Don't forget that vaccines are money. the more kids getting jabbed means more money for developers.
This is a great comparison to the rise in the vax schedule in the USA CDC Schedule
Printable View
Don't forget that vaccines are money. the more kids getting jabbed means more money for developers.
This is a great comparison to the rise in the vax schedule in the USA CDC Schedule
Can I also second Smickers' request to keep it civil because I don't want this thread to be closed - Yeddi and RSAHD (and others) thanks for engaging in this debate - it's really interesting and you both obviously have very informed views. :clap:
Is that seriously true? That is very interesting....:
I mean this in the nicest way but your understanding of enzymes is just bizzare! It's not because I think your not smart. I studied biochemistry at uni so I have a pretty good understanding of enzymes and how they work. I appreciate your effort but it's a bit like someone who has done some night classes in French having a conversation in French with a French person, they think, I know you know what your saying but WTF?
Do you have a good link to this enzyme stuff?
I keep asking for links because everytime I google this stuff I get the kinds of explanations you've just given. Not that your not smart or trying hard, I can't speak French, I can barely do my taxes, I just know the stuff that I know but it's really confusing to get this kind of explanation. Honest to god I'm not being condescending! Sorry!
Did Pauling research this stuff. I'll have a look on the net.
I thought the rise in whooping cough was due to not enough people getting boosters?
If vaccines were causing defects in people's enzymes it would be very easy to test. Have these tests been done?
Obviously big pharma are a bit evil (said without sarcasm, I'm not a fan, I like generics!) if they were engineering the pro-vac lies that would make then pretty darned evil in my books!
Yep. I'll see if I can find any reliable references that are free to view.:
Rockin - LOL, perhaps it was a little every man, but that was the point. Not everyone has a degree in biochemistry, and other people read this thread.
Unfortunately, no one (that I know of) has done a specific study of auto-immune based disorder (autism/diabetes)/enzyme/toxic load together. There are plenty that look at auto-immune disorders/enzymes and others that look at enzyme/toxic load, and then others that look at disorders/toxic load, but not one that looks at how all three might relate together. Why not, I don't know. :huh:
Metabolic activation of toxins: tissue-specific expression and metabolism in target organs.
http://www.adltests.com/assets/files...view_Liska.pdf
This one is really good - more native French...
http://www.cbcutah.net/Documents/Und...%2018JAN04.pdf
Analogies are really good but they fall down when they become implausible. I really liked the last article Yeddi, it's a well thought out summary of a lot of research, but still it's all 'maybe' and 'suppose'. It's good as a basis for treatment but still the important links are big stretches and assume a lot. Especially the viral load one, the viruses could've come from anywhere and if they were caused by the vaccine there's no guarantee that exposure to a person with a cold wouldn't create the same response.
From reading the article I can see that testing a link wouldn't be easy and that people are trying. What is clear is that even if links are found then there is no guarantee that any case of autism attributed to vaccinations wouldn't have been triggered by other environmental factors, an environment that's rapidly changing.
But so does a lot of information on vaccination and it's saftey (although I know you'll likely disagree). Anyway, as the article is about autism specifically, and no known cause has been scientifically proven/confirmed, any formal article etc. about it would need to (or at least should) use passive language like it has.:
To a certain degree, yes, but no one is saying that vaccination alone causes autism, but when it comes to not being able to metabolising toxins, there's no way the current pro-vax stance of it not even being a factor can stand. They are full of toxins, adding those toxins to a compromised system will have an effect because if those toxins can't be excreted they will cause damage. In these people it's about degree, not whether it will or not IYKWIM.:
Gotta admit Rockin, you've got better at this ;). Looks like we can have a civil discussion, even when we don't agree.
It's important to point out that the link between autism and toxins is the personal opinion of the author. For example about mercury causing damage in infants he says "it might not seem much of a stretch of logic...". It's not only a legal issue that he uses such roundabout language it's the reality of what we know.
To use an analogy, it's like putting your washing in the washing machine and getting it out of the chimney, dried and folded 6 hours later. The events seem similar but there's no way to know if they're linked.
Even IF (stretching logic, can, might) there was a link, wouldn't it be worth the small increase in risk (because it's not the only possible trigger) for the massive decrease in disease we've seen in the last 100 years?
Mercury and autistic kids has actually been proven. They've done tests on their hair and found they have significantly less metals in their hair than normal kids, which means they're holding onto it. So mercury is an issue. I'll also refer you back to a study I referenced earlier regarding non-fish eating children (as in that was not a source).
