From Acrodynia to Autism: Mercury Across Generations, More Evidence of Harm - Page 4 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#91 of 114 Old 10-29-2013, 02:48 AM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

 Becky, it is a good question, I just wouldn't be sure if the results would be 100% applicable to humans. That would go either way, too. If the side effects are none at all in animals, then I would doubt the results, but if all the animals who receive the vaccine suddenly drop dead, it wouldn't be applicable either, would it?

 

The "thoughtful" decision comment regarding vegans or non-vaxxers was hard to turn around the way it was here, but it happened. Thoughtful -> thought has been put into it. 

 

A parent who thinks that vaccinations are poisonous for their children will be less likely to drink and smoke and take drugs during pregnancy and breastfeeding. It is so obviously common sense... That WAS a good point. A point that means that you can't just simply compare two groups like that and take the resulting link as cause and effect.

 

A vegan parent has put thought into his diet, and effort. Compared to a parent who picks up the most convenient junk and feeds it to everybody every day. That goes for Paleo, GAPS, GFCF, organic diets as well. 

 

Where does the word "trash" come from for meateaters? Have I said anywhere that meateaters are trash? I am one myself. 

 

By "sex" of course I meant intercourse. But that variable has nothing to do with autism.

 

Substance abuse has. Let me explain again. Comparing two groups of children when talking about vaccinations and disabilities means that the intervening variables have to be eliminated. Those would be: socio-economic status, substance abuse and the general "quality" of the child-rearing. The groups have to be the same or the results are buggered. 

 

Non-vaxxers have put "thought" into their decision (many vaxxers have, too, but not all, as it is the standard thing to do). That thought alone concludes logically, that they put thought into other decisions as well and that includes substance abuse which is a leading cause for disabilities (of course not the only one, I didn't drink, smoke or take drugs and still have a SN child). 

 

Substance abuse of parents would have to be ruled out in any comparative studies, but substance abuse is a subject people lie about, even to themselves. Substance abuse is higher in parents who vaccinate, just the same way that it is lower in vegan parents. Because any "thoughtful" and un-mainstream parental decision buggers up the statistics and makes them untrustworthy. 

 

A simple comparison of non-vaxxed vs vaxxed children has to be flawed. All children, and there are thousands who are in state care because their parents have harmed in some way are vaccinated compulsory. And they are in those studies, too. But many kids in care have FAS or other disabilities caused by drug abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse or neglect. They will be more likely to be disabled, but vaccination isn't the cause for it. 

 

Turn this around all you want, but I have just explained an intervening variable and those cannot be ignored. 

 

Those are not my ideas, those are the rules of statistics. If you really are interested in those, read Schnell, Hill Esser (Methods of Empirical Social Science). Read up on intervening variables and the problems of representativeness.

 

It's a real dilemma.

 

ETA: If I gave you links, they would be in German, I don't know if that is any good to you. I will try and find some translations, but it will be hard online. It is mainly in books, found in sociology libraries. Might be worth a trip if you are that interested.

erigeron likes this.
EineMutti is offline  
#92 of 114 Old 10-29-2013, 03:57 AM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Okay, serenbat, here you go: 

 

http://sociology.about.com/od/Research/a/Overview-Of-Quantitative-Research-Methods.htm

 

The studies cited by both sides are usually quantitative. Here are the faults of quantitative research, mentioned in that link: 

 

Quote:

Weakness of Quantitative Research

The greatest weakness of the quantitative approach is that it decontextualizes human behavior in a way that removes the event from its real world setting and ignores the effects of variables that have not been included in the model. It also lacks a depth and richness of data that is present with qualitative research. Because there are so many participants using quantitative methods, it is impossible to know the details about each and every one.

 

This means that in a quantitative approach about vaccinations, you are likely to compare two completely different groups. That means it is possible that you are comparing a healthy, non-vaxxing parent to an unhealthy, addicted parent. Without even knowing it. 

