Croatian Constitutional Court decides all kids have to be vaccinated. Children's right to health is above parent's right to make wrong decisions.

[Chinahand]

Oh FFS Truth Seeker - go and seek some truth by reading some of the science on this.

 

Here is a study that did look (amongst other things) at prenatal exposure.

 

There are multiple studies like this - the scaremongering has put at risk one of the world's most important health initiatives and there has been a huge amount of research looking into whether these fears are justified.

 

Millions of pounds has been spent and guess what. There is no link between vaccination and autism.

 

But you with your tin hat are certain the truth is being hidden by all these scientists with their matched double blind studies and peer review.

[Truth Seeker]

 

 

 

But the study did not say that the mothers of these children had not taken any vaccines or not, which would be relevant.

 

Oh dear.

 

Why keep moving the goalposts so that you can continue to believe something you have no evidence for?

The point is there won't be any "evidence" as there won't be an investigation in to the safety of Adjuvants and Vaccines. You will have to decide to take vaccines or not, that is why it should not be compulsory.

[HeliX]

 

 

 

 

But the study did not say that the mothers of these children had not taken any vaccines or not, which would be relevant.

 

Oh dear.

 

Why keep moving the goalposts so that you can continue to believe something you have no evidence for?

The point is there won't be any "evidence" as there won't be an investigation in to the safety of Adjuvants and Vaccines. You will have to decide to take vaccines or not, that is why it should not be compulsory.

 

Go on then, what do you think the vaccines are causing? Since we've already disproved that they cause autism. What else is there you're concerned about?

[Truth Seeker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the study did not say that the mothers of these children had not taken any vaccines or not, which would be relevant.

 

Oh dear.

 

Why keep moving the goalposts so that you can continue to believe something you have no evidence for?

The point is there won't be any "evidence" as there won't be an investigation in to the safety of Adjuvants and Vaccines. You will have to decide to take vaccines or not, that is why it should not be compulsory.

Go on then, what do you think the vaccines are causing? Since we've already disproved that they cause autism. What else is there you're concerned about?

If your referring to the study that had only 256 children with ASD and 752 controls, that is too small a sample. What is needed is 100,000 couples who did not take themselves or give vaccines to there children, then compare them with the average to the rest of the population, taking in to account the 100,000 group may be more health conscious, e.g. non smokers or non drinkers. Then look at the ratio of autism in each group.

[HeliX]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the study did not say that the mothers of these children had not taken any vaccines or not, which would be relevant.

 

Oh dear.

 

Why keep moving the goalposts so that you can continue to believe something you have no evidence for?

The point is there won't be any "evidence" as there won't be an investigation in to the safety of Adjuvants and Vaccines. You will have to decide to take vaccines or not, that is why it should not be compulsory.

Go on then, what do you think the vaccines are causing? Since we've already disproved that they cause autism. What else is there you're concerned about?

If your referring to the study that had only 256 children with ASD and 752 controls, that is too small a sample. What is needed is 100,000 couples who did not take themselves or give vaccines to there children, then compare them with the average to the rest of the population, taking in to account the 100,000 group may be more health conscious, e.g. non smokers or non drinkers. Then look at the ratio of autism in each group.

 

So if you're saying yourself that there's not enough evidence to be conclusive either way why are you sure that vaccines cause autism?

[Truth Seeker]

So if you're saying yourself that there's not enough evidence to be conclusive either way why are you sure that vaccines cause autism?

 

 

We do have proof that aluminum hydroxide, mercury, are added to vaccines, how can anyone be sure what is a safe level?

[Lxxx]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the study did not say that the mothers of these children had not taken any vaccines or not, which would be relevant.

 

Oh dear.

 

Why keep moving the goalposts so that you can continue to believe something you have no evidence for?

The point is there won't be any "evidence" as there won't be an investigation in to the safety of Adjuvants and Vaccines. You will have to decide to take vaccines or not, that is why it should not be compulsory.

Go on then, what do you think the vaccines are causing? Since we've already disproved that they cause autism. What else is there you're concerned about?

Vaccines cause homosexuality.

[HeliX]

 

So if you're saying yourself that there's not enough evidence to be conclusive either way why are you sure that vaccines cause autism?

 

 

We do have proof that aluminum hydroxide, mercury, are added to vaccines, how can anyone be sure what is a safe level?

 

Dodging the question a bit there aren't you? You said yourself that there's no conclusive evidence. So why in a position of having no evidence that they do or don't cause autism do you default to the position that they definitely do?

[Truth Seeker]

 

 

 

So if you're saying yourself that there's not enough evidence to be conclusive either way why are you sure that vaccines cause autism?

 

We do have proof that aluminum hydroxide, mercury, are added to vaccines, how can anyone be sure what is a safe level?

Dodging the question a bit there aren't you? You said yourself that there's no conclusive evidence. So why in a position of having no evidence that they do or don't cause autism do you default to the position that they definitely do?

As I wrote before they won't do the study needed, I just posted a link to the increase in autism, the Croatian court has denied the choice of parents to risk giving vaccines or not.

 

60 Lab Studies Now Confirm Cancer Link to a Vaccine You Probably Had as a Child. http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2011/02/18/60-lab-studies-now-confirm-cancer-link-to-a-vaccine-you-probably-had-as-a-child/

[HeliX]

 

 

 

 

So if you're saying yourself that there's not enough evidence to be conclusive either way why are you sure that vaccines cause autism?

