Stop being dishonest, the US flu vaccines do NOT contain the adjuvant squalene.
But perhaps they should?
There is very good evidence to show that adjuvants actually make vaccines safer, but I'll get to that in a minute. In Europe, we have been using adjuvants for the last decade, with over 22 million vaccines given and NO increased instances of adverse events. Squalene is found naturally in the human body, it is manufactured in the liver and circulates in our bloodstream. The Squalene contained in vaccines is purified from fish oil. The purpose of Squalene is to enhance the immune response to the vaccine, this actually makes them more effective. I mentioned safety before; Adjuvants can reduce the amount of antigen that is needed to produce a satisfactory immune response, thus making the vaccine safer.
Squalene is a natural compound.- I thought you people like natural things?
Actually I’ve just remembered why you people dislike squalene, the basis for this is of course groundless and unsupported.
Basically, at one time, there was a concern that there might be a link between squalene and Gulf War Syndrome, simply because at the time it was thought that squalene might have been present in anthrax vaccines given to some soldiers during the Persian Gulf War (some of whom developed GWS). The basis for this claim was from one study that suggested that some Gulf War Syndrome patients were 95% more likely to have antibodies to squalene than veterans who did not have GWS.
However, the point the quacks miss is that it was never established that squalene was added as an adjuvant to any vaccine given to those military personnel and because the authors did not perform proper scientific controls, which is needed in order to prove their test was specific to anti-squalene antibodies, the study was worthless. It was later confirmed that NONE of the anthrax vaccines given to those US military personnel contained squalene as an adjuvant. Also 1 in 10 of us have squalene antibodies, regardless of whether or not we've ever had a vaccine containing squalene.
Now of course the quacks completely disregarded the newer extensive (and higher quality) research, which showed there is no reason to think squalene causes problems and instead added squalene to their “vaccine ingredient hate list” along with mercury and aluminum, etc.
@ Theresa: You said there is mounting evidence to suggest there is, "something going very wrong in the childhood vaccination program"
That is a lie I'm afraid, your claim is based on misinformation and is not supported by credible evidence. Show me evidence you think supports your claim and I'll happily go through it with you.
"At least get past your own biases and consider the research.."
Oh the irony! Actually we are the only ones who DO consider the research. We don't blindly follow the FDA/CDC recommendations, we actually look at the evidence supporting it...unlike the quacks, we don't just get information from NaturalNews and take it as gospel.
"...30-40 vaccinations versus only 6 a generation ago is a change that MUST be considered as a cause or contributor. "
Correlation isn't causation. And It HAS been considered, and debunked. However, you people refuse to accept it, no matter how many studies are produced. If that isn't bias, then I don't know what is. The anti-vaccine militia always want “one more study”, and then they refuse to accept the results of that “one more study” when it's published. So the question is, how many studies will actually satisfy you? There is no conspiracy of avoidance. That is nothing but anti-vaccine propaganda. The suggestion that vaccines cause diseases, simply isn't plausible, there is no rational reason why vaccines should cause diseases.
Your comments are based on emotion, rather than rational scientific evidence. Antivaxxers lie, Theresa, -which is why its so easy for us to refute them.
@ Theresa: I just remembered who David Ayoub is...LOL!
Total crank. He is also a conspiracy theorist too. Educated you say? This is the same chap who thinks that vaccines are produced to control world population (really!) and he also feels birth control are a part of this too. Google some of his other videos, check out the one where he rants about genocide. I had to switch off half way through, I couldn't make it. In short, nothing this chap has produced, supports his claims.
EDIT: Much research has gone into looking at autism, and various other diseases, nothing in science suggests that vaccines are to blame for autism. In fact if you look at the aetiology of autism, it's highly unlikely that there is any one single cause, much less a vaccine. Genetic factors and environmental factors play a big role. Numerous epidemiological studies have shown there is no MMR-Autism link.
"What is it that is common in all Western countries where the statistics show these huge increases in childhood problems?"
MANY things, to include genetic and enviromental factors as well as lifestyle and diet choices. Interestingly, when the MMR vaccine was introduced there was no sudden spike in these illnesses, as one would expect to see if the vaccine was to blame. Some research suggests that Cesarean births and having children later in life are contributing to a dramatic rise in cases of diabetes in young children too.
Correlation isn't causation. The default isn't that vaccines cause these illnesses.
@ Theresa: Try and look at this logically. You've failed you're own argument. There is NO credible evidence linking vaccines to these diseases, yet you seem to claim there is? There is no rational reason to blame vaccines for these diseases, yet you claim that there, "are plenty of indicators that the vaccine regime has some, if not all responsiblity." WHERE? What is your basis for this claim?
Vaccines causing various diseases such as the ones you mentioned has been thoroughly researched and excluded as a highly unlikely cause. You sitting there saying vaccines are unsafe because of something that may (or may not!) be discovered in the future, is illogical. Perhaps you should stop drinking water, just in case that causes autism too? If vaccines caused autism, etc, there would be some epidimiological link, which there isn't. We cannot prove a negative, -Science does not know everything, however, just because we don't, does not mean we should believe something just because we think it fits....which is what you are essentially doing.
Just because we cannot give you an exact reason for autism, does not mean vaccines cause it. There are probably many different factors. Nothing in life is 100%/. What you have to do is look at the presented data, not speculate on the "what ifs" and base your decisions on it. Use evidence to learn about diseases, not speculation and wishful thinking.
Also with primary autism, amongst many differerent factors, there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that certain genetic mutations may make a child more likely to develop Autism (this has NOT been excluded like you claim).
Autism has been known to run in families. There is a 5-6% chance that a child born to the same parents who have another child with autism, will develop ASD. Also, research shows that if an identical twin develops ASD, there is a 60% chance of the other twin developing it. Most researchers believe certain genes that a child inherits from their parents could make them more vulnerable to developing an ASD.
There is also some research to suggest that women who have children later in life are more likely to have autistic children. Now in the western world in the last 30 years, the mean age of women having children has risen. What about considering this factor? Why are you so insistant on blaming vaccines? You are trying to blame a system that has saved millions of lives and eradicated certain diseases because of some misguided BELIEF that it may in some way be causing certain diseases, thats insane!
We are open minded. Its you lot that aren't. Which is why you listen to any nonsense that appears to support your own bias and ignore data which increasingly shows how unlikley the link is between vaccines and these diseases.
To claim that just because I cast doubt, I am closed minded, is ignorant. Being open minded and closed minded isn't just about whether or not you accept a claim, it's about whether or not one is willing to change their position upon presentation of valid data, which I am.
Rant over. Rhianna, out.
" so you'll accept that, but you won't accept that there are indicators linking vaccines to serious damaging changes in children, following vaccinations."
Sigh. One more time: There isn't t any convincing indicators!. It's not impossible, nothing is, but it's HIGHLY unlikely. NOTHING of good quality in science and medicine shows there is a link.
I didn't say ALL autistic children are born to older mothers, I said some research suggests there may be a link.
There are a lot of other factors that don't/do occur in those countries that don't occur here, to include genetics. And these diseases DO occur in non-vaccinated children. Side effects from vaccines, do occur, most are mild and minor, vaccination isn't 100% but the benefits by far outweigh the rare risks.
What you are essentially doing is saying I am close minded because I won't accept poor evidence suggesting there is a link between vaccines and these diseases. Illogical and
· 9 years ago