreement that vaccines (and antibiotics) have helped dramatically increase the expected life of people. Without a vaccine schedule this would have never happened.

- The fact that this forum exist does not prove that vaccines are unsafe nor ineffective, it proves that there is disagreement on how safe or effective they are AMONG the public. There is a big difference between this argument and your last sentence.

 

Safer vaccines would be good though. Maybe gelatin will not be needed for some of them in the future, or eggs, or life pathogens? Currently, there is no way around this in some cases, but it's not like they are not trying http://news.yale.edu/2013/03/12/yale-researchers-trick-bacteria-deliver-safer-vaccine

I don't think anyone has ever said the risk from measles is not greater in other places, particular 3rd world countries where malnutrition is a huge problem. When we discuss the risk of meales and somebody brings up the fact that it was considered a fairly benign disease 50 years ago, they are referring to the US, but I think you know that.

 

As for the contribution of modern medicine (including vaccines etc) to decreased mortality,  Im not convinced it has had as dramatic as you think it has. This paper is very thought provoking: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3349539?uid=2451104335&uid=3739576&uid=2&uid=3&uid=67&uid=18653824&uid=62&uid=3739256&sid=21102568835831

applejuice likes this.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#9 of 50 Old 08-30-2013, 08:51 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
double

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#10 of 50 Old 08-30-2013, 12:32 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Some suggestions:

- Don't rely too much on old papers (the above is from 1977) for current issues unless it's considered a classic

- McKeown was (he's long dead) into demography and history. Not a trustworthy source about cause and effect

- McKeown is no statistician either. He used plots of decreases in rates of death and included dates when medical measures were implemented to argue his case.

 

The last point is a fatal flaw that demonstrates his statistical illiteracy. Doing that kind of 'analysis' does not lead to cause effect conclusions. Here's a discussion specifically on vaccines that provides an example of this faulty logic http://www.science.oregonstate.edu/~schafer/jsm09/2009%2008%2005%20Vaccination%20Debate.pdf (Displays 1-4)

bakunin is offline  
#11 of 50 Old 08-30-2013, 03:40 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

No, studies on both sides do not suck. In fact, studies showing a Guillain Barre syndrome link with the 1976 flu vaccine are considered important studies. But only two studies (I think) showed this link, others could not find an association.

I think that for one to say that the studies suck, one must be able to be an expert in science and the scientific method. Taximom5, I'm sorry, but your arguments lead me to conclude you are no expert in science nor the scientific method. Here's a few problems in your post:
- Measles is an incredibly contagious disease. Probably the most contagious of the ones vaccines exist for.
- 50 years, exactly when the measles vaccine was made public, measles infected about 500,000 people each year in the U.S. Assuming the death rate was the same as estimated today (1 in 1000 who get it die), it killed about 500 each year. Does that sound small to you?
- In 2003, measles killed over half a million children around the world, most of them in Africa. So I don't think in other countries they see this disease as no big deal.
- There is general agreement that vaccines (and antibiotics) have helped dramatically increase the expected life of people. Without a vaccine schedule this would have never happened.
- The fact that this forum exist does not prove that vaccines are unsafe nor ineffective, it proves that there is disagreement on how safe or effective they are AMONG the public. There is a big difference between this argument and your last sentence.

Safer vaccines would be good though. Maybe gelatin will not be needed for some of them in the future, or eggs, or life pathogens? Currently, there is no way around this in some cases, but it's not like they are not trying http://news.yale.edu/2013/03/12/yale-researchers-trick-bacteria-deliver-safer-vaccine

I think your post proves that being a scientist (and therefore supposedly being an expert in science and the scientific method) does not make one's arguments correct.

In addition to being condescending, yours aren't even logical.

1) Yes, measles is an incredibly contagious disease. So is the common cold. Both can lead to severe complications. Both are generally annoying and uncomfortable, but generally mild, with no serious complications.