 

 

Another link here which compares strength and weaknesses in a table: 

 

http://www.interaction.org/annex-1-strengths-and-weaknesses-quant-evaluation-approaches

Quote:

 

  • The correlations produced (e.g., between costs and benefits, gender, and access to services or benefits) may mask or ignore underlying causes or realities.

 

 

Quote:

 

  • There is often no information on contextual factors to help interpret the results or to explain variations in behavior between households with similar economic and demographic characteristics.

 


 

Quote:

 

  • Many kinds of information are difficult to obtain through structured data collection instruments, particularly on sensitive topics such as domestic violence or income.

 

 

This is what I have been talking about. Substance abuse is one of those sensitive topics, so is child abuse. Both when comparing two groups and trying to find out about the cause-and-effect relationship of vaccinations, those two groups have to roughly be the same. 

 

 

Unfortunately, more detailed articles on google scholar cost money if you want to read them. But you get the general idea. 

EineMutti is offline  
#93 of 114 Old 10-29-2013, 05:14 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)

Eine Mutti it's good to see in your mind NOTHING can be done as far as a study goes :rotflmaoOther's see it much differently and see a need for the mercury and/or vaccination study - and eventually the outcry will grow, the autism numbers are growing.

 

How about what you said about NAS and their report/study? How faulty will that be? How where they able to find "test" groups? According to you it can't be done.

 

Hate to burst your bubble but MANY vegans, vegetarians too drink, smoke and use drugs (don't even want to get into "drugs" with you) and know what, this has been done this for decades, society has had smoking for a long time, yet just the one thing you lump in, you were the one that mentioned SEX and I still have no clue why given what you rewrote what you are talking about  - your over all logic is just that - yours!  Really reading what you wrote is just :laugh 


 

 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 offline  
#94 of 114 Old 10-29-2013, 05:27 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)

Bat, would you be OK with a study that looked at poor unvaccinated children in Detroit (who couldn't afford to get vaccinated, lets say) and compared them to wealthy vaccinated children in Beverly Hills as a way to determine who is healthier between vaccinated and unvaccinated kids?  If not, why not? 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#95 of 114 Old 10-29-2013, 06:16 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

Bat, would you be OK with a study that looked at poor unvaccinated children in Detroit (who couldn't afford to get vaccinated, lets say) and compared them to wealthy vaccinated children in Beverly Hills as a way to determine who is healthier between vaccinated and unvaccinated kids?  If not, why not? 

actually an attempt to look at two large groups would be welcome by me and I am not speaking for others - zero studies vs 1 yea- I'll take it!

 

maybe you don't know, most who are not vaccinating are not poor (most states pay for low income to vaccinate for FREE) it has also been shown the more educated you are the more likely you are to not vaccinated - but according to  Eine Mutti poor can't be used anyways! 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/05/08/who-doesnt-vaccinate/#.Um-0TaUw1z8

 

 

The whole amount of post by Eine Mutti are a wealth of contradictions - according to her, you can't have a study because of the variable YET if you look at only those 'special" reports/studies that most can not have access to (yet she fails to say how those studies were done??) are what you are to BELIEVE and just GO VACCINATE!

 

IF the variables are so that NO study can be done on vaccinated vs unvaccinated, you are just to except it- according to her but by into the studies that show vaccinating is what you are to do - it's called phooey - a contradiction! Trust this what I say but also trust this contradiction a post later- it's :laugh 

 

 

 

anyone want to show supporting data for this or EM want to explain how this data was collected??? "OF COURSE vaccinated children are a more likely to have disabilities." :dizzy another real selling point vaccine manufactures should be using- don't you think Tea? 

 

ETA- again with the contradiction  - EM also has said so many unvaccinated have autism  - so, having both ways? which is it??  again, please the data that supports so many unvaccinated have autism - how pray tell  do we know this if we can't do studies because of EM's variables? 

by the way both links provided by EM do not say studies can NOT be done on vaccinated vs unvaccinated do they? We can do studies (and hide them) showing vaccines are the way to go but we can't do studies to prove autism between vaccinated and unvaccinated! Can't wait to see NAS's report/study what ever!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

 

By "sex" of course I meant intercourse. But that variable has nothing to do with autism.

