Forced Vaccination is Wrong

[CabinetMaker]

... and you're still ducking the question Cab ... what is forced sterilization?

Based on the information you have provided, an urban legend.

 

[fzappa13]

It has always amazed me how little money it takes the federal government to entice school superintendents to do their will. The tail wagging the dog as it were.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/265212985/H-R-2232-The-Vaccinate-All-Children-Act-of-2015

 

[1PeaceMaker]

The only thing I have learned from you is how deep paranoia runs within your community.

Time to refresh your memory...

And yet it wasn't measles. It was only that portion of the measles virus required for the body to recognize the disease and developed antibodies for it. I never had the measles. I had a measles vaccine that works in a specific way to convey immunity without actually getting sick from measles.

And you were schooled here: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4238638&highlight=live+virus#post4238638

Yes, I have. It is what usually keeps companies from releasing something they know to be a threat. The liability exposure for doing so is hugely greater than for releasing a drug that is found to have more side effects than the testing studies were able to identify.

Wrong again!

Avandia, for example, racked up $10.4 billion in sales, Paxil brought in $11.6 billion, and Wellbutrin sales were $5.9 billion during the years covered by the settlement, according to IMS Health, a data group that consults for drugmakers.

“So a $3 billion settlement for half a dozen drugs over 10 years can be rationalized as the cost of doing business,” [Patrick Burns, spokesman for the whistle-blower advocacy group Taxpayers Against Fraud] said.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/05/breaking-down-glaxosmithklines-billion-dollar-wrongdoing/

No.

That was a dumb choice. That page contains legitimate facts that are not refutable. But don't let the facts get in your way....

(just don't expect to influence many, especially those smart enough to read my article before making judgment calls. I can't believe you are afraid to refute the article yourself. Whatever. :chuckle:

Given that we have no idea what causes autism, it is foolish for anybody to conclude that any one thing cause autism.

That's not what is happening. What is happening is that numerous factors, numerous vaccines, more environmental assaults that disrupt the brain are coming into play at the same time. It certainly muddies the waters.

We are discussing brain damage and inflammation - and that's the kind of thing where many things could do the same damage. That doesn't eliminate vaccines from the list of suspects.

When they cross the line into fear mongering, yes, I point out that what they are doing is inherently dishonest.

Dude, I've seen so much fear mongering from your side, with pictures of iron lungs that make me want to put up pictures of vaccine damaged children before and after... but that would be "fear mongering" right?


Stop being such a hypocrite.

When these people start going around claiming that vaccines contain mercury (which no childhood vaccines today contain) or that they cause autism or that your child will e damaged, whatever that may mean, then they have crossed from rational discussion to fear mongering and need to be opposed.

That is also false but too bad I'm out of time for now. :sigh:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Time to refresh your memory...

And you were schooled here: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4238638&highlight=live+virus#post4238638

Alive or dead, a vaccine contains only enough of the virus for the body to recognize it as a pathogen without causing a case of the disease. You are attempting to split hairs and failing at it.

Wrong again!



http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/05/breaking-down-glaxosmithklines-billion-dollar-wrongdoing/

Go read the Ford Pinto case history. I previously provided links. Learn the difference between something that was not known and something that was known and intentionally covered up.

That was a dumb choice. That page contains legitimate facts that are not refutable. But don't let the facts get in your way....

(just don't expect to influence many, especially those smart enough to read my article before making judgment calls. I can't believe you are afraid to refute the article yourself. Whatever. :chuckle:

It's not the facts that are a problem, it's your willingness to twist and distort facts to fit your agenda.

That's not what is happening. What is happening is that numerous factors, numerous vaccines, more environmental assaults that disrupt the brain are coming into play at the same time. It certainly muddies the waters.

again! we have no idea what causes autism. Your assertions here are just that, a wild guess.

We are discussing brain damage and inflammation - and that's the kind of thing where many things could do the same damage. That doesn't eliminate vaccines from the list of suspects.

