http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/inner-west/inner-west-council-smashes-weekend-event-hosted-by-antichildhood-vaccination-advocate-david-avocado-wolfe/news-story/cc34563139b468b0932ebfc6acfc04c7

Inner West Council (i.e. one man dictator, Richard Pearson) has banned the booking of the Marrickville Town Hall for a dance party, because anti-vaccination advocate David “Avocado” Wolfe was going to *attend* it.

The party was promoting *raw food*, which is another reason Wolfe is in town.
According to the promoters, there was no forum for the discussion of vaccination.

Guilt by association = Big Brother thought crime.

What is wrong with these people (sorry, person, singular)?

Though I personally wouldn't support everything David Wolfe believes or promotes, I would support his right to express his opinion, even on topics I disagree with.

If you don't want to hear what he has to say, don't go.
If his opinion on a certain topic is controversial, then that in turn promotes awareness off the issue which also results in putting these controversial ideas to the test.

I don't know what activist organisations target anti-vaxxers but I'm sure there would be a coordinated effort to do so by the vaccine corporations.
For them I'm sure it would be more costly not to do so.

I support further research into possible links between Vaccines and Autism (I'm curious of reports of coverups by Big-Pharma).
I'd also support understanding the effects of 'Roundup' glysophates on our fresh produce and I also support long term studies into whether GMO is as good for the body as natural foods are.

Glysophates and GMO's are now banned in many countries, this could ultimately just be about the financial interests of multi-national corporations.

//The party was promoting *raw food*//

Well I sure hope the dumb hippies were planning to serve chicken & seafood kebabs.

//What is wrong with these people//

Bloody good question. I think the answer may be as simple as paranoia in some cases, but in others it seems like a case of 'I want to believe'.

//Guilt by association = Big Brother thought crime.//

You're right - the people should not be denied a dance party because of one idiot. The party should have gone ahead, and Wolfe should have been placed in a pillory where he could enjoy the raw food being pelted by passerbys - forget eggs and tomatoes, I'd be cracking out a whole frozen watermelon.

How does an areshole like this get a visa in the first place? They can be refused on character grounds, and this dick promotes child abuse. Which retard let him into the country in the first place?

//I support further research into possible links between Vaccines and Autism//

Christ on a bike...

AC, there are no links between vaccines and autism. The only basis people have for claiming there is the FRAUDULENT paper of one Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

Wakefield 'cooked the books' - he FABRICATED DATA. Instead of doing what scientists are supposed to do - conduct experiments, measure the results and record those measurements - Wakefield skipped the last step and recorded some numbers he plucked from thin air. That is not science, AC. I suppose, at a stretch, one could call it creative writing - but not good creative writing, because good creative writing is supposed to be entertaining. It's just lies. And we've known it's lies for a good long while now, but you're still repeating those lies because you want to believe.

Unsurprisingly, no other researchers have been able to replicate Wakefield's made-up results. Without Wakefield's paper, which must be excluded because it's utter bollocks, the scientific evidence for any link between vaccines and autism drops to zero. None. The number 1 less than 1. Any scientific support for the idea you might think exists...

...comes from the same place as Wakefield's results - your imagination.

Which won't stop people thinking there is. Idiots are gonna idiot. As far as I can see, the main reason there is still so much support for this false belief is that the symptoms of autism presenting themselves occurs at around the same time as kids with non-neglectful parents have them vaccinated. Because of the temporal correlation some people assume causation, which is a daft assumption: kids also grow rapidly at that age, and nobody suggest that 'vaccines cause rapid growth in children' (although missing out on lots of childhood diseases probably is good for your growth).

//I also support long term studies into whether GMO is as good for the body as natural foods are.//

Natural foods? There's no such thing - we've been genetically modifying organisms since we invented agriculture. Potatoes are in the same family as deadly nightshade (so are tomatoes), and if you ate a natural potato you could well die of solanine poisoning. The ancient Peruvians who so helpfully domesticated the spud for us had to genetically modify them to make them edible.

As for more recently genetically modified crops - those studies have already been done. Guess what? They came up with the answer that yes, they are just as good. From wikipedia: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."