 

again, the reason you added this in a discussion "about autism" is?

 

 

 BUT NAS will publish a study on this - will that be flawed as well? AND you can not make statements that have no merit like - "so many unvaccinated children are autistic" answers please! :p


 

 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 offline  
#96 of 114 Old 10-29-2013, 06:52 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

actually an attempt to look at two large groups would be welcome by me and I am not speaking for others - zero studies vs 1 yea- I'll take it!

 

maybe you don't know, most who are not vaccinating are not poor (most states pay for low income to vaccinate for FREE) it has also been shown the more educated you are the more likely you are to not vaccinated - but according to  Eine Mutti poor can't be used anyways! 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/05/08/who-doesnt-vaccinate/#.Um-0TaUw1z8

 

 

 

Obviously the study was a hypothetical. You can just as easily say that the poor children from Detroit are unvaccinated because their parents are too lazy to take them to doctors appointments. 

 

And I seriously doubt you would "take it" if the study showed (which it almost certainly would) that the vaccinated kids were healthier/less obese/less likely to be diabetic etc than the unvaccinated poor children on welfare.You would correctly say that it wasn't a fair comparison. You HAVE to control for variables, otherwise you have NO idea whether the difference is because of the different lifestyles or the vaccines. The groups would have to be very very similar to have any real data to look at.  This is not an opinion, this is how studies are done when trying to test the effects of the independent variable.  

 

Any study that didn't follow this method would never survive the peer review process. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#97 of 114 Old 10-29-2013, 07:44 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

actually an attempt to look at two large groups would be welcome by me and I am not speaking for others - zero studies vs 1 yea- I'll take it!

 

I would love a study, or several. 

 

They can match for variables.  It obvioulsy cannot be random

 

It wouldn't be perfect, and hey, some people (perhaps even me) probably wouldn't accept it - but who cares?   

 

More information is a good thing.


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  
#98 of 114 Old 10-29-2013, 08:57 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)

Why is it acceptable to test other products on animals, but not vaccine ingredients? Primate studies would be a place to start, but what the heck, why not try many different animal species. Rats, guinea pigs, pigs, cattle, horses, dogs, sheep, ferrets, mice, etc. Test many different species, and see what happens. Would the studies find problems throughout most or all vaccinated species?    IF the studies find  the vaccinated groups have more problems than the unvaccinated groups, that might be a good indication of what to expect with humans. A starting point for further research.

 

I can understand why there are no such studies with humans, but animals? Why not? Test them all, see what happens. I have the feeling it would not be good for the vaccine program, but we won't know for sure unless the studies are done.


               "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."

                ~Captain Hammer (j/k, it was Plato)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beckybird is online now  
#99 of 114 Old 10-29-2013, 09:02 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

Why is it acceptable to test other products on animals, but not vaccine ingredients? Primate studies would be a place to start, but what the heck, why not try many different animal species. Rats, guinea pigs, pigs, cattle, horses, dogs, sheep, ferrets, mice, etc. Test many different species, and see what happens. Would the studies find problems throughout most or all vaccinated species?    IF the studies find  the vaccinated groups have more problems than the unvaccinated groups, that might be a good indication of what to expect with humans. A starting point for further research.

 

I can understand why there are no such studies with humans, but animals? Why not? Test them all, see what happens. I have the feeling it would not be good for the vaccine program, but we won't know for sure unless the studies are done.

 

So if they did this study (lets say for the sake of argument that it was done by a NVer) and they found absolutely no difference in the health of the vaccinated vs unvaccinated animals then what? Would you go out and vaccinate your kids? Would the debate be over?  Somehow I seriously doubt it....