 

We do have proof that aluminum hydroxide, mercury, are added to vaccines, how can anyone be sure what is a safe level?

Dodging the question a bit there aren't you? You said yourself that there's no conclusive evidence. So why in a position of having no evidence that they do or don't cause autism do you default to the position that they definitely do?

As I wrote before they won't do the study needed, I just posted a link to the increase in autism, the Croatian court has denied the choice of parents to risk giving vaccines or not.

 

60 Lab Studies Now Confirm Cancer Link to a Vaccine You Probably Had as a Child. http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2011/02/18/60-lab-studies-now-confirm-cancer-link-to-a-vaccine-you-probably-had-as-a-child/

But the increase in autism has no link to vaccines. So what's it got to do with Croatia's ruling?

 

The cancer in the link you posted isn't to do with the vaccine, it's to do with accidental contamination. Which can happen to anything you ingest with varying degrees of severity based on what's contaminating it.

[Chinahand]

Truth Seeker spreading rubbish once again:

 

Sigh

"Using this sensitive and specific detection method, we were unable to identify SV40 miRNA expression in human malignant pleural mesothelioma (MM) samples.”

“We found no evidence of SV40 presence in tissue samples from 103 Slovenian patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.”

The anti-SV40 antibodies scientists found… were not actually specific for SV40. They cross-reacted with BK virus (a totally normal virus that we have all been infected with at some point that you dont even notice). When they used a super-specific test, there was no difference between cancer/healthy people.

[Truth Seeker]

Tumor-derived cells as the FDA call them, for growth of virus for production of preventive vaccines in the U.S against yellow fever, influenza, measles, and mumps. They have stopped doing it now.

[Chinahand]

You don't understand the science.

Yes a virus SV40 infected vaccine cell lines in the 1950s.

Decades later a researcher found that cancer cells had a positive response to an antibody for SV40.

These results though were odd - there was no consistency - so a research group was found to examine the issue:

Each group was given 25 paired-duplicate samples of human mesotheliomas, a single set of 25 normal lung tissue samples, and positive and negative control samples. All the samples were blinded (labeled so that the human tumors and controls could not be distinguished) and each laboratory used its particular assay for detecting SV40, many of which had been used to detect SV40 previously. The results, published in the May 2001 issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention (36), showed that none of the mesothelioma specimens was consistently positive for SV40.

Why - because the antigen in fact "cross-reacted with BK virus (a totally normal virus that we have all been infected with at some point that you dont even notice)."

There is no controversy here - well not within science, only for woo spreaders on the internet.

 

What was been detected was BK virus not SV40 and BK virus is ubiquitous - you'll have caught it, I'll have caught it. Cancer suffers will have caught it.

 

When more specific tests are used the connection between cancer and SV40 is not robust.

 

But, of course, Truth Seeker, you won't believe me, or the US's National Cancer Institute.

[Truth Seeker]

I may have got it wrong when I said they have stopped using tumor-derived cells (not SV40) Chinahand,

 

Considerations Regarding the Use of Tumor-derived Cell Lines

 

When tumorigenic cell lines were first considered for vaccine manufacture in 1998 and

then proposed for vaccine manufacture in 2001, three major safety concerns were

identified that needed to be addressed: 1) the presence of residual live cells in the vaccine

that might have the potential of being tumorigenic in humans; 2) the presence of residual

DNA from the cell substrate; and 3) the potential presence of adventitious agents,

including adventitious viruses that might have contributed to the tumorigenic phenotype.

These same concerns also apply to tumorderived cell lines from human tumors. In

addition, with cells derived from human tissues there is also a heightened concern that

unknown oncogenic factors may be present and contribute to the development of an

oncogenic phenotype if they are co-purified with the vaccine virus.

 

To assist in the discussion of the risks associated with use of human tumor-derived cell

lines for the manufacture of a viral vaccine and the development of strategies to mitigate

these risks, this section of the briefing document summarizes the available information

regarding how normal cells become tumor cells.

[Chinahand]

At least link to the science, even if you don't understand it.

The Committee recognized that cell lines derived from human tumor are an important
tool for manufacturing of vaccines and could provide a wider repertoire of cell substrates
for vaccine production. There were no safety concerns identified that precludes the use
of human tumor-derived cell lines for vaccine production; however, it was noted that
there is little experience of using such cells for vaccine production. Some cell lines were
derived by passage through rodents and thus might be contaminated with viruses from
those species; and the mechanism whereby the cells became tumorigenic was usually not
known. The major safety concerns with the use of human tumor-derived cell lines were
the same as those identified for the use of other tumorigenic cell substrates: the potential
for adventitious agent contamination particularly tumorigenic and tumor-associated
viruses and latent viruses, and the oncogenicity of the DNA. With respect to the latter,
understanding what oncogenic mutations were present in the genome of the cell substrate
might be useful and informative as to the mechanism of neoplastic transformation.

 

This is good basic science trying to understand the issues and ensure research is undertaken to ensure safety.

 

It is a good thing, is it not? The result will be improved understanding and safety.

 

But you are using it to create worries about vaccine safety. Quite the opposite of what is actually occurring.