Looks like the "vaccine argument" just got a little more interesting.

[Beantown]

Hmmm, call me maybe.

 

[One Brow]

I worked for a couple of years "harvesting antibodies" and then using them to purify their corresponding antigen epitopes.

I have no doubt. Prior generations used to create scabs in which they dropped pus. That's old school, though.

If your idea of "vaccination" is to administer the actual disease, why would you need to prepare anything.

As I said, they administer either dead organism or weakened forms of the disease. That allows antibodies to be designed without endangering the host.

however, all of these strategies in practical terms do. as far as vaccines go, involve injecting foreign but analogous protein into the human.

More often today, foreign but actual disease protein.

Saying there is no observed risk of autoimmune disease is like saying, in a war, that high velocity lead does not cause injury because no one can see it in trajectory. Autoimmune disease takes years in many cases to become evident. It takes many forms that pass for normal aging or the simple advent of some disease that is generally thought to be not caused by an autoimmune process.

You can say the same about smoking causing heart disease, lung cancer, etc. Epidemiological studies are still capable of detecting such long-term effects.

You are just blinded by your ardent reliance on "establishment" rose-colored glasses, not even open to the suggestion that we don't know enough to make such statements.

How can we not know enough to say we have no evidence? I didn't say there was no connection, I said there was no evidence of a connection.

I don't think health insurance companies have near the presence in our grant administration agencies that our pharmaceutical companies have, and for the most part they are just going to run the risk statistics and adjust their rates.

I agree they are probably less significant in terms of grants being awarded for direct study. However, they are much more significant in studies about monitoring the long-term effects of medications.

 

[One Brow]

OK, so I want to start a business, and provide the superior product with less health risk to the patient. Can I make money doing it?

Vaccines are very low-margin. It would be a labor of love more than profit.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

You can say the same about smoking causing heart disease, lung cancer, etc. Epidemiological studies are still capable of detecting such long-term effects.

Yes, but your "establishment consensus" scientists all now agree that smoking does indeed cause heart disease, lung cancer, ect.
Whereas 30 to 40 years ago, the consensus was that smoking was good for you, and even doctors smoked indoors while helping patients.

Epidemiological studies are useless in detecting any long term effects of these modern day vaccines, and there preservative counterparts.
Reason being, that these modern day vaccines have only been in existence since the 60's/70's.
I wouldn't say that's much of a long term study, considering that only puts a person in there mid-40's from birth.

I also don't believe that any of these drug companies could care less about the side effects of these vaccines, considering they make billions of dollars a year off of them alone.
Not to mention congress and the FDA are all bought and paid for by these companies.
So why would anyone get in the way of these profits, no matter how serious they may be?

 

[TheSilencer1313]

Says the man linking to to the dailyfail.

Oh yeah, I know.
Wikipedia is a much better source of information, my bad.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

The mild reactions are well worth the protection offered.

I'd say that's a matter of opinion my friend, and there would be nothing scientific about that statement what so ever.

Here is the list from the CDC for the DTap vaccine:
However, a vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions. The risk of DTaP vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.

Moderate Problems (Uncommon)

Seizure (jerking or staring) (about 1 child out of 14,000)

Non-stop crying, for 3 hours or more (up to about 1 child out of 1,000)

High fever, 105 degrees Fahrenheit or higher (about 1 child out of 16,000)

Severe Problems (Very Rare) Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses) Several other severe problems have been reported after DTaP vaccine. These include:

Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness

Sounds like some interesting so-called "uncommon" side effects, but I have to give props to the CDC for even mentioning these side effects at all, considering the massive profits being made in the industry.

The risk of DTaP vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.

Permanent brain damage.

These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine.

I always loved quotes like this, especially in televised drug commercials during your favorite CSI program.
They're probably thinking, "Allright! Allright already...... yes, these drugs and vaccines can cause death, permanent brain damage, and whole host of other health problems"

"But you don't have to worry about that, because the risk is EXTREMELY small."

Oh yeah, and here is an article listing natural remedies for pertussis.

https://www.naturalhomeandgarden.co...s-treatment-for-whooping-cough-pertussis.aspx

These sort of treatments have been used widely around the world for years and years, and many of these treatments are listed in home remedy books at your local book store, or library.
I'm also pretty sure garlic juice doesn't have any side effects pertaining to death or brain damage, but I'll have to go check Wikipedia in order to get my facts straight here.

 

[Hipporippo]

There are more cases of autism because doctors are starting to treat it more.

Vaccines probably have some side effects but they don't kill kids. Vaccines have saved millions and millions of lives.

This!

There is no controversy in the medical community about vaccines...NONE. That is because there is absolutely no reliable evidenced to suggest that vaccination is related in any way to an increased risk of autism. The early studies that suggested a link were extremely flawed in methadology.

There is no autism epidemic. The increased rate is due to increased screening and awareness. As a physician, I can tell you that many who have the diagnosis of autism would be more accurately characterized as Asperger spectrum. Some just have slight behavioral issues but are diagnosed with autism so that they can benefit from those programs (counseling, special tutoring, etc.).

