Vaccine Nation

[fucktopgirl]

This totally bollocks. You think you have a convincing thing with this thing?

As much as you dont believe my source of info, i dont believe a crap of yours.

Propaganda.

Japan ban the MMR vaccin

Vaccin failed

[HAL 9000]

Originally Posted by fucktopgirl

This totally bollocks. You think you have a convincing thing with this thing?

As much as you dont believe my source of info, i dont believe a crap of yours.

Propaganda.

Japan ban the MMR vaccin

Vaccin failed

FTP – I should have added that the site I linked to was owned by a journalist. I didn’t because the information in it is easy to verify.

For example – here is the Patent Office record of Wakefields application of 6th June 1997 regarding his new Vaccine.
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?IA=GB1998001637&wo=1998055138&DISPLAY=STATU S

It includes the opening line

The present invention relates to a new vaccine/immunisation for the prevention and/or prophylaxis against measles virus infection

And here is the Freedom of information letter revealing Dr Wakefields receipt of taxpayers money for legal work conducted on MMR in the 90s

http://www.destinationsante.com/IMG/...ass-action.pdf

Still think it's bollocks?

By the way - the links in your post didnt work

[fucktopgirl]

http://www.wddty.com/033638003703755...-bans-mmr.html

http://www.wddty.com/033638003706568...sn-t-work.html


THey should works.

[HAL 9000]

Originally Posted by fucktopgirl

http://www.wddty.com/033638003703755...-bans-mmr.html

http://www.wddty.com/033638003706568...sn-t-work.html


THey should works.

You have posted 2 articles from a sight called “What doctors Don’t Tell You”. Again, I suspect the most important skill that you can learn here is how to research information effectively.

That is not to say that there is not interesting material in these articles. The first accurately reports that Japan banned the MMR in 1993 because the strain of Mumps used was too virulent.

The UK also banned this MMR but instead replaced it with a less virulent version and did not have the problems experienced in Japan – you will note that in all cases the country responded by ensuring the populations safety, shows the controls work. No cover-up, no denial, no big pharma corruption - just fixing the problem as soon as its identified.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this is this study http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118735419/HTMLSTART

Which shows that the banning of MMR had no impact on autism rates. Again be clear – MMR does not cause Autism.

The second article quotes the underlying study at the bottom – here is the link

http://nejm.highwire.org/cgi/reprint/358/15/1580.pdf. It would be better if you could have posted this and or read it first as it would have made your post look more convincing and would have helped you understand the issue.

The basic premise is fair though – a strain of mumps exists against which the vaccine is not effective unless a further booster is given. Based on this info, what is the best response?

a)Remove the vaccine and expose all members of the population to all possible strains of mumps (as well as other diseases).
b)Administer a booster to the population
c)Research the new strain, develop your vaccine and introduce it to the population.

I would suggest that b and c are the better alternatives. This is also the recommendation of your links paper which states

“A more effective mumps vaccine or changes in vaccine policy <additional boosters> may be needed to avert future outbreaks and achieve the elimination of mumps.”

I have not the time to demolish every link you post, I am desperately trying to get across the value of not just going to a conspiracy website and taking their opinion at face value – read the underlying studies and see what it actually says!

Maybe they will agree with you position and if they do, it will strengthen your case immensely. If you post links to sites like wwdty.com or interviews with playboy chicks it makes your argument look weak – mainly because it is weak. If you cannot find a credible source for your data, it is unlikely to be credible data. Spend the extra 2 minutes it takes to read the source info.

[fucktopgirl]

There we go, a conspiracy website...This website seem pretty good to me, better then the one that yeawho post, if you would ask me.

Why a conspiracy? Because it goes again what you have been fed with all your life. Because it is another point of view which differ from the main stream propaganda.

[Documad]

Originally Posted by fucktopgirl

There we go, a conspiracy website...This website seem pretty good to me, better then the one that yeawho post, if you would ask me.

I'm curious. What makes your website better than yeahwho's?

[yeahwho]

The evidence continually bombards the studies of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who says there is a link between MMP vaccine and autism, this becomes such a blatant lie that I'm amazed anyone would support his findings. I try and keep an open mind about these issues and once had the some reservations about the vaccine programs... the autism issue is one all parents in the past decade have weighed in on.

Even with Dr. Wakefield's lies, people used common sense and continued to err on the side of health.


Lawyers purchase an anti-consensus, manufacture a link between mercury vaccines and autism

A press report reveals the financial connection between the doctors promoting a link between autism and vaccination and the law firm suing vaccine makers.

The Times obtained a record of the payments made by the legal teams that have pursued lawsuits against vaccine makers on behalf of autistic children in England. It revealed that the primary author of the first paper that suggested a mercury-autism link, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, began receiving payments from the lawyers starting a full two years before his first published study on the topic. In the decade since, Dr. Wakefield has received a total of over £435,000. Several of his business associates and co-workers received over £100,000; all told, roughly £3.4 million was paid out for the expert work and testimony of doctors associated with the research. In a further conflict of interest, the autistic children that were the subjects of the studies were also the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

The more I read up on this Dr. Wakefield the more I feel as if all objectivity is lost by you fucktopgirl. He is a total douche bag asshole.

[HAL 9000]

Originally Posted by fucktopgirl

There we go, a conspiracy website...This website seem pretty good to me, better then the one that yeawho post, if you would ask me.

Why a conspiracy? Because it goes again what you have been fed with all your life. Because it is another point of view which differ from the main stream propaganda.

The website is called 'What Doctors Don't Tell You'. This name suggests that doctors are engaged in a conspiracy against patients by not telling them things they need to know. That is why it is a conspiracy website - it is a website claiming that a conspiracy is going on, do you see?

You will also note that in the links you posted, the articles misrepresented the information (as I have demonstrated clearly above) in order to support their conspiracy theory - the theory that doctors have decided to secretly gang together to mislead the public and trick them into taken harmful treatments so that they and the pharmaceutical indurstry can make loads of money.

Your reference to mainstream propaganda is disturbing - I have shown you that you can view the underlying data yourself. I have shown you the studies in the medical journals, I have shown you the actual evidence against doctor Wakefield, these are the raw facts - unspoiled by commentary or opinion. YOU CAN DO THIS YOURSELF - USE GOOGLE.

Good science happens when you view evidence first and draw conclusions based on that evidence. If you have a website called, 'What doctors dont tell you' it means they have started from the premise that there is a conspiracy and are going to present evidence (or in this case misrepresetnt evidence) to support their case and they are going to filter out evidence that disagrees with them. That is to say, they start with the conclusion and search for evidence they can find to fit with that conclusion. This is how pseudoscience works and it does this because it is designed, not to find truth, but mislead people who do not understand the scientific method.

I am afraid I am rapidly losing patience with this. I am trying to help you but you continue to treat this as a personal attack. In the interest of helping you, I repeat my offer to help you find and understand scientific literature that may be of use to you. My continued reason for posting here is the hope that I can help protect the health of you and your family, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that I am not getting through to you, so I think this is probably a good end to this discussion.