Using that logic, the wild form if the disease is far more likely to cause autism as the incident neurological symptoms are far greater than they are for the vaccines.

Dude, I've seen so much fear mongering from your side, with pictures of iron lungs that make me want to put up pictures of vaccine damaged children before and after... but that would be "fear mongering" right?

Those iron lungs you refer to as fear mongering are actually historical fact for treating certain diseases. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, nobody has never claimed that vaccines are risk free. But when you post a picture your rhetoric that accompanies it is fear mongering. You cross the line from saying vaccines have risks so be sure to discuss them your doctor. You go right to vaccines damage all children and your a child will be irreparably harmed if you vaccinate them.

That is also false but too bad I'm out of time for now. :sigh:

i will be fascinated to see what you think is wrong.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Alive or dead, a vaccine contains only enough of the virus for the body to recognize it as a pathogen without causing a case of the disease. You are attempting to split hairs and failing at it.

Alive or dead and the understanding of what that means is what you failed to show understanding of when you first started debating with us.

Go read the Ford Pinto case history. I previously provided links. Learn the difference between something that was not known and something that was known and intentionally covered up.

Can you just stop moving the goalposts of this discussion?

Fact: GSK made way more money than they lost on the drugs they were sued over.

Assertion: Lawsuits are thus not incentive and the drug makers are often caught in knowing adulterations or risk taking.

Question: Who was jailed for knowingly poisoning/infecting people through drug companies?

Answer: No one. (Unless you care to find proof otherwise, I'd love to see it!)

It's not the facts that are a problem, it's your willingness to twist and distort facts to fit your agenda.

Don't be such a coward, refute the article or level with the truth. :readthis:

again! we have no idea what causes autism. Your assertions here are just that, a wild guess.

We know what autism IS. It's brain damage and inflammation. That's not in dispute. There could be numerous causes beyond that. Without honest studies on the true connections we won't know exactly which culprits are the most responsible.

Using that logic, the wild form if the disease is far more likely to cause autism as the incident neurological symptoms are far greater than they are for the vaccines.

You forget that because the disease rate is so low there is only a fraction of a percentage of risk of coming into contact with wild measles, for example. So obviously the risk is going to be greater when intentionally infecting all children.

Those iron lungs you refer to as fear mongering are actually historical fact for treating certain diseases. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, nobody has never claimed that vaccines are risk free. But when you post a picture your rhetoric that accompanies it is fear mongering. You cross the line from saying vaccines have risks so be sure to discuss them your doctor. You go right to vaccines damage all children and your a child will be irreparably harmed if you vaccinate them.

Hypocrisy. Vaccine risks are real and the before-after pictures of damaged children are also real.

i will be fascinated to see what you think is wrong.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-man-behind-the-vaccine-mystery/

It's been a mystery in Washington for weeks. Just before President Bush signed the homeland security bill into law an unknown member of Congress inserted a provision into the legislation that blocks lawsuits against the maker of a controversial vaccine preservative called "thimerosal," used in vaccines that are given to children.

Drug giant Eli Lilly and Company makes thimerosal. It's the mercury in the preservative that many parents say causes autism in thousands of children – like Mary Kate Kilpatrick.

Asked if she thinks her daughter is a victim of thimerosal, Mary Kate's mother, Kathy Kilpatrick, says, "I think autism is mercury poisoning."

But nobody in Congress would admit to adding the provision, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Acosta – until now.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey tells CBS News he did it to keep vaccine-makers from going out of business under the weight of mounting lawsuits.

"I did it and I'm proud of it," says Armey, R-Texas.

"It's a matter of national security," Armey says. "We need their vaccines if the country is attacked with germ weapons."

 

[CabinetMaker]

Alive or dead and the understanding of what that means is what you failed to show understanding of when you first started debating with us.

What does attenuated mean?

Can you just stop moving the goalposts of this discussion?

I have not moved them once. If you go back and look at where you originally brought up lawsuits you will see that my initial response was with he Ford Pinto case and I provided lings.