There is no "fence" in the medical community. The MDs who are promoting this myth are outliers--of which there are VERY few.

 

[One Brow]

Yes, but your "establishment consensus" scientists all now agree that smoking does indeed cause heart disease, lung cancer, ect.
Whereas 30 to 40 years ago, the consensus was that smoking was good for you, and even doctors smoked indoors while helping patients.

Wow, that's really strange. I remember episodes of TV shows like "Lassie", created in the 1950s, that called smoking dangerous. You can find literary references over 100 years old that refer to the ill effects of smoking.

It's almost as if you have no idea of what sciwence is, does, or says, and will swallow any pig-ignorant bile that you see, as long as it confirms your preconceived notions.

Epidemiological studies are useless in detecting any long term effects of these modern day vaccines, and there preservative counterparts.
Reason being, that these modern day vaccines have only been in existence since the 60's/70's.
I wouldn't say that's much of a long term study, considering that only puts a person in there mid-40's from birth.

So, 40-50 years is not long-term enough? You think vaccines have effects that only show up after 60-80 years, but not 40-50?

I also don't believe that any of these drug companies could care less about the side effects of these vaccines, considering they make billions of dollars a year off of them alone.

Vaccines are low-margin, espcially compared to patented prescription drugs. No one makes billions off of them.

So why would anyone get in the way of these profits, no matter how serious they may be?

Do you think health insurance companies would let dangerous, ineffective medicines interfere in their profits? Do you think their profits are not also in the hundreads of millions?

 

[babe]

Yes, but your "establishment consensus" scientists all now agree that smoking does indeed cause heart disease, lung cancer, ect.
Whereas 30 to 40 years ago, the consensus was that smoking was good for you, and even doctors smoked indoors while helping patients.

Epidemiological studies are useless in detecting any long term effects of these modern day vaccines, and there preservative counterparts.
Reason being, that these modern day vaccines have only been in existence since the 60's/70's.
I wouldn't say that's much of a long term study, considering that only puts a person in there mid-40's from birth.

I also don't believe that any of these drug companies could care less about the side effects of these vaccines, considering they make billions of dollars a year off of them alone.
Not to mention congress and the FDA are all bought and paid for by these companies.
So why would anyone get in the way of these profits, no matter how serious they may be?

I think the critics of current medical and political norms need to improve their level of discourse, myself included. We can't afford to be just be stupid, when it's our own health on the line.

This bolded sentence really needs a makeover. The word "useless" here is stupid. Long-term epidemiological studies are a howling necessity we can't afford not to do. It's just a fact of life that they will not be able to shed light on long-term effects for years to come, in some instances. But doing this kind of work is essential, and sometimes reveals effects much quicker, and helps us make better decisions before all those years run out and everybody is affected. . . .

 

[One Brow]

I'd say that's a matter of opinion my friend, and there would be nothing scientific about that statement what so ever.

It's the analysis that any sort of objective investigation will uncover.

Sounds like some interesting so-called "uncommon" side effects, but I have to give props to the CDC for even mentioning these side effects at all, considering the massive profits being made in the industry.

Yes, it's almost like the people you are trusting for your sources aren't telling you the truth about the CDC. It's almost like they are playing a very long, detailed con on you in an attempt to sell you swill.

Oh yeah, and here is an article listing natural remedies for pertussis.

Those are not remedies, they are symptom relief. The best remedy to to be immune.

These sort of treatments have been used widely around the world for years and years, and many of these treatments are listed in home remedy books at your local book store, or library.
I'm also pretty sure garlic juice doesn't have any side effects pertaining to death or brain damage, but I'll have to go check Wikipedia in order to get my facts straight here.

You can also be sure that garlic juice does not slow down the infectious organisms one iota, and that millions of people have died from whooping cough while drinking garlic juice throughout history.

 

[One Brow]

I think the critics of current medical and political norms need to improve their level of discourse, myself included. We can't afford to be just be stupid, when it's our own health on the line.

There are many words I would use to describe you, and not all complimentary inmy mind, but "stupid" will never be one of them (nor will unlearned).

I don't think TheSilencer1313 is stupid either. I think he is smart enough to be able to learn rapidly, and has allowed this to convince himself that he is smart enough to see through cons, and so he can't/won't be conned. Which, to my highly limited understanding, makes him an excellent target for con men.

 

[Hipporippo]

The autoimmune argument is an interesting one. As someone mentioned earlier, vaccines have been shown to cause demyelinating illnesses similar to MS. However, the problem with the autism link is that there is NO evidence of a link. How would you propose to change or "clean up" the vaccine without knowing the cause or even IF there is a correlation. You can postulate about mercury or preservatives. But you are shooting in the dark.

While immunology and pediatrics are not my specialty, my wife (who is sitting beside me) is board certified in Peds and Allergy/immunology and has published extensively on immunologic illnesses. She says the Silencer is an idiot.

 

[PearlWatson]

The autoimmune argument is an interesting one. As someone mentioned earlier, vaccines have been shown to cause demyelinating illnesses similar to MS. However, the problem with the autism link is that there is NO evidence of a link. How would you propose to change or "clean up" the vaccine without knowing the cause or even IF there is a correlation. You can postulate about mercury or preservatives. But you are shooting in the dark.

