# Vaccine Nation - A documentary on the danger of vaccines



## Makalakumu (Oct 19, 2009)

This movie is obviously biased against vaccines.  However, I think it bears watching.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...KncSqyWOozYqAOGj5mGCg&q=vaccine+nation&hl=en#

How much truth is there to this?  Are vaccines dangerous?  Is there independent research that supports positions for and against vaccines?  What do you think?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 19, 2009)

There have been a number of good studies looking at the issues raied in this video. They have all shown NO evidence to support these claims.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 19, 2009)

Dirty Dog said:


> There have been a number of good studies looking at the issues raied in this video. They have all shown NO evidence to support these claims.



This is a new movie, so I wonder why these issues keep coming up?  Who performed these studies?  Are they independent?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 19, 2009)

Why do these issues keep coming up? Because in our litiginous society, ambulance chasing bottom feeders make a lot of money off this crap. Just look back at the lawsuits for diseases caused by breast implants (totally disproven) power line magenetic fields (totally disproven, and now they're selling magnets and claiming they'll solve all your problems), cell phones (totally disproven) etc etc etc.

The definitive studies have been done by the CDC, which is about as independent as you can get.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 19, 2009)

Dirty Dog said:


> The definitive studies have been done by the CDC, which is about as independent as you can get.



Before we throw all of our skepticism out of the window, understand that the CDC, the FDA, and the NIH have a revolving door policy with various corporate brass.  You can work for Merck one day, resign and go to work for the government, quit and go back to work for Merck.  There are plenty of conflicts of interests in government and the government has been caught red handed editing reports for ideologic reasons.  

So, how much can you really trust what these organizations are reporting?


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 19, 2009)

Dirty Dog said:


> Why do these issues keep coming up? Because in our litiginous society, ambulance chasing bottom feeders make a lot of money off this crap. Just look back at the lawsuits for diseases caused by breast implants (totally disproven) power line magenetic fields (totally disproven, and now they're selling magnets and claiming they'll solve all your problems), cell phones (totally disproven) etc etc etc.
> 
> The definitive studies have been done by the CDC, which is about as independent as you can get.


Don't forget a major failure to teach critical thinking skills and fundamental science...


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 19, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Don't forget a major failure to teach critical thinking skills and fundamental science...



It must be REALLY bad because all sorts of MDs and PhDs were interviewed for the movie.  Including former heads of major governmental agencies...not like that's a big endorsement for being intelligent, but one would think they have an insider's perspective.  

Here's the thing with science *jks9199*, when you start to really look at various studies you start to see a pattern of money flowing to those who produce results.  I have a lot of friends who work in industry and they have very specific research limitations.  It's cynical, but THAT is the way science is increasingly being done in the private and public sector.  

It's a mistake to think that you can truly divulge yourself of all skepticism in regards to any issue.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 20, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> So, how much can you really trust what these organizations are reporting?


 
I don't have to trust them. I've seen the studies and read the data, and trust my own education to allow me to reach a conclusion. 

By your criteria, there is no such thing as an impartial study. All studies have to be paid for by somebody, so how do you KNOW that they don't bias the results?


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 20, 2009)

The vaccine manufacturers themselves testified in front of congress that they cannot say with certainty that there are no neurotoxins in their vaccines and that these neurotoxins are not responsible for the epidemic of autism and other neurological disorders. 

THEY SAID IT!  THEY  ... said it.

The hot lot for DTaP 7H81507 mentioned in the movie is the lot # for one of my son's shots.  When I did research on that lot fourteen years ago, I found out it was a hot lot back then.

NOT the MMR, folks - the DTaP.

Watch the movie and let's discuss it.


----------



## Xinglu (Oct 20, 2009)

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't have to trust them. I've seen the studies and read the data, and trust my own education to allow me to reach a conclusion.
> 
> By your criteria, there is no such thing as an impartial study. All studies have to be paid for by somebody, so how do you KNOW that they don't bias the results?