Do you know what I think is funny, not haha funny, maybe ironic would be the better word. We sit here talking about how the increased autism rates can be effected by a number of different factors. You refuse to acknowledge that vaccination may play a part in those rates. Yet at the same time, you say that the decreased rate of disease is based on vaccination and are not effected by a number of different factors like already established natural herd immunity, hygiene, better nutrition etc. I would think to be balanced, the same measure would need to be applied to both, wouldn't you say? If not, why the double standard?
You mean this study that you posted earlier::
Irva Hertz-Picciotto, Peter G. Green, Lora Delwiche, Robin Hansen, Cheryl Walker, Isaac N. Pessah, "Blood Mercury Concentrations in CHARGE Study Children with and without Autism" Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 118, No. 1 (Jan., 2010), pp. 161-166
That states in the conclusion of the summary that taking into account fish intake (Children with autism ate less fish apparently?!?!) blood concentrations of mercury were the same for children with autism and the control kids. Not sure what your point was about mercury in the hair, im sure that would mean that they were losing more mercury out of their bodies... ;) (i'm not the only one not reading my references)
The double standard is that I still don't believe that there's proof autism is increasing. Its complex to give percentage rate rises for something that relates to a changing culture, I know someone with autism who was diagnosed within that 11 year period. Despite knowing about autism I was surprised when he was diagnosed, we all thought he was always just a funny looking kid (great guy though, I would always stand by him). I know of people who are diagnosed, who should have been diagnosed, who might have been diagnosed. Its all complex.
Dropping disease rates is simple. Natural herd immunity is as old as life on earth, these diseases are old, we've had millions of years to adapt but todays humanity is a germs paradise so herd immunity is less effective than it has been, than when humans lived in small groups and rarely mixed with others. Better hygiene is great but the amount of time people still get sick tells me that modern hygiene isn't that fantastic, not good enough to cripple serious disease. Nutrition, well the fact that modern diets are causing so many modern diseases isn't so hopeful...
Just thought I might add this. I found it really interesting WHO Immunisation Profiles. Obviously click on Australia and go through.. but anyway, if you go to the second third and fourth fields, the number of reported cases of pertussis has been increasing again, despite our reported vax coverage not changing. 92% to 97% based on who you go by.
Very confounding.
Well, your assumption is wrong. They're storing it, and that is scientifically proven by many studies (even people who don't touch on vaccination). By the way, I said I'll also refer you to, as in it was an addition, not a reference for the hair study. So I do actually read the studies! It's not my fault you haven't read the sentence the way it is written. Although that could have something to do with reading it a midnight - I'm honoured you were still considering our discussion so late at night.:
Or, they could be getting sick all the time because their immune systems have been damaged by vaccinations. The unvaccinated children I know are very rarely sick, even when those around them are coughing and spluttering.:
Yes, but we're not starving and so vitamin deficient that large populations of people have rickets, gout and scurvy. How food changes the health of populations in the past and currently is most probably not an area you want to butt heads on without having the proper documentation to back it up, as it is actually one of my areas of expertise, and it will be death by reference. Nutrition has a huge effect on disease rates, mortality and fertility, often following a 200 year cycle of nutrition/disease reduction/higher fertility/unsustainable population/economic collapse/nutritional deficit/disease increase. Similar disease rates have actually been experienced before... Good nutrition leads to lower disease, lower disease leads to higher fertility, a fertility boom leads to greater strain on the economy, the economy collapses therefore people can't afford the proper food, this leads to nutritional deficits and these deficits lead to disease which decreases the population to more sustainable levels, and then the cycle starts again. Your vision of vaccination holy grail is short sighted, and whether I'm right will be proved soon enough as we are nearing the downward slope of the bell curve. Whooping cough increases, scarlet fever infections (which has followed the same disease trends as the others despite not having a vaccination), measles, and mumps are all starting to slowly creep up. But biased witnesses such as yourself will just blame the unvaccinated despite there being "no clusters of disease amongst the unvaccinated" - a phenomenon you are yet to address.:
Actually, I don't even know why I bothered to post - that is very hypocritical. You cannot change the measure to suit yourself. We could say that disease rates have dropped because doctors have better diagnosis tools so no longer misdiagnose the same and this is the main reason for the reduction in disease, because what was once labelled as whooping cough is actually just a cold. If you want to have any credibility in what you say you need to stop deliberately amending the ruler to achieve the bias you want it to.:
I read your sentence and I'll read your references but you did post that previous study and it did contradict one of your previous points. I wasn't up till midnight, I'm an early riser (not by choice) and I live on the west coast.