While immunology and pediatrics are not my specialty, my wife (who is sitting beside me) is board certified in Peds and Allergy/immunology and has published extensively on immunologic illnesses. She says the Silencer is an idiot.

What does she say about the parents who report brain damage or behavior changes after vaccination? Is it simply misattribution?

I did overhear some mother who was asked whether she thought vaccines caused/contributed to her son's autism. She said he was showing signs beforehand but the vaccines "seemed" to make it worse.

 

[babe]

The autoimmune argument is an interesting one. As someone mentioned earlier, vaccines have been shown to cause demyelinating illnesses similar to MS. However, the problem with the autism link is that there is NO evidence of a link. How would you propose to change or "clean up" the vaccine without knowing the cause or even IF there is a correlation. You can postulate about mercury or preservatives. But you are shooting in the dark.

While immunology and pediatrics are not my specialty, my wife (who is sitting beside me) is board certified in Peds and Allergy/immunology and has published extensively on immunologic illnesses. She says the Silencer is an idiot.

my first reaction, when I realize I'm speaking to someone who knows things I don't, is to shut up and listen. Well, except when I'm online in a chat forum. Then, instead, I try to provoke some kind of comments. lol .

But in response to the comment about how to "clean up" a vaccine, I think the reason to do so, and the things that should be done to achieve it, are fairly ordinary common sense. Any foreign protein to be injected into human bloodstreams, represents a huge potential risk for autoimmune reactions/disease. It is only common sense to reduce the amount and variety of these components in vaccines. Immunoglobulins are probably a fairly safe exception. We get these when we eat meat or drink milk, and these are largely absorbed intact, and confer some kind of immunological benefit short-term, as is well-known in the case of breastfeeding infants.

There are many ways to remove proteins from a preparation, but it can be a challenge as to how to remove unwanted proteins while increasing the wanted ones in the preparation. I used antibodies to isolate antigens on chromatographic columns of various kinds, then I prepared chromatographic columns using chemically-bound antigens as a means to purify specific antibodies. A step like this in the production of a vaccine would double or triple the cost of the vaccine, but drop the risks of autoimmune disease dramatically, to around one fifth to one tenth, based on the burden of "extra" protein in the preparation.

It's a pretty fancy point to assert that you need to specifically prove a particular protein as the "cause" of an autoimmune disease before taking the common step of just eliminating extraneous protein. . . .

 

[TroutBum]

I did overhear some mother who was asked whether she thought vaccines caused/contributed to her son's autism. She said he was showing signs beforehand but the vaccines "seemed" to make it worse.

Well, there you have it. Might as well lock this thread up, as Slopper just put it to bed.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

Well, there you have it. Might as well lock this thread up, as Slopper just put it to bed.

Good job slopper.

 

[One Brow]

While immunology and pediatrics are not my specialty, my wife (who is sitting beside me) is board certified in Peds and Allergy/immunology and has published extensively on immunologic illnesses. She says the Silencer is an idiot.

I always defer to expertise.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

It's the analysis that any sort of objective
investigation will uncover.

Doubtful. More than likely the objective investigator would uncover pros and cons on both sides.

Yes, it's almost like the people you are trusting for your sources aren't telling you the truth about the CDC. It's almost like they are playing a very long, detailed con on you in an attempt to sell you swill.

As I see it, it's almost like the people YOU are trusting for your sources definitely aren't telling you the truth about the CDC.
Why else would the CDC lobby for the first steps toward mandatory vaccinations? Money of course.....
And oh yes, I'm sure these so-called con artists get their jollies off by handing out alternative health remedies for "free".

Those are not remedies, they are symptom relief.

They are remedies, and there's many others.

The best remedy to to be immune.

Which vaccines do not provide. They actually hinder the immune system, which is why most get sick right afterward.

https://m.naturalnews.com/news/025595_vaccinations_vaccines.html

You can also be sure that garlic juice does not slow down the infectious organisms one iota, and that millions of people have died from whooping cough while drinking garlic juice throughout history.

https://www.all-natural-cure.com/garlic.htm

 

[Stoked]

Doubtful. More than likely the objective investigator would uncover pros and cons on both sides.



As I see it, it's almost like the people YOU are trusting for your sources definitely aren't telling you the truth about the CDC.
Why else would the CDC lobby for the first steps toward mandatory vaccinations? Money of course.....
And oh yes, I'm sure these so-called con artists get their jollies off by handing out alternative health remedies for "free".





They are remedies, and there's many others.



Which vaccines do not provide. They actually hinder the immune system, which is why most get sick right afterward.

https://m.naturalnews.com/news/025595_vaccinations_vaccines.html




https://www.all-natural-cure.com/garlic.htm

The CDC kept the secret that we are infected with the zombie plague to themselves. How can you trust them after a betrayal of that magnitude?

 

[TheSilencer1313]

She says the Silencer is an idiot.

Yep, and that's what any board certified doctor would say to the other board certified doctor that practices alternative medicine.