thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

People say the polio vaccine probably increased the drowning deaths as people went back in the pool.

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

The introduction to the documentary is almost 8 minutes long. You only got though 5 minutes of the introduction. The scientific studies and research are not mentioned until later. Your logic is the same as rejecting global warming by looking at the temperatures of the state of Illinois in 2014, and then claiming that because Illinois did not have record high temperatures in 2014, therefore the claim that 2014 was the hottest hear for global temperatures on record is a hoax.

Your logic completely falls apart additionally by complaining about the fact the the documentary is almost 2 hours long, and using that as a basis for rejecting it. Discussing complex scientific and medical issues around vaccines and looking at examples of injuries and complications by various victims cannot possibly be adequately or convincingly covered in 5 minutes. So why would you not expect that a thorough coverage of ALL the issues around vaccines would not take much longer than 5 minutes, or longer than even one hour? Again, your logic as to why you are rejecting looking at the information is a complete fail.

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

The video references scientific and medical research that is in print, silly. By refusing to look at the documentary because of your assertion that there can't be any credible information in it and only printed material can be credible is absurd. Next...

phcaan Loc: Willow Springs, MO

Hey man, no need to degrade to name calling, just don't need it.

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

I'm not afraid of anything. I'm hard of hearing. If its something credible it would be in print. Why are you constantly spouting off with negative remarks?

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Your reading comprehension is below what I have come to expect of you. I didn't refuse to look at it. I didn't say it was too long. I did say it was too long for me to endlessly watch the emotional propaganda that I was seeing waiting for something that I either think makes sense or not. I get that if you get your child vaccinated and then they show signs of autism this would be very distressing and the tendency might be to see cause and effect. I also get that the timing of typical symptom onset and some vaccinations are such that they may well coincide with no connection whatever. I also know that you blame much on chemicals that the industry and government say are no longer there. Whether they took them out because they were harmful or because of all the noise seems irrelevant except to someone who thinks they were harmed before they were taken out. I have heard over and over that it is hard to get a company to make vaccines because they are just not that profitable so some of the rest of what you say about profit driving the vaccination "craze" seems unlikely. I expected something before the time I quit watching. Or you could have said "watch at **:**. It's likely that on more than one occasion lightning has struck and then symptoms have begun. It's real unlikely that that hasn't happened. Still no cause and effect.

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

There you go again with misrepresentation. You are good at that!

But do you have a background in STEM? Since you have failed to answer in the affirmative the last 2 times I've asked I'm going to go with no.

BTW...no captions on your award winning documentary, so no, I won't be watching it.

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

Here are a few articles dealing with the efficacy and risks of vaccines. Sadly many of the scholarly articles are published in journals from which access is quite expensive. Elsevier, for example, has a stranglehold on such subscriptions; this fact is making many libraries, including college and university units, unable to maintain a proper serials offering.

I mention this from the prospective of about 40 years in the public library "biz."

Here's one from a generally respected source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1113535/

Consider this editorial, although you may need to enlarge your screen image: http://jech.bmj.com/content/54/6/402.short

Here's an article which might well be valuable, but the full article is rather costly, thanks probably to Elsevier. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/114/1/187.short

Again, just an abstract: http://www.bmj.com/content/318/7192/1169.short

Is the New England Journal of Medicine a proper resource? Try this: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078187

Here's another from the NEJM: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa071434 Note that the full text is available.

Here's some info from the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/Index1.html

I would hope that US government sources aren't automatically suspect....

Now.

While I cannot pretend to expertise in these areas I would hope that our UHH members would pay some attention to research from those who have devoted years to developing the needed expertise. With all due respect to Jenny McCarthy, and my deepest sympathy for her and her child's ordeal, and my pleasure at her child's apparent recovery, her expertise in this area is strictly anecdotal. Let us then consider that her opinions are just that, and may well represent grasping at straws for an explanation of the agony she and her family endured.

For those of us who consider the annual pleas for vaccination against influenza foolish and who have some time for a good read, try this: http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Influenza-Deadliest-Pandemic/dp/0143036491

A disturbing account of the state of US medical education in the late 19th century and early 20th. Pretty pathetic! Especially considering the world wide death toll. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic Regardless, Barry's book is a really good read.