I'm sure if the pharmaceutical industry came up with a vaccine for the common cold, we'd suddenly be subjected to a massive outpouring of propaganda telling us how dangerous the complications for the common cold are, particularly for the elderly, infants, etc.

We've seen exactly this scenario for the flu shot, and how successful the propaganda/marketing campaign was for selling an ineffective product.

2). Sorry, but we can't assume that the measles death rate was the same 50 years ago as it was today. That would be unscientific. There may very well be environmental issues which compound complications from measles today; conversely,there may be major improvements in treatments available today, though looking at the typical diet, exercise, sleep, and stress levels today, those just might outweigh any gains made elsewhere.

For that matter, we can't even assume that the numbers as reported today are correct. The CDC has monkeyed with numbers before in order to push vaccines. Again, we've seen this with the flu. It would be...um, unscientific to assume that a corrupt government and its agencies are going to provide correct data when there is money involved.

It does seem like you're making one hell of a lot of assumptions.

You're also here with a clear agenda. You believe that parents are listening to strangers on the internet rqther than their own doctors, and that parents who frequent this website need to be "taught" that vaccines are safe and effective, and you obviously want to counteract any inkling of a message that they might not be. And above all, you seem to want to silence people who believe that the number of vaccine injuries is unacceptable.

Your comment, "safer vaccines would be good though" leads me to ask you a key question. If it were YOUR child that suffered a severe, life-changing vaccine reaction--let's say, seizures leading to brain damage--do you really think you would have the same outlook? Would you pat your wife on the back and say, "that's okay, honey, we took one for the herd?" Would you even be able to admit it was the vaccine, or would you not be able to face the fact that your decision to allow an. injection ruined your child's life? Would you insist that it was just a coincidence,even if your doctors said otherwise?

I think if you really looked into it,by talking with parents whose children hd documented, mainstream-medically-diagnosed severe reactions to vaccines, you'd find that most of them USED TO believe exactly what you believe.

Until it was their child that had the reaction.

But you're not going to get a lot of these parents answering your surveys.

For one thing, if their children haven't recovered, they don't have the time to look at parenting sites, let alone answer surveys. Even if they did, they would be unlikely to have the inclination to give someone like you fodder for yet more propaganda to soothe parents into believing that such reactions don't happen.
Taximom5 is online now  
#12 of 50 Old 08-30-2013, 06:51 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


I think your post proves that being a scientist (and therefore supposedly being an expert in science and the scientific method) does not make one's arguments correct.

In addition to being condescending, yours aren't even logical.

1) Yes, measles is an incredibly contagious disease. So is the common cold. Both can lead to severe complications. Both are generally annoying and uncomfortable, but generally mild, with no serious complications.

I'm sure if the pharmaceutical industry came up with a vaccine for the common cold, we'd suddenly be subjected to a massive outpouring of propaganda telling us how dangerous the complications for the common cold are, particularly for the elderly, infants, etc.

We've seen exactly this scenario for the flu shot, and how successful the propaganda/marketing campaign was for selling an ineffective product.

2). Sorry, but we can't assume that the measles death rate was the same 50 years ago as it was today. That would be unscientific. There may very well be environmental issues which compound complications from measles today; conversely,there may be major improvements in treatments available today, though looking at the typical diet, exercise, sleep, and stress levels today, those just might outweigh any gains made elsewhere.

For that matter, we can't even assume that the numbers as reported today are correct. The CDC has monkeyed with numbers before in order to push vaccines. Again, we've seen this with the flu. It would be...um, unscientific to assume that a corrupt government and its agencies are going to provide correct data when there is money involved.

It does seem like you're making one hell of a lot of assumptions.

You're also here with a clear agenda. You believe that parents are listening to strangers on the internet rqther than their own doctors, and that parents who frequent this website need to be "taught" that vaccines are safe and effective, and you obviously want to counteract any inkling of a message that they might not be. And above all, you seem to want to silence people who believe that the number of vaccine injuries is unacceptable.