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#100 of 114 Old 10-29-2013, 09:04 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)

Side note........most poor people in the US have free healthcare for their children. The people who don't have healthcare are those who make too much to qualify  for state help, but too little to afford independent insurance. I don't believe for one minute that the poor childen are unvaccinated due to lack of medical care. If anyone is unvaccinated due to lack of medical care, it would be the middle class that cannot afford insurance. The working, middle class family is not rewarded with free state help, and that is a shame. Hardworking families, the backbone of the country, are the last group to get any help at all.


               "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."

                ~Captain Hammer (j/k, it was Plato)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beckybird is online now  
#101 of 114 Old 10-29-2013, 09:08 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

So if they did this study (lets say for the sake of argument that it was done by a NVer) and they found absolutely no difference in the health of the vaccinated vs unvaccinated animals then what? Would you go out and vaccinate your kids? Would the debate be over?  Somehow I seriously doubt it....

So what?  Does it matter if any of us as individual posters vax their kids? Not really.

 

The whole "some NVer might never accept the study" is perhaps the worlds lousiest reason not to do a study.

 

Really, studies should be done so everyone ( and primarily those who vax) have more information on vaccines, their consequences, etc.  

serenbat, Marnica 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  
#102 of 114 Old 10-29-2013, 09:15 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

So if they did this study (lets say for the sake of argument that it was done by a NVer) and they found absolutely no difference in the health of the vaccinated vs unvaccinated animals then what? Would you go out and vaccinate your kids? Would the debate be over?  Somehow I seriously doubt it....


I would like to see what happens first. If the study is good, with no COI, even from the no-vax side, then it would be something to consider.
It might put an end to a lot of questions and uncertainty that many of us have with the vaccine program.

Of course, I think the study would be damaging to the vaccine program. Many animals already experience vaccine related injuries and health problems, and that is one reason I think it's happening with humans as well. But, since there is no such study, all we can do is speculate.

 

I could do my own animal study on mice, rats, and chicks, but I don't know how to adjust their injections to match an equivalent human schedule. If someone else could come up with this info, I would like to do my own study. Of course, the results would only be important to me, since nobody else would ever accept my results (understandably!). It would help me though, lol! And it might be a good idea for my son's science fair project when he enters high school.

 

I've been asking for a study like this for several years now, and I still don't see one in the works, even from the "no-vax" side.

serenbat likes this.

               "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."

                ~Captain Hammer (j/k, it was Plato)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beckybird is online now  
#103 of 114 Old 10-29-2013, 09:17 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)

The point is that it wouldn't really be applicable. Lots of conditions affect humans that don't affect animals. 

 

Plus, vaccines are tested in animals. Usually monkeys and mice. It's part of the vaccine development process. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#104 of 114 Old 10-29-2013, 09:25 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)

But I don't want to know how effective a certain vaccine is. Take out the virus, and do a study on the other ingredients.  Then compare that group to the unvaccinated group. Are there any health or developmental differences?

 

Since vaccines are tested on animals, why would a study involving vaccine ingredients be any different? Why is there no such study? I want to know how the full schedule affects animals, compared to the unvaccinated group.

serenbat likes this.

               "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."

                ~Captain Hammer (j/k, it was Plato)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beckybird is online now  
#105 of 114 Old 10-29-2013, 09:35 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,282
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

But I don't want to know how effective a certain vaccine is. Take out the virus, and do a study on the other ingredients.  Then compare that group to the unvaccinated group. Are there any health or developmental differences?

 

Since vaccines are tested on animals, why would a study involving vaccine ingredients be any different? Why is there no such study? I want to know how the full schedule affects animals, compared to the unvaccinated group.

 

HUMAN studies have found vaccines to be extremely safe and effective for humans. Why do we need to do a separate study on animals when we've they've already been done on humans? 

 

What I meant when I said it wouldn't really show us much was that there are SO many conditions that NVers think are caused by vaccines and many many of those conditions don't exist in animals. So even if the two groups of animals showed no difference in health, it couldn't show anything as far as those other conditions are concerned.  


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#106 of 114 Old 10-29-2013, 10:00 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

So what?  Does it matter if any of us as individual posters vax their kids? Not really.