No wonder you support further research into GMOs - all that money spent on all those studies, and not a single one of them came up with the answer you were hoping for, because you want to believe.

Presumably you will continue to support further research until at least one study comes up with the 'right' answer, at which point you will wave that around to 'prove' the evils of GMOs like you do with Wakefield's FRAUDULENT study and vaccines.

Tony, the point isn't whether any one man's views on vaccines is legitimate, it's that one man had the power to silence it, and that the banned event had nothing to do with the vaccination issue!

"Instead of doing what scientists are supposed to do - conduct experiments, measure the results and record those measurements - Wakefield skipped the last step and recorded some numbers he plucked from thin air. That is not science"

Nobody conducted those controlled tests to "prove" HIV causes AIDS, but I'm sure you accept that too.

The problem with orthodoxies in a liberal democracy is that dissenters and alternatives are always outnumbered by the orthodox "mob".

In policy-by-social-media, the outliers are always going to be silenced by mob rule.

And to silence people and events merely by indirect *association* is even more unethical.
And for *one unelected man* to have that power is astronomically diabolical!

Hey Toni,
"...but you're still repeating those lies because you want to believe"
Please quote where or retract. Lol
You know I didn't say that.

Whether or not theres any truth to that Andrew Wakefield thing and what you're saying I'm don't know.
It sounds as though you've looked into it and and that's good.
And if you think there's a counter argument that discredits that story, then in fairness I'd want to hear out that side of the argument as well.

Whether or not there is a connection between any of the things I mentioned and Autism doesn't change the fact that rates of Autism are increasing.
It can't hurt to double check things.
What's everyone afraid of?
Lost corporate billions?
Isn't it smarter to 'leave all potential lines of enquiry open' until such a time as the mystery is solved?

And I still don't get this whole 'brainwashed pro-vaccine parents blaming other anti-vaxxine parents who choose not to give their kids vaccines' BS.

For the conditions that infants are vulnerable to I can understand there being a need for those shots, but can you explain this to me:

If your kid has been vaccinated,
And my kid hasn't been vaccinated,
And your kid catches the disease from my kid
(because you're blaming me for not vaccinating)

Doesn't it stand to effing reason that the vaccine didn't work?
As in 'Inoculation' 'Inoculated'
Did we forget what these words mean?

If your kids been vaccinated, he or she's not supposed to be able to get it.
Why bother shooting the kids up up all, and risk the side effects if it doesn't even work?

Can anyone explain that?

And BTW I'd never heard of David 'Avacado' Wolfe before reading this thread topic.

Hi Toni,

The lovely Foxy posted this link on another thread, on how to suck people into any scam, Trump being the case in point:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433554/donald-trump-art-seduction

I think it's absolutely brilliant !

Cheers,

Joe

//Nobody conducted those controlled tests to "prove" HIV causes AIDS//

Fair point - most of my training is in chemistry and to a lesser extent physics, where experiments are routine. In biology and medicine things are often done by observation rather than experiment, because of ethical constraints. Ethics committees tend to be less concerned about the fate of simple molecules than they do about the fate of people and even laboratory animals.

//It can't hurt to double check things.//

Attempting to replicate the results? Scientists do that all the time, AC. Did you miss the bit where I pointed out that no other researchers were able to replicate Wakefield's results? They've already double checked them. They've triple checked them and quadruple checked them etc. How many times would you have them check things? Until they get the result you want?

//And your kid catches the disease from my kid//

Why do you assume I'm only concerned about communicable diseases? A routine childhood vaccination, which I had booster shot of a few years ago when my sister had a child, is the DPT triple shot - diptheria, pertussis (whooping cough) and tetanus. They're all nasty diseases, but only diptheria and pertussis are communicable. Tetanus does not spread between people.