Your comment, "safer vaccines would be good though" leads me to ask you a key question. If it were YOUR child that suffered a severe, life-changing vaccine reaction--let's say, seizures leading to brain damage--do you really think you would have the same outlook? Would you pat your wife on the back and say, "that's okay, honey, we took one for the herd?" Would you even be able to admit it was the vaccine, or would you not be able to face the fact that your decision to allow an. injection ruined your child's life? Would you insist that it was just a coincidence,even if your doctors said otherwise?

I think if you really looked into it,by talking with parents whose children hd documented, mainstream-medically-diagnosed severe reactions to vaccines, you'd find that most of them USED TO believe exactly what you believe.

Until it was their child that had the reaction.

But you're not going to get a lot of these parents answering your surveys.

For one thing, if their children haven't recovered, they don't have the time to look at parenting sites, let alone answer surveys. Even if they did, they would be unlikely to have the inclination to give someone like you fodder for yet more propaganda to soothe parents into believing that such reactions don't happen.

Assuming that the measles mortality rate 50 years ago is the same as today would only be unreasonable if unfounded. BUT IT IS founded on the historical data. We can conservatively say 1 in 1000 as the mortality rate (it was higher in the past because of many factors). The same argument can't be made for other diseases like polio and tuberculosis.

 

You say "unscientific to assume that a corrupt government and its agencies are going to provide correct data when there is money involved". Where is the science in your claim that the government is corrupt and out to stick you with a needle for money?

 

To answer your question, let's say my child takes a vaccines today, and has some kind of 'health event' tomorrow. Naturally, I would try to find what the issue is. Although I do a good amount of research before my child gets a vaccine, nonetheless I would double check things. I would also talk to the experts. If no logical argument or evidence is found of the culprit or while still searching for an asnwer, I would perhaps file a VAERS. That does not mean I would conclude the vaccine was to blame. That wouldn't be scientific. If I sneeze right now and half an hour later I develop a hernia, should I blame the sneeze? That event 2 happened after event 1 does not prove cause and effect. Cause and effect is only proven through the scientific method.

 

I suggest you take a critical look into the conspiracy theories you believe in. Try meeting with a CDC or immunology expert and ask them questions. Only a fool would not change their mind after these meetings.

The point of all this is that parents should be cautiously vigilant. But reason, should never be put aside.

bakunin is offline  
#13 of 50 Old 08-31-2013, 02:19 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,135
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

You say "unscientific to assume that a corrupt government and its agencies are going to provide correct data when there is money involved". Where is the science in your claim that the government is corrupt and out to stick you with a needle for money?


You ask for SCIENCE to prove that the government is corrupt? You actually believe that there's no corruption in the government, or in the pharmaceutical industry?
ROTFLMAO.gif

Oh, wait. I shouldn't laugh. Your position on this issues is actually very disturbing.
Taximom5 is online now  
#14 of 50 Old 08-31-2013, 04:29 AM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,667
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Try meeting with a CDC or immunology expert and ask them questions

first question i'd have is, 'what kind of vested interest and  ties to the pharmeaceutical industry in vaccine making do you have?'  

emmy526 is offline  
#15 of 50 Old 08-31-2013, 04:40 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


You ask for SCIENCE to prove that the government is corrupt? You actually believe that there's no corruption in the government, or in the pharmaceutical industry?
ROTFLMAO.gif

Oh, wait. I shouldn't laugh. Your position on this issues is actually very disturbing.

I believe that there is likely some people in the system who are willing to be unethical due to financial interests. That doesn't mean the whole system is corrupt. logic 101!

bakunin is offline  
#16 of 50 Old 08-31-2013, 05:22 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,905
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post
 

I suggest you take a critical look into the conspiracy theories you believe in. Try meeting with a CDC or immunology expert and ask them questions. Only a fool would not change their mind after these meetings.

The point of all this is that parents should be cautiously vigilant. But reason, should never be put aside.