 

The whole "some NVer might never acdept the study" is perhaps the worlds lousiest reason not to do a study.

 

Really, studies should be done so everyone ( and primarily those who vax) have more information on vaccines, their consequences, etc.  IF it is so great - simply do a real study and reassure everyone! :wink

I can personally think of many area within the US where such groups exist (vac & non) and both have near identical "life styles"(diet, economics, education, etc)  where a large number could be studied and they happen to be in areas where I feel this would be very welcomed. 


 

 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 offline  
#107 of 114 Old 10-29-2013, 10:11 AM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

Bat, would you be OK with a study that looked at poor unvaccinated children in Detroit (who couldn't afford to get vaccinated, lets say) and compared them to wealthy vaccinated children in Beverly Hills as a way to determine who is healthier between vaccinated and unvaccinated kids?  If not, why not? 

 

Exactly my point. Such a study would be a great waste of money and not say anything about vaccinations, but other factors that determine the health of a child. It wouldn't give additional info about vaccinations.

 

Serenbat, by taking out the poverty factor I of course meant that both groups have to be equal in that respect, and as you so rightly pointed out, most non-vaxxers are not poor. Or uneducated. Most people are not poor or uneducated either, but the groups would have to exactly the same in that respect.

 

The link that said that vaccinated children are more prone to disabilities is from fourteenstudies, it was given here in a previous post. I just pointed out that the reason for that will not be the vaccinations, but the differences in the cohorts. 

 

http://www.fourteenstudies.org/

 

The NAS study will have a qualitative approach, case studies. Not quantitative. Like other studies though, it may have to be purchased online or read in a library. How many times have you went on google scholar and couldn't read what you wanted, because it costs 40 pound per article? 

EineMutti is offline  
#108 of 114 Old 10-29-2013, 05:21 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

HUMAN studies have found vaccines to be extremely safe and effective for humans. Why do we need to do a separate study on animals when we've they've already been done on humans? 

 

What I meant when I said it wouldn't really show us much was that there are SO many conditions that NVers think are caused by vaccines and many many of those conditions don't exist in animals. So even if the two groups of animals showed no difference in health, it couldn't show anything as far as those other conditions are concerned.  


There are no HUMAN studies comparing fully vaccinated to non vaccinated. If it's acceptable to test vaccines on animals, then why not test adjuvants as well?  The FULL combination of adjuvants and ingredients, equivalent to what would be given to a child. Are there any animal studies that prove the safety of this? Some of us don't think the human studies are good enough, so animal studies might be the next best thing.

 

If I were to vaccinate, I would want to know that the combination of adjuvants and other vaccine ingredients were tested and found to be safe in animals. I also disagree with your statement that many human conditions don't exist in animals. There are many similarities between chronic health conditions in humans and animals.  This is just something I found http://www.npr.org/2013/04/22/177452982/zoobiquity-what-humans-can-learn-from-animal-illness . Testing vaccine ingredients seems more like a toxicity test, and animals are used all the time for that. Are the vaccine ingredients toxic in any way, and do they cause any illnesses, reactions, strange behavior, etc. How does a full schedule of vaccine ingredients affect animals? I stand by my beliefs on this one. I really do think it would be a beneficial study. I know you don't, so we have to disagree here. Neither of us will budge, that's for sure!

mama24-7 likes this.

               "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."

                ~Captain Hammer (j/k, it was Plato)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beckybird is online now  
#109 of 114 Old 11-02-2013, 08:20 AM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

One of the big concerns with mercury is autism... 

 

I can't for the life of me figure out how to diagnose a lab rat that has been vaccinated with echolalia, inability to interpret facial expressions or distinguish the crazy running in a wheel from pathological stimming? 

erigeron likes this.
EineMutti is offline  
#110 of 114 Old 11-02-2013, 12:50 PM
 
Jennyanydots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post

One of the big concerns with mercury is autism... 