And you know what? I still don't want any poor bastard getting tetanus because their parents were neglectful morons. The main symptom of tetanus is muscle spasms which can be so severe that they fracture bones which last for three to four weeks. Other symptoms include fever, sweating, headache, trouble swallowing, high blood pressure, and a fast heart rate. Mortality is about 10%. I don't think that's something any child should be subjected to because they were unfortunate enough to be born to arseholes

But maybe you think a bit of tetanus is character building. I do have pause for thought, however, into what anti-vaxxers overseas make of the rabies vaccine? Rabies is a particularly nasty little virus - if you get it and you get your vaccine before the onset of symptoms, you will probably be OK. If you don't, you will almost certainly die - only 5 people have ever survived rabies without receiving the vaccine, and the treatment they received - the 'Milwaukee protocol' - has only been effective 5 out of the 36 times it has been used.

I wonder if any hardcore anti-vaxxers would stick to their guns and refuse rabies vaccine in the face of an almost certain death sentence for their child?

//The lovely Foxy posted this link on another thread, on how to suck people into any scam, Trump being the case in point//

Are you suggesting that I emulate the Trumpenfuhrer in my quest to have people see sense when it comes to vaccination?

Vaccines, you know, they're just great. Really great. They're gonna make Australia great again, because we're gonna have the best kids in the world. Our kids are gonna be so much healthier than all the others. These Mexicans, you know, they just let their kids die of measles, but we're gonna have big strong healthy kids. It's gonna be great.

Vaccination is a controversial issue at the moment.
We have the "No Jab No Play," legislation in Victoria.
Before enrolling your child in childcare you have to
prove that your child has been immunised. There are
adds on television to this effect telling parents
what they must do.

I believe that people are entitled to have different
opinions on this issue. What I don't believe they are
entitled to however, is to put other children at risk
because of their beliefs. And there are so many child-hood
deseases that can be preventable nowadays. Why on earth
would you put your own child and other children at risk?

Councils have to go with what their electorates feel
strongly about and obviously in this case - they feel
strongly enough to have taken action against Mr Wolfe's
opinion not to allow him a public space to air his views.
Especially when they are promoting vaccination for a safe
and healthy environment for children.

It makes sense. At least to me as a mother and a grandmother.

For sake what is wrong with you people.
If something is the law then you comply or suffer the consequences.
You just don't make up your mind to completely ignore the law.
If the law is you vaccinate the you do so or suffer whatever the penalty is.

"But maybe you think a bit of tetanus is character building."

It was the last time I had it; what with the foaming at the mouth and the rush to the doctors, but I had the jab and then everything was ok.. True story...
Or maybe it was Rabies... I'm pretty sure it was Tenanus... I dunno...

My dog was in a fight with a bigger dog and I got bitten by the other dog trying to seperate them.

I've got a hunch it's the MMR vaccine everyone's suspect on, from memory.

"Vaccines, you know, they're just great. Really great...."

I know; He sounds like a cracked record hey.
Can't believe he's gotten away with the same crappy motivational speeches for so long.

If you want a good laugh at Trumps expense, I thought the SNL Trumps skits were pretty funny.

http://youtu.be/1BSCziZeMVA

I hope the Pharmaceutical companies are more honest then the gw/renewable sham. Personally I have not had the flu for over 20 years and never received the vax. My dear elderly parents get the jab every year but never seem to avoid the flu. Me thinks its not as simple as the charlatons (sorry some drs) make out.

Joe,
I read that link you got from Foxy.
I can see what it is driving at, but if the other party had put up a
different candidate Trump probably would have lost.
Hilary Clinton was widely disliked and she may have only got as many
votes as she did because Trump was a candidate.

//It was the last time I had it; what with the foaming at the mouth and the rush to the doctors, but I had the jab and then everything was ok.. True story...
Or maybe it was Rabies... I'm pretty sure it was Tenanus... I dunno...

My dog was in a fight with a bigger dog and I got bitten by the other dog trying to seperate them.//

* Australian dogs don't carry rabies. As far as I know, they don't carry tetanus at all.
* Tetanus does not cause foaming of the mouth, that's a sign of a rabies.
* If you've already started displaying symptoms of rabies it's too late for the vaccine: you're f%^ked unless you're treated with the Milwaukee protocol and even then you're probably still f#@ked.

//I've got a hunch it's the MMR vaccine everyone's suspect on, from memory.//

Yeah, because that's the one that Wakefield's paper dealt with. Remember where we talked about that paper being a steaming pile of horse shite?