Fool? No sir!

 

Quote:
 I believe that there is likely some people in the system who are willing to be unethical due to financial interests. That doesn't mean the whole system is corrupt. logic 101!

Donald Rumsfeld hired Arthur Hayes Jr to become the head of the FDA, who immediately approved Aspartame--although it had failed safety tests for years!! I would say this is an example of corruption at the HIGHEST level possible, wouldn't you?

 

Now, Obama has hired another Monsanto insider to a key position at the FDA. I can only assume there will be corruption, since this is almost exactly what happened with Rumsfeld. Watch how they promote GMOs, although they have never been approved for human consumption. Corruption at the highest level yet again. Do you see a pattern here? What do your statistical senses have to say about this lol?

 

How can you possibly know the whole system is not corrupt? Logic? Please, I can't rely on YOUR logic! In my opinion, only a fool would still have blind faith in this system, after learning of past and present corruption! Real, factual examples, not vague estimations by "experts" with vested interests.


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#17 of 50 Old 08-31-2013, 05:46 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,346
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post
 

first question i'd have is, 'what kind of vested interest and  ties to the pharmeaceutical industry in vaccine making do you have?'  

I would like to know this answer too!

emmy526 and BeckyBird like this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is online now  
#18 of 50 Old 08-31-2013, 05:47 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,905
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Quote:
 Try meeting with a CDC or immunology expert and ask them questions. Only a fool would not change their mind after these meetings.

Would you change your mind after meeting with these Merck virologists?

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_25742.cfm

Merck Vaccine Fraud Exposed by Two Merck Virologists; Company Faked Mumps Vaccine Efficacy Results for Over a Decade, says Lawsuit

applejuice likes this.

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#19 of 50 Old 08-31-2013, 05:54 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

Fool? No sir!

 

Donald Rumsfeld hired Arthur Hayes Jr to become the head of the FDA, who immediately approved Aspartame--although it had failed safety tests for years!! I would say this is an example of corruption at the HIGHEST level possible, wouldn't you?

 

Now, Obama has hired another Monsanto insider to a key position at the FDA. I can only assume there will be corruption, since this is almost exactly what happened with Rumsfeld. Watch how they promote GMOs, although they have never been approved for human consumption. Corruption at the highest level yet again. Do you see a pattern here? What do your statistical senses have to say about this lol?

 

How can you possibly know the whole system is not corrupt? Logic? Please, I can't rely on YOUR logic! In my opinion, only a fool would still have blind faith in this system, after learning of past and present corruption! Real, factual examples, not vague estimations by "experts" with vested interests.

There's a lot of holes on your argument. It sounding straight off from the X-files is one thing. But let's assume it's true that Rumsfeld had something to do with aspartame's approval (I will not research this too much. I have no interests in either Rumsfeld or Aspartame.). Well this was in the 80s I believe. One incidence of corruption or conflict of interest does not mean that approval's are always conducted this way. Now, before arguments are brought out about aspartame, I will provide a reference were a lot of the claims are discussed http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/FST-3.pdf

bakunin is offline  
#20 of 50 Old 08-31-2013, 05:58 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

I would like to know this answer too!

I have no ties with vaccine making companies whatsoever.

How about you emmy526 and serenbat, do you have any financial interests for selling anti vax ideas?

bakunin is offline  
#21 of 50 Old 08-31-2013, 06:06 PM
 
emmy526's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,667
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

what about this report on aspertame by the fda?