Actually, study bias is nothing new.  When I look at any study there are two factors I look at: who does it and who pays for it.  Then if it is interpreted and written up in a journal I look at the author and his back ground to rule out bias.  There are plenty of scientific studies on the lethality of long term use of  NSAIDs.  Yet they are still handed out like candy, because if the FDA banned their OTC usage then they lose $$$.

For example, the FDA recently changed their policy on drug reviews (potentially pulling them from the market) because of the NSAIDs ruling.  Now if you have received more than $20k in benefits from the company in question that year you can't vote on it.  That would have excluded 10 votes from the latest review.  And of course all 10 in question voted to keep it on the market.

So let's not pretend that government agencies aren't subject to corporate bias or corruption.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 20, 2009)

An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 20, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> The vaccine manufacturers themselves testified in front of congress that they cannot say with certainty that there are no neurotoxins in their vaccines and that these neurotoxins are not responsible for the epidemic of autism and other neurological disorders.
> 
> THEY SAID IT! THEY ... said it.
> 
> ...


 

How to win an argument about vaccines.



> *MYTH 1: Vaccines cause autism.
> FACT:* Until 2001, vaccines included thimerosal, a preservative containing ethylmercury. Mercury, of course, can cause neurological damage. But theres scientific consensus that the amount once used in vaccines  around 50 micrograms per 0.5-ml dose  was far short of toxic. And autism rates have continued to climb, suggesting that theres either a different cause or, more likely, that a better understanding of the condition has increased diagnoses. A comprehensive review of the research, conducted in 2004 by the prestigious Institute of Medicine, found no evidence of a connection between vaccines and autism. None.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 20, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> It must be REALLY bad because all sorts of MDs and PhDs were interviewed for the movie. Including former heads of major governmental agencies...not like that's a big endorsement for being intelligent, but one would think they have an insider's perspective.
> 
> Here's the thing with science *jks9199*, when you start to really look at various studies you start to see a pattern of money flowing to those who produce results. I have a lot of friends who work in industry and they have very specific research limitations. It's cynical, but THAT is the way science is increasingly being done in the private and public sector.
> 
> It's a mistake to think that you can truly divulge yourself of all skepticism in regards to any issue.


 
I find it frustrating how (to some posters here at least) science is the final arbitrator on issues like global warming but it's a governmental/big pharma conspiracy when it's an issue like this. :shrug:


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 20, 2009)

And yet - case after case after case of children with off-the-chart mercury levels and neurological issues following vaccines continue to show up.

You're a Right wing Republican, right? Aren't you angered at all the people living off of tax dollars? Why aren't you angry about the wave of neurologically damaged adults about to hit society that your tax dollars are going to have to pay for?

What will it take? Autism is pandemic now. It outnumbers all other developmental disorders combined. Even the margins allowing for improved diagnosis and over diagnosis can't account for that rate of increase.

See ... I am ALL FOR *SAFE* vaccination.  But there are elements of immunity we don't yet understand. 

But I'm sure I should just sit down and shut up, even if the vaccine manufacturer DID testify in front of congress that they cannot say with certainty that vaccines don't cause autism.

There have not been any reliable studies done on this data which have not been funded, partially funded or back-doored by vaccine manufacturers, the CDC (who we all know is in bed with Merck et al).

But that doesn't matter, does it?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 20, 2009)

Is it autism if its mercury poisoning?  The human body is weird.  Some people can take a crap load of certain heavy metals and some people can't handle hardly any.  Every safe dose breaks a few eggs.  It's always a matter of statistics until its your kid.

About the best advice I've gotten from a doctor is this...

1.  Don't vaccinate sick children.  The immune system needs to be running at top speed.

2.  Don't bundle vaccines.  Take them one at a time with plenty of time in between to watch for side effects.  

3.  Don't vaccinate for stuff you don't need to worry about.  Certain vaccines aren't worth taking because they don't work very well or they protect against diseases that aren't that dangerous.  There's no reason to bypass your bodies defenses if you don't need to.

And, as Shesulsa pointed out, watch the movie and then lets discuss.  There's a lot of surprising people who make appearances in this film and they say some surprising things.  Educating people who actually performed the studies in question and have some important information to pass on that is left out of the Official Dialogue.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 20, 2009)

From the very interesting WIRED magazine article I refrenced above...