I haven't had the 'flu for 60 years; way back when I was a young soldier a large group of us "volunteered" for an experimental 'flu shot and apparently it worked.

Many years later I mentioned this to a very senior Medical Officer and he remembered it and told me that it was never repeated as the cost was way too high and that less effective but much less costly forms were considered to do an adequate job.

I haven't had my flu shot this year - yet.
But I will. I find it does help. It
certainly prevents the more serious flu I
used to get ages ago before I started getting
my flu shots.

Hey Toni,
"Australian dogs don't carry rabies."
Yes I've heard that somewhere too actually, it slipped my mind.

The dogs were both well loved family pets, (despite the fact they hated each other), not random animals on the street, and it happened over 20 years ago.

I wasn't actually foaming or frothing at the mouth, but it was as it I could feel my saliva becoming that kind of consistency.
I think I felt light headed and was drooling slightly. Something wasn't right but the Tetanus booster (which I hadn't had in a long time) seemed to cure me.
I think there was only 15-20 minutes in between being bitten and getting the shot.

I heard Wakefield mentioned again this morning during the last few minutes of Mike Rivero's 'Whatreallyhappened' radio show.
http://youtu.be/HhnCBZV3Df0?t=2h9m50s

He also mentioned a new article saying that vaccinated kids have a 700% chance of developing a neurodevelopmental disorder, but looking at the description of the article it seems a bit pseudo-sciencey - based on mothers reports...
http://www.vaccines.news/2017-03-07-vaccine-study-peer-reviewed-study-shows-vaccinated-children-have-a-700-higher-chance-of-neurodevelopmental-disorder.html

Can I ask you have you ever actually seen Wakefield's interviews, or are you simply relying on what other articles have claimed?
From what I remember of his interviews he sounded pretty genuine.

I'm not saying either side's right, and Mike Rivero does occasionally get things wrong.
One downside of alternative media is that they often touch on many subjects jumping from one subject to the next and its hard to keep up with all the info all the time, also hard to remember it all.
Gardasil vaccine is supposed to be questionable as well.

I'm not against vaccines, I'm against unsafe vaccines.

Immunisation reactions are generally mild and resolve by
themselves without needing medical treatment. The risk of
complications from childhood diseases is much
higher than the risks from immunisation.

//"Australian dogs don't carry rabies."
Yes I've heard that somewhere too actually, it slipped my mind.//

Yes, we're lucky over here. We can still get a disease which is very much like rabies (and treatable with rabies vaccine) called Australian Bat Lyssavirus (ABLV). There have only been three confirmed cases, all fatal. So watch out for bats.

//I think I felt light headed and was drooling slightly. Something wasn't right but the Tetanus booster (which I hadn't had in a long time) seemed to cure me.
I think there was only 15-20 minutes in between being bitten and getting the shot.//

The incubation period for tetanus is longer than that. Whatever it was, it probably wasn't tetanus - the shot probably acted as a placebo. Interesting fact about placebos: placebo capsules work better than placebo tablets, and placebo injections work better than placebo capsules.

//From what I remember of his interviews he sounded pretty genuine.//

That's great, but science is not politics or showbusiness or sales, and it's not about how you deliver a pitch or whether you seem like a really nice and genuine guy. It's about how good your science is. And falsifying data is not science.

//Gardasil vaccine is supposed to be questionable as well.//

Is it just? And who is it that supposes Gardasil to be questionable? Would it be some reputable scientific or medical organisation? Some bloke down the pub? David Icke?

If it's David Icke, I'm with you. I've recently discovered proof that the Queen is a giant lizard: two birthdays, you see. We don't have two birthdays because we're just people, but her Majesty has one for her human form and one for her lizard form. See? All the pieces fit. That Icke fella knows what's really going on.

One theory about placebos; Getting the placebo tablet etc stirs the
brain up to driving the immune system into a new mode.
I wonder if there has been any serious research into that.

Sadly, i know a young lady. now in here 20's who at an early age had a reaction from her needles and ended up with a serious disabillity.