I can't for the life of me figure out how to diagnose a lab rat that has been vaccinated with echolalia, inability to interpret facial expressions or distinguish the crazy running in a wheel from pathological stimming? 
Yeah, great point- cause brain damage would manifest the same way across species, duh.

chicken3.gif mama to two teens and two tots partners.gif madly in love with DP guitar.gif

Jennyanydots is offline  
#111 of 114 Old 11-02-2013, 12:53 PM
 
EineMutti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

It was a joke. 

 

Bolt.gif

EineMutti is offline  
#112 of 114 Old 11-03-2013, 05:28 PM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,830
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)

I want to know if there are any differences at all. What if there are differences between the injected groups and injection free groups? (I'm going to stop using the term "vaccinated", since I'm more interested in a study of the injected ingredients.) Test several species of animals--for that matter, test all animals that would receive vaccines, like pets and farm animals. I just want to know if there is a difference in health or behavior between injected vs. injection free groups. IF there is a difference, and this spans many different species, then wouldn't that be an indication of what might happen to the human animal?

 

I know, a bunch of "what ifs"....but, to my knowledge, there has yet to be a study like this. A type of toxicity study, to determine the safety of injected ingredients that are given frequently throughout the early stages of life.  I think there would be a lot to learn from this type of study. Whether or not it would prove my theory that vaccine ingredients are harmful is beside the point.

serenbat likes this.

               "Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses."

                ~Captain Hammer (j/k, it was Plato)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beckybird is online now  
#113 of 114 Old 11-04-2013, 10:05 AM
Administrator
 
cynthia mosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: An Arabian kingdom far far away
Posts: 28,848
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)

EineMutti, I think this is a pretty serious discussion so you'd serve it better by not making jokes. If you feel it would be a problem to test with rats then explain your misgivings about it so it can be beneficial contribution to the debate. 


cynthia mosher is offline  
#114 of 114 Old 11-04-2013, 11:10 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,100
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthia Mosher View Post
 

EineMutti, I think this is a pretty serious discussion so you'd serve it better by not making jokes. If you feel it would be a problem to test with rats then explain your misgivings about it so it can be beneficial contribution to the debate. 

:yeah

this serious discussion does effect many!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

I want to know if there are any differences at all. What if there are differences between the injected groups and injection free groups? (I'm going to stop using the term "vaccinated", since I'm more interested in a study of the injected ingredients.) Test several species of animals--for that matter, test all animals that would receive vaccines, like pets and farm animals. I just want to know if there is a difference in health or behavior between injected vs. injection free groups. IF there is a difference, and this spans many different species, then wouldn't that be an indication of what might happen to the human animal?

 

I know, a bunch of "what ifs"....but, to my knowledge, there has yet to be a study like this. A type of toxicity study, to determine the safety of injected ingredients that are given frequently throughout the early stages of life.  I think there would be a lot to learn from this type of study. Whether or not it would prove my theory that vaccine ingredients are harmful is beside the point.

Oh, I do know!

 

My close friend a nurse practitioner dealt with a new puppy - vaccines were just a chapter along with OB stuff - he works in an office where he is dealing just with adults and vaccines are not (were NOT) on his radar, no kids even in his immediate family, vaccines were just what he was told and 100% with that SUPER tiny SUPER rare, never going to see it footnote - get's a puppy, goes to a vet, (his first dog ever - all new to this!) puppy has a reaction, a bad one (since she got several he had no way to know what caused it) just makes through, vets states it was a reaction - learns that vets and reactions in animals and the numbers ARE NOT TO BE FOUND! You don't know how many pets have died at a practice or with a certain vet, you don't know the number that have had reactions - alive or dead and it OPENED up his eyes! 

 

http://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/five-vaccine-ingredients-that-can-harm-your-dog/  apparently concerns about ingredients are on the radar for some people and not just in children!

 

given the laws in this county, I think it would be hard to do the study you want Becky (because of people's views on testing on animals NOT because it can't be done!)  and what lots of us would like to see - BUT WE CAN HOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BeckyBird likes 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 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