> *When a child* is ill, parents will do anything to make it right. If you doubt that, just spend a day or two at the annual conference of the nonprofit organization Autism One, a group built around the conviction that autism is caused by vaccines. It shares its agenda with other advocacy groups like the National Autism Association, the Coalition for SafeMinds, and McCarthy&#8217;s Generation Rescue. All these organizations cite similar anecdotes &#8212; children who appear to shut down and exhibit signs of autistic behavior immediately after being vaccinated &#8212; as proof. Autism One, like others, also points to rising rates of autism &#8212; what many parents call an epidemic &#8212; as evidence that vaccines are to blame. Finally, Autism One asserts that the condition is preventable and treatable, and that it is the toxins in vaccines and the sheer number of childhood vaccines (the CDC recommends 10 vaccines, in 26 doses, by the age of 2 &#8212; up from four vaccines in 1983) that combine to cause disease in certain sensitive children.
> 
> Their rhetoric often undergoes subtle shifts, especially when the scientific evidence becomes too overwhelming on one front or another. After all, saying you&#8217;re against _all_ vaccines does start to sound crazy, even to a parent in distress over a child&#8217;s autism. Until recently, Autism One&#8217;s Web site flatly blamed &#8220;too many vaccines given too soon.&#8221; Lately, the language has gotten more vague, citing &#8220;environmental triggers.&#8221;
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 20, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> And yet - case after case after case of children with off-the-chart mercury levels and neurological issues following vaccines continue to show up.
> 
> You're a Right wing Republican, right? Aren't you angered at all the people living off of tax dollars? Why aren't you angry about the wave of neurologically damaged adults about to hit society that your tax dollars are going to have to pay for?
> 
> ...



One thing that has always bothered me about all these industry supported studies is how they are separating the effects of mercury poisoning from that of autism.  

Frankly, it comes off like this...if its mercury poisoning, its not autism.  If its autism, it's not mercury poisoning.  That's not a study at all.  That's a counting game.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 20, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I find it frustrating how (to some posters here at least) science is the final arbitrator on issues like global warming but it's a governmental/big pharma conspiracy when it's an issue like this. :shrug:



That is frustrating...I actually starting doubting GW before I started looking at this stuff.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 20, 2009)

The biggest risk I see here is the "backsplash" against ALL vaccination. Again from the WIRED article:



> In May, The New England Journal of Medicine laid the blame for clusters of disease outbreaks throughout the US squarely at the feet of declining vaccination rates, while nonprofit health care provider Kaiser Permanente reported that unvaccinated children were 23 times more likely to get pertussis, a highly contagious bacterial disease that causes violent coughing and is potentially lethal to infants. In the June issue of the journal Pediatrics, Jason Glanz, an epidemiologist at Kaiser&#8217;s Institute for Health Research, revealed that the number of *reported pertussis cases jumped from 1,000 in 1976 to 26,000 in 2004. A disease that vaccines made rare, in other words, is making a comeback.* &#8220;This study helps dispel one of the commonly held beliefs among vaccine-refusing parents: that their children are not at risk for vaccine-preventable diseases,&#8221; Glanz says.
> 
> &#8220;I used to say that the tide would turn when children started to die. Well, children have started to die,&#8221; Offit says, frowning as he ticks off recent fatal cases of meningitis in unvaccinated children in Pennsylvania and Minnesota. &#8220;So now I&#8217;ve changed it to &#8216;when _enough_ children start to die.&#8217; Because obviously, we&#8217;re not there yet.&#8221;


 
I fear we are going to soon have a generation of children who start dying of measles, mumps etc. at an accelerated rate. The reason these diseases have become so rare in the first place is due to vaccination. What would parents prefer? A scientifically proven risk of death by measles by refusing vaccination or the anecdotal Autisim risk?


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 20, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> One thing that has always bothered me about all these industry supported studies is how they are separating the effects of mercury poisoning from that of autism.
> 
> Frankly, it comes off like this...if its mercury poisoning, its not autism.  If its autism, it's not mercury poisoning.  That's not a study at all.  That's a counting game.