Hopefully there will be a test one day to determine compatabillity.

The other puzzeling part is that if a kid goes to school that is no imunised, and the others are, where is the problem really!

As an old paediatric nurse I would just like to point out that the danger of non immunisation is the huge risk to babies too young to be immunised or those unable to be vaccinated due to a medical condition.
Babies don't even have to be in the presence of the unimmunised to be in danger. Many diseases, including measles can be spread by fomites, which are inanimate objects, such as a siblings Tshirt sneezed or coughed on by a sick schoolmate.
I think people have the right to choose whether or not to immunise, even though the anti group attitude horrifies me as a nurse, but they don't have the right to put other children at risk.
I'm old enough to have nursed children affected by polio, I've seen fatal tetanus in a child, I've nursed the deaf and blind babies born to mothers who contracted rubella whilst pregnant. Not to mention the poor babies with whooping cough.
I never want to see those days again.

What about carrier people butch. If one is not vaccinated it can slightly infect do ens of kids ans one in a hundred will be a carrier without showing simptoms.
What type of vaccines are dangerous ones.
Measles only exists in Australia today because someone is not vaccinated.. Polio was eradicated from Australia only because of compulsory vaccination.

I'm not against vacination doog, both my kids were done and my grandson as well. I'm just saying ive seen first hand what can go wrong. t's a tough one for some.

yeah Rechtub I know of a guy who received whooping cough vax and is now not much better than a vegetable. Though I would not consider myself anti vax the science is not as settled as many make out.

I don't know if my position is typical of anti-vaxxers, but I'll quickly summerise the position of most of the independent media that I watch or listen to.

We're not against the science of innoculation.
We''re not against vaccines, just unsafe ones.
If just one child has a bad reaction, then they cannot be considered safe.
If a child suffers side effects then was it safe for them? No.
If an immunised child catches a disease from an unimmunised child then they can't be considered effective.
If a child catches a disease they've already been innoculated for it wasnt effective for them was it? No.

Why risk side effects if a product isn't even effective?
It's not as though these criticisms are unreasonable or without cause.

Being forced to allow a doctor to administer to your child something which may have major side effects is a serious issue.
Should there be side effects the parent/s will have to live with their decision.

What the anti-vaxxers essentially want is 'Informed Consent'

Where the doctor tells you the potential side effects prior to administering the vaccine, and where the parent has the right to choose whether of not they are comfortable with the risk of side effects and whether they want their child taking the vaccine.

This isn't anything to necessarily be afraid of, it's sensible.

They will try to tell you all anti-vaxxers are are these evil people who are rubbing their hands together with glee hoping other peoples kids die from not taking shots...
Do you really believe that's true?
Or are you thinking about anti-vaxxers just precisely the way the vaccine makers want you to think?

Hey Toni,
Here's an article and an interview.
http://vactruth.com/2011/01/07/media-vultures-have-another-go-at-andrew-wakefields-research/#comment-85835
Wakefield Interview.
http://youtu.be/f-u0UnOF5xU

Armchair Critic,

Thanks for summarising the angle presented by fake news outlets such as www.vactruth.com and www.naturalnews.com.

<<We're not against the science of innoculation.>>

Some anti-vaxxers are. Some believe that (fed the right nutrition, along with a bit of crystal healing and reiki) our immune systems are virtually invincible, and that inoculation will only ever compromise this balance.

<<We''re not against vaccines, just unsafe ones.>>

And which vaccines would they be? The ones with less aluminium in them than an antacid? (Cue ‘injection vs. ingestion’ myth.) The one’s with the mercury-based preservative, thiomersal, which is claimed to be straight up mercury? The one’s with foetal tissue in them that isn’t really foetal tissue, but viruses grown in human skin cells derived from a foetus in the ‘70s? Or the ones with less formaldehyde than our own bodies make?

(There's nothing like the stuff they preserve mummified bodies with to scare the bejesus out of people.)

<<If just one child has a bad reaction, then they cannot be considered safe.>>

They’re still far safer than millions of children contracting deadly and preventable diseases. Your ability to weigh risks is appallingly lacking.