Your assuming that I hang out with other immunisation hippie-criticising parents!
You make some compelling arguments and I'll look into Scarlett fever but if immunisations are in fact crippling immune systems why did the amazing decrease in disease happen at all?
BTW disease clusters wouldn't happen due to herd immunity that's part of the point but if you believe that immunisations are in fact decreasing effectiveness of immune systems
LOL, that doesn't make sense! Isn't your argument that herd immunity is via vaccination? If these populations are unvaccinated and there is a disease outbreak amongst them how does herd immunity protect them? Logically, wouldn't you expect the infection rate to be higher per capita amongst the unvaccinated in comparison to the vaccinated?:
Firstly, we'd have to look at the disease health issue with the same ruler as any other health issue (autism included) which you don't do. We'd have to look at the effect of better living conditions, water and food supplies, hygiene, medical advances in diagnostics, the discovery of antibiotics, and the difference in infections rates as opposed to mortality rates AND vaccination effects. All those graphs that show a decline, show a decline in mortality, not infection. With better treatment and diagnostics of course morbidity rates have fallen, but this isn't a direct reflection on vaccinations effectiveness, which could ONLY be determined by infection rates. But then rates of infection are not just restricted to a vacuum like isolation of vaccination either but also, as I said before, would also be determined by what the diagnosis criteria is (which has changed several times over the years for things like polio as previously stated), and what tests doctors used at the time, or whether they used them at all, which would all impact on the reliability of the diagnosis.:
And to answer the second half, most probably because we haven't always had the onslaught of vaccination we have today. 1. When vaccination started there were only a few vaccines, this has now increased to 36 doses in some countries before the age of 1. 2. These few vaccines were mainly given after the age of 2, one the cyp450 system was mature and the blood brain barrier had been fully developed. As these processes have changed we have seen a steady rise in auto-immune disorders across the board (so while you love to pick on the ambiguity of autism because it's the least define auto-immune disorder, it is only one of many).
That is actually part of that link I posted. There was less whooping cough before immunisations were so widely used, and whooping cough incidences have been increasing over the past 20 years.:
1980
Reported Cases - 124
Antigen Coverage - 33%
2009
Reported Cases - 29,545
Antigen Coverage - 92%
ETA: Just got DH the mathematician out of the dust to quell any population increase theories.
Percentage of the population:
1980: 0.00085%
2009: 0.139%
Thanks for the link Honey Aspen. The problem with the Pertussis vaccine in this case as you may know is that it only gives immunity for 5-10 years and that there is no revaccination program for adults. There is no way that considering that fact Australia has a 92% coverage, thats possibly child coverage, its much more likely that the total population coverage is declining rapidly as reimmunisation is almost non-existent for adults.
We wouldn't see an increase in disease in unvaccinated (clusters) because the people aren't seperate from the general population. Kids and adults mix so there is no actual 'immunological' cluster just an ideological one. It would be hard to see a statistically significant rise in disease anyhow due to the small number of unvaccinated kids in the community, if the rate was significant then there might be a slight increase in disease for the unvaccinated kids but a large overall increase in the community (if you believe that kind of thing!! ;) ).
You are right about my inconsistency when it comes to diagnosis of the diseases Yeddi BUT autism and polio are obviously very different. Apart from the obvious like polio is a virus you can catch and autism is something genetic ????(haven't ever heard it referred to as an auto immune disease!) Its very likely that people have lived with less debilitating autism in previous times (I don't mean to belittle autism!) where society was much less information focussed. I think that my friend with autism would have lived quite well either working for his parents or doing labor jobs for cash and travelling around (a common lifestyle ).
For polio, we just don't see it. It could be mis-diagnosed and treated inadvertently but that seems quite unlikely given the symptoms of the disease. What I mean is that diagnosis of autism in the past might not have mattered in most cases like it does now but for polio the diagnosis of polio doesn't matter at all because the progression of the disease if untreated is obvious!
It is possible that polio is inadvertently treated with antibiotics but as its a virus it wouldn't respond and I can't see a doctor giving antivirals without a blood test that would show up the illness.
Despite the good information on cyp450 you've provided, it's still a vauge theory despite your unwavering belief!
I agree! Because Vaccinating your child doesnt mean they are completly 100% coverd from getting it, they may just get it to a lesser degree which can still be fatal or damaging, if everyone vaccinated their children we could kill these diseases off surely!!:
LOL, you should read the rest of this thread if you have a few spare hours Raising Dancers!