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/jan03/012203/02p-0317_emc-000199.txt

 

Quote:
Physicians are not encouraged by the FDA to report aspartame toxicity reactions to the FDA (Food 1995).
applejuice, serenbat and BeckyBird like this.
emmy526 is offline  
#22 of 50 Old 08-31-2013, 06:16 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,346
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)

last I checked CDC doesn't make vaccines, they do employ PhD for statistical purposes  


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is online now  
#23 of 50 Old 08-31-2013, 06:19 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,346
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)

there seems to be lots of money being throw at those who can oppose anyone who isn't towing the line - seems UN and Gates spread money around to those who have a PRO agenda, green~wash site, trolls???

emmy526 and BeckyBird like this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is online now  
#24 of 50 Old 08-31-2013, 06:35 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,905
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)

My post has nothing to do with little green men or X files. It is about revolving door politics and corruption in the FDA. Your attempt to discredit me by comparing me to the X files is just a cheap diversionary tactic. Try again!

I can't force you to learn about history, but if you want to know a real life example of FDA corruption, the aspartame scandal is it. BY the way, it is totally relevant today because Aspartame is still consumed today!!!!!!! Hello!

 

I read your link, and it does not mention Rumsfeld or his inside man of the FDA. Here is a quote:

Quote:
 
When in 1981 the U.S. Food and Drug Administra*tion (FDA) approved the use of aspartame in certain
products

I am interested in HOW the FDA approved the use of aspartame in certain products in 1981. If you read any of my links, you would know that Rumsfeld chose Hayes Jr to become the head of the FDA, who then went on to approve aspartame, DESPITE safety issues and past failures!

The reason you think there are "holes" in my post is because you never took the time to read any of my previous links. Your link was hogwash and did not even touch upon FDA corruption, which is what I thought we were talking about in the first place--how to trust an organization that is corrupt??

 

To prove there was corruption at the highest level, and the corruption still affects us TODAY (even though it happened in the '80s) here is a quick lesson:

Searle invented Aspartame--->Rumsfeld worked for Searle---->Aspartame failed approval for years------>Rumsfeld hired Hayes Jr to Head of FDA------->Hayes approved Aspartame immediately after taking office---->Aspartame is still consumed today. Revolving door corruption at its finest, affecting millions of  consumers.

 

This is in response to your quote "that doesn't mean the whole system is corrupt". After reading the history, and deciding for myself that there was (and still is) corruption, how can you continue to ask me to trust in these organizations? And when I don't trust them, because of THEIR actions,  I'm labeled a conspiracy theorist straight from the  X files. :eyesroll 


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#25 of 50 Old 08-31-2013, 07:19 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,074
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post
 

There's a lot of holes on your argument. It sounding straight off from the X-files is one thing. But let's assume it's true that Rumsfeld had something to do with aspartame's approval (I will not research this too much. I have no interests in either Rumsfeld or Aspartame.). Well this was in the 80s I believe. One incidence of corruption or conflict of interest does not mean that approval's are always conducted this way. 

Becky also brought up the Merck example (vaccine related) and there was the whole Paul Thorsen fraud situation last year…...

 

One incident of fraud does not a systemic problem make. I do believe, however, that  I could easily spend the next few hours listing incidents of corruption and conflict of interest in vaccines and more broadly, the pharmaceutical industry.  The question, then, becomes…what is the tipping point where corruption and conflict of interest is a concern?  Is it unique to individuals?

 

I would posit that those who think vaccines are necessary for their children health have a much higher tipping point that those who don't.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#26 of 50 Old 08-31-2013, 07:27 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,074
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)

For kicks…..

 

I am usually annoyed with Forbes.  They are almost a skeptic site when it comes to vaccines.

 

However, the title of this article caught my attention.  The content is worth a read as well!

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikakelton/2013/07/29/is-big-pharma-addicted-to-fraud/

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#27 of 50 Old 08-31-2013, 07:35 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,905
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)

Living Green with Baby

About us:

"Living Green with Baby is a new series of food, travel, home design and lifestyle content designed to inspire parents of new babies, toddlers and older children to encourage healthy, environmentally sustainable habits at an early age."

 

Yet, you don't even know that Aspartame is unhealthy, unfit for consumption, and you don't know the history of its approval. Shame!! nono.gif

Don't tell the other raw foodists, vegans, and nutrition lovers at Living Green! Or better yet, ask them what they think of aspartame, and if they would feed it to their children.