<<If a child suffers side effects then was it safe for them?>>

No, but given the risks of not immunising, your point is irrelevant.

<<If an immunised child catches a disease from an unimmunised child then they can't be considered effective.>>

They can if this only happens in a tiny percentage of cases. Besides, it’s also about protecting children who legitimately cannot be vaccinated, such as newborns. Big Nana pointed this out. You seem to have missed it.

<<If a child catches a disease they've already been innoculated for it wasnt effective for them ...>>

Not for them, no.

<<Why risk side effects if a product isn't even effective?>>

Hang on, how did you get from 'not effective for one' to 'not effective for anyone'? But to answer your question: because vaccinations only fail in a tiny percentage of cases.

<<It's not as though these criticisms are unreasonable or without cause.>>

Apparently they are. They’re also ignorant and dangerous.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Being forced to allow a doctor to administer to your child something which may have major side effects ...>>

... is fine if the alternative is worse.

<<What the anti-vaxxers essentially want is 'Informed Consent'>>

And what we NEED is herd immunity. No one has the right to compromise the health and lives of other people’s children by compromising herd immunity (and yes, I’m aware that quacks think herd immunity isn’t real. It is.) My right to swing my arms ends before your face.

<<They will try to tell you all anti-vaxxers are are these evil people who are rubbing their hands together with glee hoping other peoples kids die from not taking shots...>>

Who’s “they”? I’ve haven’t been told anything. Certainly nothing like that. (You need cease with this penchant conspiracy theorists have to assume that you lot are a special bunch who have managed to see through the propaganda of the Illuminati or the Lizard Men (or whoever it is that you think schemes and plots in cigar-smoke-filled rooms), while the rest of us are mere sheep.) I think we’ll leave that kind of fear-mongering to the quacks. What those of us, who actually care about what the science says, understand is that anti-vaxxers have a worldview that sees everything through the lens of conspiracy, and are often almost-paralysed by a world in which they see nothing but toxins. It’s a misguided and dogmatic concern driven. It’s also a form of privilege.

<<Or are you thinking about anti-vaxxers just precisely the way the vaccine makers want you to think?>>

What was I just saying?

The conspiratorial mindset is one that sets itself up to be fact proof: every time you stumble upon information that fits your preconceived ideas, that’s evidence that you’re right; every time you’re confronted with information that contradicts your conspiracy theories, it’s just Big-Pharma/Big-Agra/Big-Government/etc. trying to fool you.

It’s win-win for the conspiratorial mindset, and lose-lose for the individual whose mind has been poisoned by conspiratorial thinking.

aC it's not of someone catches something they have been vaccinated for.. It minimises the danger of catching something you have not been immunised against . There is no cure for the flue but it minimises the effects so you will not die or worse.

Well you numbats just both stepped in a huge big pile of your own feces, because I just finished watching the 90minute documentary movie Vaxxed: From Cover Up To Catastrophe just several minutes ago...
This is the movie Wakefield was talking about in the previous link.
I could not find one single instance where he said something I disagreed with.

Here's an interesting fact.

Did you know they DON'T test vaccines in the manner of 'vaccinated v's non-vaccinated' in their studies? No.
I knew I should've been taking notes.

And Toni, please watch the documentary and become informed on these facts before you criticise any more, for your own sake.

I dare any of you lot to watch that documentary become informed and get back to me before you continue making fools of yourselves; but of course you wont.
And when you realise AJ that just maybe you were a dumb sheep after all, that on this occasion I didn't actually say it, you did.
Please watch the documentary, I beg you.
I only wish I could see the stupid look on your faces.

luv to watch it. Where did you see it? I saw several clips and interviews from the film. I thought the Aussie Govt. had banned it and had wondered where to view it. I suspect it exposes so many holes in the 'science settled' brigade.

Hey runner,
You can get it from google play or stream it directly from their website.
http://play.google.com/store/movies/details/Vaxxed_from_Cover_Up_to_Catastrophe?id=SpQyYTs5LTg&hl=en&ct=t()
http://vaxxedthemovie.com/stream/

Yes, Yes, Armchair Critic. I’ve seen Vaxxed. I downloaded a torrent of it months ago (ain’t no way I’m gonna pay to be lied to for a couple of hours) and I’d have to say it was the most painful couple of hours I had spent since watching God’s Not Dead 2.