Fact: GSK made way more money than they lost on the drugs they were sued over.

Assertion: Lawsuits are thus not incentive and the drug makers are often caught in knowing adulterations or risk taking.

Question: Who was jailed for knowingly poisoning/infecting people through drug companies?

Answer: No one. (Unless you care to find proof otherwise, I'd love to see it!)

Don't be such a coward, refute the article or level with the truth. :readthis:

No lawsuit is ever likely to take down a major company. What it will do is hit their profitability which they wish to avoid as it devalues the company. People are sent to jail for criminal acts. A drug that results in the death of somebody is not a criminal act unless the maker knowingly suppresses the information that the drug may cause death. If death is listed as a potential side effect then no criminal act has been committed. You may not like that but that is the reality under the American legal system.

In any case, large companies do not like to get involved in lawsuits as they are expensive and, as you have pointed out, business is about making a profit. There is nothing inherently evil about making a profit.

We know what autism IS. It's brain damage and inflammation.
That's not in dispute. There could be numerous causes beyond that. Without honest studies on the true connections we won't know exactly which culprits are the most responsible.

Actually, we do not know that. There is no medical test that exists right now for detecting autism. A quick search of autism research reveals that nothing you said is here is actually supported by those actively involved in research of the condition.

You forget that because the disease rate is so low there is only a fraction of a percentage of risk of coming into contact with wild measles, for example. So obviously the risk is going to be greater when intentionally infecting all children.

I don't forget that at all. I acknowledge that when comparing the wild disease with the vaccine, the risks associated with the wild disease are more common and worse. Since vaccination is so common and the wild form of the disease is not, the risks associated with the vaccine appears to be worse since those are all we see right now.

Hypocrisy. Vaccine risks are real and the before-after pictures of damaged children are also real.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-man-behind-the-vaccine-mystery/

I would only be a hypocrite if I claimed that vaccines were 100% safe and effective while knowing that they are not. Since I have always maintained that vaccines are neither 100% effective nor 100% safe I am not a hypocrite.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Is there thimerosal in childhood vaccines today?

Since 2001, all routinely recommended vaccines (except for the flu vaccine) for administration to young children in the U.S. contain no thimerosal or only trace amounts.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

What does attenuated mean?

If you are trying to give the impression of being informed, you should answer that.

I have not moved them once. If you go back and look at where you originally brought up lawsuits you will see that my initial response was with he Ford Pinto case and I provided lings.

The Ford Pinto case tells you what? That it's okay to put a price tag on saving human lives regarding the profit margin?

GSK's lawsuits weren't a de-incentivizer... it was the cost of doing business.

Actually, we do not know that. There is no medical test that exists right now for detecting autism. A quick search of autism research reveals that nothing you said is here is actually supported by those actively involved in research of the condition.

Do you think it is a social construct?

I don't forget that at all. I acknowledge that when comparing the wild disease with the vaccine, the risks associated with the wild disease are more common and worse. Since vaccination is so common and the wild form of the disease is not, the risks associated with the vaccine appears to be worse since those are all we see right now.

I rest.

I would only be a hypocrite if I claimed that vaccines were 100% safe and effective while knowing that they are not. Since I have always maintained that vaccines are neither 100% effective nor 100% safe I am not a hypocrite.

Your attitude towards exposing vaccine injury belies you.

 

[CabinetMaker]

If you are trying to give the impression of being informed, you should answer that.

Why such reluctance to answer a simple question? This is your chance to shine, to show the world how well informed you are about vaccines. What does attenuated mean?

The Ford Pinto case tells you what? That it's okay to put a price tag on saving human lives regarding the profit margin?

That is exactly what Ford tried to do. The case is more interesting because Ford got caught in a lie. If Ford had honestly not known about the defect then the case would have ended much differently. Since Ford lied, they got punished hard by the jury.

GSK's lawsuits weren't a de-incentivizer... it was the cost of doing business.