I've felt for a long time that what we call "Autism" is actually a collective group of symptoms which house three (possibly four) separate disorders/diseases, the  markers for which we don't know how to monitor yet.

I agree with you - if it's mercury poisoning, it's not "autism" ... it's mercury poisoning.  And as one parent in the movie (we're all supposed to be discussing the movie and what was presented in it, right?), no child's baseline mercury levels are tested prior to vaccination - and THIS LEADS ME TO MY LONG-TIME, YET-TO-BE-SHOT-DOWN ARGUMENT:

We have the technology to make broad-spectrum baseline testing affordable and available to all newborns in this country. In fact, if we did process baseline testing for potential allergic reactions, heavy metals in the blood, skin, hair and urine, metabolic disorders *almost always ignored until it's too late* and other genetic and chromosomal deficiencies or abnormalities for every newborn infant, I daresay most childhood death and illness could be avoided and general health and herd immunity abolutely improved.  I also daresay that what we now call autism will be redefined into liver disorders, chromosomal disorders, genetic disorders, and other issues which lie in wait for the trigger to set the stage for a devastating blow.

It can be done. If we can manufacture shots for every child in America, we can make this baseline testing available at less than half the cost of one shot.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 20, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I fear we are going to soon have a generation of children who start dying of measles, mumps etc. at an accelerated rate. The reason reason they have become so rare in the first place is due to vaccination. What would parents prefer a scientifically proven risk of death by measles by refusing vaccination or the anecdotal Autisim risk?



MOST autie parents I know are for safe immunization for their children.

My yet-to-be-acknowledged statement:  I want my children to be safely vaccinated.  Having watched my son seize and become ill following two rounds of vaccination, I pleaded for years for an immunologist or allergist to test my children to find out what my son (ergo, my daughter and possibly me) react to so we can avoid what we can't have and get what we can.

We have repeatedly received deaf ears, turned out with threats of calling CPS because I'm endangering my children and others as well.

How dare they?  I *want* my children to be safe. Do you really think I want my kids - or any other sane, educated parent would want their kids - to die from measles, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, etcetera?  Oh yes, we're all virus nazis who want to kill all the little children. :barf:

Here's hoping you *actually* *read* my *whole* post instead of dismissing what I wrote to "there's that whacky chick posting anti-vac nonsense again."


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 20, 2009)

And let's just say it one more time, since no one wants to acknowledge this either ...

The vaccine companies testified before congress that they could not definitively state that vaccines do not cause "autism."

The vaccine companies said it.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 20, 2009)

What sort of "proof of safety" will be accepted?

If a company flatly states "this shot WILL NEVER cause Autism" they are opening themselves for HUGE possible liability (can we prove that global warming is man made?)..all they know is that the studies say it doesn't. Can you prove that baby food doesnt cause Autism? Never has never will? Of course they would say that...




> The thimerosal debacle exacerbated this tendency, particularly when the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service issued a poorly worded statement in 1999 that said &#8220;current levels of thimerosal will not hurt children, but reducing those levels will make safe vaccines even safer.&#8221; In other words, there&#8217;s no scientific evidence whatsoever, but you never know.
> 
> &#8220;When science came out and said, &#8216;Uh-oh, there may be a risk,&#8217; the stage was already set,&#8221; Kaufman says, noting that many parents felt it was irresponsible _not_ to have doubts. &#8220;It was Pandora&#8217;s box.&#8221;
> 
> *The result is that science must somehow prove a negative &#8212; that vaccines don&#8217;t cause autism &#8212; which is not how science typically works*. Edward Jenner invented vaccination in 1796 with his smallpox inoculation; it would be 100 years before science, such as it was, understood _why_ the vaccine worked, and it would be even longer before the specific cause of smallpox could be singled out. Until the cause of autism is discovered, scientists can establish only that vaccines are safe &#8212; and that threshold has already been met.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 20, 2009)

While I am no statistician, I would think that the hundreds of millions of vaccinations that have been given with this preservative and the fact that autism hasn&#8217;t statistically grown or shown to be in parallel with the number of vaccinations given would be some form of evidence that the shot cant be shown to be the culprit. Especially since this presertive is no longer used in many vaccinations yet autism hasnt declined but is still consistant relative to vaccination with the preservative removed.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 20, 2009)

Look - the devil is in the details.