Oh, and if you know about GMOs, and disapprove of them (which I would expect from anyone who runs a site called "Living Green") then you might be as outraged as I am with the current US Administration. This administration promotes GMOs, and has hired Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto employee, to become the Deputy Commissioner of the FDA. There is even a new gem--the Monsanto Protection Act!  How nice for the biotech giant, with employees now running the government. Actually, this happened with Searle too (Rumsfeld, Hayes Jr, FDA, remember?) Monsanto bought Searle in 1985......so the biotech, Agent Orange, Roundup Ready, DDT, PCB's, anti-green company has been involved with our government a lot longer than you might think.

 

Trust them, you say! No thanks.


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#28 of 50 Old 08-31-2013, 08:02 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

Living Green with Baby

About us:

"Living Green with Baby is a new series of food, travel, home design and lifestyle content designed to inspire parents of new babies, toddlers and older children to encourage healthy, environmentally sustainable habits at an early age."

 

Yet, you don't even know that Aspartame is unhealthy, unfit for consumption, and you don't know the history of its approval. Shame!! nono.gif

Don't tell the other raw foodists, vegans, and nutrition lovers at Living Green! Or better yet, ask them what they think of aspartame, and if they would feed it to their children.

Oh, and if you know about GMOs, and disapprove of them (which I would expect from anyone who runs a site called "Living Green") then you might be as outraged as I am with the current US Administration. This administration promotes GMOs, and has hired Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto employee, to become the Deputy Commissioner of the FDA. There is even a new gem--the Monsanto Protection Act!  How nice for the biotech giant, with employees now running the government. Actually, this happened with Searle too (Rumsfeld, Hayes Jr, FDA, remember?) Monsanto bought Searle in 1985......so the biotech, Agent Orange, Roundup Ready, DDT, PCB's, anti-green company has been involved with our government a lot longer than you might think.

 

Trust them, you say! No thanks.

It appears you and others think I'm the author of living green with baby's article on vaccines. I AM NOT. He's a colleague of mine who asked me to post about the poll a while back. Thought you should know. Furthermore, he informed me of a threat he received by someone making reference to mothering. Apparently the mothering member thought the author and I are the same person. Way to keep it classy huh?

bakunin is offline  
#29 of 50 Old 08-31-2013, 08:13 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,346
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 94 Post(s)

so you want to use information to give to a friend-that's kind of like having a bridge for sale :rotflmaotalk about classy! ................agenda! 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is online now  
#30 of 50 Old 08-31-2013, 09:24 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Becky also brought up the Merck example (vaccine related) and there was the whole Paul Thorsen fraud situation last year…...

 

One incident of fraud does not a systemic problem make. I do believe, however, that  I could easily spend the next few hours listing incidents of corruption and conflict of interest in vaccines and more broadly, the pharmaceutical industry.  The question, then, becomes…what is the tipping point where corruption and conflict of interest is a concern?  Is it unique to individuals?

 

I would posit that those who think vaccines are necessary for their children health have a much higher tipping point that those who don't.  

Pertaining to your statement: "I could easily spend the next few hours listing incidents of corruption and conflict of interest in vaccines and more broadly, the pharmaceutical industry", please do so. Why would you hold back such important evidence? Corruption should certainly be made notice of and discussed, especially when it comes to vaccines. Evidence of corruption related to vaccines, of which you imply to be able to comply a large, large list that would take you hours to prepare would clearly make your arguments stronger. Right?

 

Should I start with the reports of conflict of interest? Here's one http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/lancet-feb2004.htm

Here's an example of why conflict of interest struggles to be a major factor in vaccine related decisions http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2001/Immunization-Safety-Review-Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Vaccine-and-Autism.aspx

 

Pertaining to your tipping point argument. It's a matter of influence and not number of individuals, a question that simply is impossible to answer in general.

bakunin is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off