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

If Richie's "statistics" were not mostly a list of false assumptions, false comparisons, and unformed repetition of big pharma and government propaganda, then maybe it would change my mind. Instead, it is primarily your side who needs to "see the light".

I challenge Richie to back up all of his claims and so-called "statistics" with references. I will be happy to respond to each of his claims and arguments after he provides sources for all of them.

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

Claiming that I misrepresented...something, without being able to specify what exactly I misrepresented is a hollow argument and not substantive.

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

And your qualifications are what...? Inquiring minds want to know....

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

Yes you did refuse to watch it (you refused to watch 95% of it because you stopped after 5 minutes). Just because you have "reasons" for refusing to watch it doesn't mean that you therefore did not refuse to watch it. I already explained to you that you only watched 5 minutes of the 7-8 minute introduction, and that the science and research is not referenced until later in the video. Perhaps it is you who have poor reading comprehension. How would you know that the other 95% of it is "emotional propaganda" if you haven't seen it? You are simply making baseless assertions.

And, speaking of emotional propaganda, your side certainly has not refrained from emotional propaganda, so it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black


I don't believe that every case of autism in a child can be attributed to vaccines simply due to the fact that the child had vaccines at some point in the past. It depends on the circumstances and other factors. When children are perfectly healthy, and then right after the vaccines there is an IMMEDIATE and tragic effect and onset of autism, death, or other serious complications, and it happens to hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands of children IN THE EXACT SAME WAY, then you would be a fool to reject the cause and effect of the vaccines in those cases.


I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. What I am arguing is that only when there are obvious and immediate effects from the vaccines and the onset of symptoms, and there are no other obvious factors that took place that can explain the timing of the symptoms that happened immediately after the vaccines were injected, can you make a case of the high probability that vaccines caused the injuries. Almost nothing in science attains 100% probability. There are many cases where less than 100% probability or perfection in cause and effect warrant a precautionary approach. Global Warming is a good example of another situation that justifies a precautionary stance even though the models are not 100% perfect. This is a standard scientific approach.


Mercury has not been removed from all vaccines. It's good that they have been removed from certain vaccines. But they should be removed from all vaccines. Also, mercury is not the only toxin or problems with vaccines. Aluminum and formaldehyde are examples of other toxins that shouldn't be in vaccines. There are also problems with the active ingredients themselves - such as the dead or alive viruses and micro organisms.


That's a loaded and insulting statement. Robert Kennedy Jr. presented documents obtained through the FOIA that proved that government scientists and big Pharma have covered up the known links to autism from thimerisol and consciously chose to hide the facts from the public because they wanted to cover their asses and not be sued. I've presented this information to you previously.


What a useless statement. "I have heard..." statements are usually trotted out by people who want to exempt themselves from the normal debate protocol of backing up claims with evidence. If you have evidence that big Pharma, one of the most profitable industries in the world, are not making profits on vaccines, then you should either provide it or withdraw the claim, or at least not expect to be taken seriously.


I already explained to you that the first 7-8 minutes is just the introduction, and that the scientific and research evidence is presented after the introduction, throughout the video. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself on a complex subject that cannot be covered in 5 minutes, then your baseless assumptions should not be expected to be taken seriously or to hold much water. I hope this is not your approach to all complicated issues facing society. Do you just pay attention to short sound bites from politicians to make decisions on important and complicated issues?


See above. I'm not talking about those kinds of random occurrences.

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

Normal debate practices indicate that claims should have evidence to back them up. Anybody is qualified to request that others should follow standard debate practices, with the expectation that claims should be based on verifiable evidence.

When people are so sure of their position being correct, they may feel like they are exempt from the standard practices of debate where claims should be backed with evidence. Others who agree with them might let them off the hook, but that doesn't mean that their arguments or claims are credible according to standard practices of debate and logical argumentation. It just means that people can be blinded by bias.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

I know personally of the effects of Mercury and Aluminum "poisoning", I was tested twice and had elevated levels of both at different times.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Did you recover from your autism?