Again - there is no baseline to compare to prior to vaccination.

We don't even know what autism *is* let alone what it could be caused by, but we know what it mimmicks.

If you approach an animal and it lowers its tail, bares its teeth  and backs away from you, what could you glean from that experience?  Most likely that either the dog really doesn't like you (or something on you) or that the dog has had some kind of bad experience with a human like you before.

Hardly scientific, but fairly reliable.

If you vomit and get diarrhea immediately after consuming dairy products you're likely intolerant of or allergic to dairy - that or it could be a bad batch or maybe you've reached your lifetime dairy quotient.  

Not a controlled, double-blind study conducted by independent researchers with no stake in the dairy industry, but a damn fine guess.

Let's look at it this way. You're a grown man.  If you went to the doctor's office to get a tetanus shot, sat down, rolled up the sleeve, felt the needle go in and the next thing you know, you wake up on a respirator with your wife staring at you with tears running down her cheeks, you're burning up, everything sounds like it's either too far away or too close to be understood, you see everything in bubble-vision and you can't stand the feel of the socks on your feet or the ants on your skin (are there ants there?) and you can't keep focus even for two seconds, your pulse echoes in your head until you feel like you're going to go insane, and it keeps happening day after day after day ....

What exactly would you think?  

Now ... let's say you recover, go home and feel a little weak and like you just can't shake off the whole experience when you find out you have to go back to the doctor for another shot.  So you go, get the shot and guess what?  Same thing happens again.

What exactly would you think then?


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 20, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> While I am no statistician, I would think that the hundreds of millions of vaccinations that have been given with this preservative and the fact that autism hasnt statistically grown or shown to be in parallel with the number of vaccinations given would be some form of evidence that the shot cant be shown to be the culprit. Especially since this presertive is no longer used in many vaccinations yet autism hasnt declined but is still flat relative to vaccination.



Watch the movie, Arch.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 20, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> While I am no statistician, I would think that the hundreds of millions of vaccinations that have been given with this preservative and the fact that autism hasnt statistically grown or shown to be in parallel with the number of vaccinations given would be some form of evidence that the shot cant be shown to be the culprit. Especially since this presertive is no longer used in many vaccinations yet autism hasnt declined but is still consistant relative to vaccination with the preservative removed.



Thimersol is not the only toxin in vaccinations.

Did you know some vaccines are grown on aborted fetuses? Oh yes.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 20, 2009)

The risk:



> The research was published in February 1998 in an article in The Lancet medical journal. It claimed that the families of eight out of 12 children attending a routine clinic at the hospital had blamed MMR for their autism, and said that problems came on within days of the jab.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


 

And as fewer people get immunized, our herd immunity is placed at risk. So if my kids shot didnt "take" she is at higher risk because all the other people on whom it would have "taken" are now circulating around a DEADLY disease that we once had under control.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 20, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> Thimersol is not the only toxin in vaccinations.
> 
> Did you know some vaccines are grown on aborted fetuses? Oh yes.


 
Methinks that people who want to see "toxins" in shots will see toxins in any formulation of a vaccination.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 20, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> But I'm sure I should just sit down and shut up, even if the vaccine manufacturer DID testify in front of congress that they cannot say with certainty that vaccines don't cause autism.



They also cannot say with certainty that you will not be trampled by pink elephants in a tutu 24 hours after taking the vaccine.

It all depends on how the question is asked.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 20, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> They also cannot say with certainty that you will not be trampled by pink elephants in a tutu 24 hours after taking the vaccine.
> 
> It all depends on how the question is asked.