To some degree yes, they are. But you are still ignoring a key point in law suits, there is a huge difference between finding an unknown side effect when the drug is released and knowing of that side effect and actively covering it up to increase sales. Knowingly hiding information like that is criminal and will result in significantly higher penalties in a civil court.

You may not like the way the world works, but you need to understand it. God commands it. "Be wise as the serpent but gentle as the dove."

Do you think it is a social construct?

Given the typical age of diagnosis, no.

Your attitude towards exposing vaccine injury belies you.

What attitude would that be? My attitude of telling people that vaccines are not risk free? My attitude of telling people to discuss it with their doctor if there are concerns? My attitude of linking to data that shows the risks associated with vaccines? All you do is roll out this meaningless term of "vaccine damaged" with absolutely no discussion of what that damage is. I understand that you may not wish to do so for privacy reasons but don't expect your argument to carry much weight if you are not willing to have an honest discussion about vaccine side effects.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Why such reluctance to answer a simple question? This is your chance to shine, to show the world how well informed you are about vaccines. What does attenuated mean?

Actually, those following my threads know that you and I have already discussed this. I linked already to you getting schooled on this point by my husband. Just a few posts ago.

That is exactly what Ford tried to do. The case is more interesting because Ford got caught in a lie. If Ford had honestly not known about the defect then the case would have ended much differently. Since Ford lied, they got punished hard by the jury.

What is your point? Decades later we have Bayer knowingly selling HIV infected products to hemophiliacs. Nobody went to jail or prison.

To some degree yes, they are. But you are still ignoring a key point in law suits, there is a huge difference between finding an unknown side effect when the drug is released and knowing of that side effect and actively covering it up to increase sales. Knowingly hiding information like that is criminal and will result in significantly higher penalties in a civil court.

Didn't happen that way when Dr Thomson withheld data linking a vaccine and autism from the public.... he just apologized and that must have made it all better?

You may not like the way the world works, but you need to understand it. God commands it. "Be wise as the serpent but gentle as the dove."

My ways are gentle. Like not forcing others to experience pain and side effects from drugs made and motivated by corporate profits.

Given the typical age of diagnosis, no.

Then if the brain is not functioning properly, what do you call that but damage? And inflammation has been medically imaged, with the corresponding increase in white matter.

All you do is roll out this meaningless term of "vaccine damaged" with absolutely no discussion of what that damage is.

As concerns my personal life it's not relevant how I've been touched by vaccine damage.

I understand that you may not wish to do so for privacy reasons but don't expect your argument to carry much weight if you are not willing to have an honest discussion about vaccine side effects.

My privacy concerns don't negate the public and verifiable cases that are freely available for public review.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Actually, those following my threads know that you and I have already discussed this. I linked already to you getting schooled on this point by my husband. Just a few posts ago.

You seem to think you are making some kind of point but you are not. Provide a link to where you tell us what an attenuated virus is. What does attenuated mean?

What is your point? Decades later we have Bayer knowingly selling HIV infected products to hemophiliacs. Nobody went to jail or prison.

We have a very complex legal system within which justice is occasionally served.

Didn't happen that way when Dr Thomson withheld data linking a vaccine and autism from the public.... he just apologized and that must have made it all better?

You are an accomplished spin doctor. You are spinning this story to make sound as if it applies to the entire study group. It does not. You are either lying for your own purposes or you are genuinely ignorant of the facts surrounding the data. Which is it?

My ways are gentle. Like not forcing others to experience pain and side effects from drugs made and motivated by corporate profits.

I am not questioning your ways, I am questioning your wisdom.

Then if the brain is not functioning properly, what do you call that but damage? And inflammation has been medically imaged, with the corresponding increase in white matter.

Damage implies that something happened to cause a change. We do not know that. Autism appears to have a genetic component similar other mental disorders. If this is true, there is no damage, just a difference caused by genetics.

As concerns my personal life it's not relevant how I've been touched by vaccine damage.