Watch the movie (not all of which I agree with, btw), and see how you think the question is asked.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Oct 20, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> My yet-to-be-acknowledged statement:  I want my children to be safely vaccinated.  Having watched my son seize and become ill following two rounds of vaccination, I pleaded for years for an immunologist or allergist to test my children to find out what my son (ergo, my daughter and possibly me) react to so we can avoid what we can't have and get what we can.



Sorry if I ask a silly question. This is probably a misunderstanding on my part, but can't you just visit an immunologist and an allergist to see if you can find out what the problem is?


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 20, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Sorry if I ask a silly question. This is probably a misunderstanding on my part, but can't you just visit an immunologist and an allergist to see if you can find out what the problem is?



Scroll up, dude.

Finding someone to do this today will be easier than it was when he was a child, but I'll have to travel to do it.  I just received info for a doc at UW up by Seattle. I think there's another good one in Arizona and another in Texas, but I need their details.


----------



## bluekey88 (Oct 20, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Sorry if I ask a silly question. This is probably a misunderstanding on my part, but can't you just visit an immunologist and an allergist to see if you can find out what the problem is?


 
There is also the issue of insurance.  A lot of this stuff isn't necessarily covered under normal plans...may be out of network and/or out of pocket.  VERY expensive.  Also, hard to find competent doctors to do the work as Shesulsa has pointed out.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 20, 2009)

bluekey88 said:


> There is also the issue of insurance.  A lot of this stuff isn't necessarily covered under normal plans...may be out of network and/or out of pocket.  VERY expensive.  Also, hard to find competent doctors to do the work as Shesulsa has pointed out.



The local docs here who fleetingly considered broad-spectrum testing the three of us asked us if our insurance would pay for it. When we said we didn't know but that if insurance didn't we gladly would, that still was not enough.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 20, 2009)

Looking at who paid for a study is a very valid part of critically assessing the study.  After all, if someone's got a stake in selling a product, there's a damn good chance that they're going to find that it works/addresses the problem.

Autism is a very complex disorder, with a wide range of presentations.  In some ways, it's almost a "we don't know what else to call it, so we'll label it" disorder.  Because of this, it's very difficult to point to any one cause & effect relationship in autism.

Immunization is not 100% safe.  It's pretty much an empiracally developed treatment method... and I'll agree that there's lots we don't know about the human immune system and how it works.  But it's also not 100% safe to walk out the door each day.  So far, for me, I'm generally a fan of innoculation.  To me, the arguments are still in favor of it for myself and my son.  I won't make the mistake I did this year again, and get two innoculations in a week without at least discussing it with the doctors, because I think that led to me getting sick...


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 20, 2009)

It would be enough for me if people acknowledged the risks involved, did what they could to minimize them, and vaccinated when appropriate.  That doesn't happen because there is an attitude out there that presents these things as completely safe for everyone.  That isn't the case.  

I see where the attitude comes from.  From the public health side, one wants to see as many people vaccinated as possible, so the misrepresentation persists.  From the business side, the drug companies want to sell as many doses as they can to vaccinate as many people as possible, so the attitude persists.  

With the revolving door of drug execs going into and out of government this unified purpose pretty much guides the research being done into these matters.

Imagine if a study showed that various immunologic side effects in a small amount of people would portray itself like autism when certain vaccines were administered?  Even if the risks were very low, people would be scared ********.


----------



## Xinglu (Oct 20, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I find it frustrating how (to some posters here at least) science is the final arbitrator on issues like global warming but it's a governmental/big pharma conspiracy when it's an issue like this. :shrug:



No conspiracy.  It's all about the money. Pharmaceuticals and vaccinations make billions of dollars anything that threatens that is fought tooth and nail, even if it is valid and true.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 20, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> It would be enough for me if people acknowledged the risks involved, did what they could to minimize them, and vaccinated when appropriate.  That doesn't happen because there is an attitude out there that presents these things as completely safe for everyone.  That isn't the case.
> 
> I see where the attitude comes from.  From the public health side, one wants to see as many people vaccinated as possible, so the misrepresentation persists.  From the business side, the drug companies want to sell as many doses as they can to vaccinate as many people as possible, so the attitude persists.
> 
> ...



I'd be a little happier if they would just *acknowledge* they've been doing wrong...

... and if doctor's would *acknowledge* the fact that some children (and adults, even) are harmed by some vaccinations.  

I'd be even happier if they addressed the medical needs of those harmed by vaccination.

I'd be happier than THAT if insurance companies would pay for the treatment of these problems.

I'd be peachy if we developed baseline testing for every infant and deliver it prior to any and all inoculation.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 20, 2009)

Xinglu said:


> No conspiracy.  It's all about the money. Pharmaceuticals and vaccinations make billions of dollars anything that threatens that is fought tooth and nail, even if it is valid and true.



Theres money behind every politically charged scientific issue.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 20, 2009)

Regarding Alan Yurko, who is portrayed in the movie as an innocent victim, something didn't sit right with me when I watched this.  Why the hell would this guy be locked up for life if there was no witnesses to the crime and the evidence was circumstantial?

There's more the story.

The dudes a Class A scumbag.  He's got a list of priors and has been in and out of prison multiple times...including for violent offenses.  Does this mean he killed his son and that he isn't innocent until proven guilty?  No, but it does give a person some justification as to why the sentence was so harsh.


----------



## Xinglu (Oct 20, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Theres money behind every politically charged scientific issue.



Not just the political ones... medicine in general is all about the money now.  There is no conspiracy, just greed.  The only agenda is to get rich, and they don't hide it... so there is no hidden agenda that could be construed are a conspiracy.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 20, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> See ... I am ALL FOR *SAFE* vaccination.  But there are elements of immunity we don't yet understand.



One thing we've understood since the first days of variolation is the manifold advantages of vaccination.

[/quote]even if the vaccine manufacturer DID testify in front of congress that they cannot say with certainty that vaccines don't cause autism.
[/quote]

The manufacturer can't say with certainty that vaccines don't cause Spontaneous Human Combustion, but they can say it to the same scientific standard of statistical confidence--autism isn't caused by vaccination, nor does vaccination appear to even influence it. In addition to the lack of supporting data, there's also a lack of a theoretical mechanism by which it would work (unless one accepts that certain substances are acting on the body at homeopathic levels and causing changes). It can certainly happen that a person has a negative reaction and even a serious effect from a vaccine, but they aren't causing autism.

I believe that this a correlation-based fallacy: Autism often clearly emerges at roughly the same time as certain vaccines are given. The vaccines can make the child feel unwell for a day or so. Later, symptoms of autism are seen. It followed, therefore it was caused by.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 21, 2009)

arnisador said:


> One thing we've understood since the first days of variolation is the manifold advantages of vaccination.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First, not all autism is Sudden Onset Autism and not all SO Autism occurs at the same time after the same shot.  Please read again - my son was damaged after his DTaP vaccines at 2 months and 4 months.  Not from the MMR at 16 months.

As to possible causation (caveat: I don't think vaccinations are the sole cause of autism, but the point is that they CAN do damage) - I know it's lame to quote yourself, but ...



shesulsa said:


> If you vomit and get diarrhea immediately after consuming dairy products you're likely intolerant of or allergic to dairy - that or it could be a bad batch or maybe you've reached your lifetime dairy quotient.
> 
> Not a controlled, double-blind study conducted by independent researchers with no stake in the dairy industry, but a damn fine guess.
> 
> ...



I think if people apply the experience to themselves as adults, perspective can shift a bit. Or, perhaps not.


----------



## Marginal (Oct 21, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> And let's just say it one more time, since no one wants to acknowledge this either ...
> 
> The vaccine companies testified before congress that they could not definitively state that vaccines do not cause "autism."
> 
> The vaccine companies said it.



Wasn't the main proponent of the mercury link proven to be a paid shill who faked evidence?


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 21, 2009)

Marginal said:


> Wasn't the main proponent of the mercury link proven to be a paid shill who faked evidence?



Andrew Wakefield fudged data. So have others. And it's interesting because one good point in this movie indicates that if an infant already has high levels of mercury  and then gets a small dose, this is far more damaging to that child than it is to an infant with low levels of mercury.

But that doesn't matter either.


----------