My privacy concerns don't negate the public and verifiable cases that are freely available for public review.

And the public is aware of the deaths and other rare side effects caused by vaccines and has concluded that the benefits of the vaccine are far greater than the potential risks.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

You seem to think you are making some kind of point but you are not. Provide a link to where you tell us what an attenuated virus is. What does attenuated mean?

What good would it do me to quote Wiki for you, and this is pure deflection, as far as I'm concerned.

We have a very complex legal system within which justice is occasionally served.

I'll take that as backpeddling.

You are an accomplished spin doctor. You are spinning this story to make sound as if it applies to the entire study group. It does not. You are either lying for your own purposes or you are genuinely ignorant of the facts surrounding the data. Which is it?

Says the man who cherry picks his knowledge. You wouldn't even review the answer to snopes.

I am not questioning your ways, I am questioning your wisdom.

And I'm questioning yours, because you are being neither clever, wise, nor gentle. Even though I'm sure you want to be a white knight.... you picked the wrong team.

Damage implies that something happened to cause a change. We do not know that. Autism appears to have a genetic component similar other mental disorders. If this is true, there is no damage, just a difference caused by genetics.

We do know that too many times children are talking and smiling at people before their "genetics" get the better of them. Often shortly after their shots. That change is damage, and I'm sorry you missed that.

And the public is aware of the deaths and other rare side effects caused by vaccines and has concluded that the benefits of the vaccine are far greater than the potential risks.

Like Ford, I guess. As long as *their* kids win the lottery....

 

[fzappa13]

If recent news is bad just remove it ...

https://sharylattkisson.com/government-wipes-recent-vaccine-injury-data-from-website/

 

[CabinetMaker]

What good would it do me to quote Wiki for you, and this is pure deflection, as far as I'm concerned.

I'll take that as backpeddling.



Says the man who cherry picks his knowledge. You wouldn't even review the answer to snopes.



And I'm questioning yours, because you are being neither clever, wise, nor gentle. Even though I'm sure you want to be a white knight.... you picked the wrong team.



We do know that too many times children are talking and smiling at people before their "genetics" get the better of them. Often shortly after their shots. That change is damage, and I'm sorry you missed that.



Like Ford, I guess. As long as *their* kids win the lottery....

Do you know what anecdotal versus causal evidence is?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Do you know what anecdotal versus causal evidence is?

Yes, I do. Do you know the difference between anectdote and challenge-rechallenge?

Would you honestly look a parent with a vaccine damaged child in the face and call what they witnessed "anecdote?" Would you tell the that the sudden regression they witnessed in their toddler after vaccines and repeated reactions "coincidence?"

 

[CabinetMaker]

Yes, I do. Do you know the difference between anectdote and challenge-rechallenge?

Would you honestly look a parent with a vaccine damaged child in the face and call what they witnessed "anecdote?" Would you tell the that the sudden regression they witnessed in their toddler after vaccines and repeated reactions "coincidence?"

But in this case you are only dealing with anecdotal evidence regarding autism. We, meaning humanity, do not know what causes autism. So yes, if somebody tries to tell me that their child contracted autism from a vaccine, I will not agree with them as all the medical evidence and research does not support such a claim.

 

[BOLCATS]

That is not what she asked.

 

[CabinetMaker]

That is not what she asked.

Please let her dodge her own questions.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

But in this case you are only dealing with anecdotal evidence regarding autism. We, meaning humanity, do not know what causes autism. So yes, if somebody tries to tell me that their child contracted autism from a vaccine, I will not agree with them as all the medical evidence and research does not support such a claim.

So yes, you would ignore their personal testimony and evidence. We can see how level the playing field really is, then.

 

[CabinetMaker]

So yes, you would ignore their personal testimony and evidence. We can see how level the playing field really is, then.

Given that the personal testimony cannot be verified, yes, I would classify their testimony as anecdotal and ignore it. I would use the limited funds available for research to determine what autism actually is so we can then maybe figure out what actually triggers it.