<<Well you numbats just both stepped in a huge big pile of your own feces, because I just finished watching the 90minute documentary movie Vaxxed: From Cover Up To Catastrophe just several minutes ago...>>

And let me guess: you just swallowed up every bit of crap they fed to you? Look out world! Armchair Critic has now “done his research” and is ready to take on those scientific sceptics!

That’s adorable.

<<Did you know they DON'T test vaccines in the manner of 'vaccinated v's non-vaccinated' in their studies?>>

Which studies?

<<I knew I should've been taking notes.>>

Yes, you should have. Then perhaps you could address at least something from my last couple of posts to you, instead of pretending they didn't happen.

<<I dare any of you lot to watch that documentary become informed and get back to me before you continue making fools of yourselves; but of course you wont.>>

Done and done. Well, don’t we feel like the fool now, AC?

<<And when you realise AJ that just maybe you were a dumb sheep after all, that on this occasion I didn't actually say it, you did.>>

No, I didn’t say I was a dumb sheep, but you’ve implied it twice now.

<<I only wish I could see the stupid look on your faces.>>

Yes, if we were even half as gullible as you, I bet they'd be priceless.

Oh, the humanity!

Hey AJ Philips,
Andrew Wakefields shares his story and also details a whistleblower from the CDC explaining a deliberate effort to cherry-pick and cover up data related to Autism and the MMR vaccine.
Numerous parents of Autistic kids shared their stories, doctors who had defended vaccines and administered them for decades were given time to look over the facts; they felt betrayed and now tell their patients the truth and that they do not recommend the MMR vaccine.

I support the arguments made at the end of the film; namely:

1/ That Congress subpoena Dr. William Thompson and investigate the CDC fraud.
2/ That Congress repeal the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and hold manufacturers liable for injury caused by their vaccines.
3/ That the 'single' measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines be made available immediately.
4/ That all vaccines be classified as pharmaceutical drugs and tested accordingly.

Do you have some kind of issue with that?
If so well tough luck I suppose.

"Which studies?"
All of them. The documentary claims there are NO studies that compare vaccinated against non-vaccinated.
It claims that if these studies were done a link between MMR and Autism would be shown.

It also claimed that the current exponential growth rate would result in 1 in 2 kids have ASD by 2032, 80% of them boys.

I support further investigation on the issue.
How exactly can I lose this argument?
You can still lose, if there's any truth to the claims you're dismissing.
Even a kid with ASD could probably figure that one out.

Armchair Critic,

There’s no need to give me a rundown of the film. I’ve seen it before. I’m well aware of just how filled with emotive and unreliable anecdotal testimony it is.

<<It claims that if these studies were done a link between MMR and Autism would be shown.>>

Oh, were you talking about the rates of autism between vaccinated and non-vaccinated children? That by itself still wouldn’t be very good proof regardless of what the results were, as correlation does not imply causation. If it did, then we'd also have to blame autism on organic food sales:

http://fitrecovery.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/organic-autism.png

and I don't think the organic, gluten-free, non-GMO, Paleo, nature woo quackery movement would be too happy with that.

Anyway, I could link you to numerous studies discrediting the alleged vaccine-autism link, but you’d only write them off as “Big Pharma” propaganda. So there's no point, really.

<<It also claimed that the current exponential growth rate would result in 1 in 2 kids have ASD by 2032, ...>>

The increase in diagnoses is the direct result of a net-widening due to a broader understanding of what ASD is.

<<You can still lose, if there's any truth to the claims you're dismissing.>>

Or I could simply change my mind. It’s a possibility that my non-conspiratorial frame of mind allows for.

<<Even a kid with ASD could probably figure that one out.>>

This is a very ignorant and offensive comment. People on the autism spectrum are often extremely intelligent. My four-year-old daughter is at the high-functioning end of the autism spectrum and is already reading at a fourth-grade level. She could count to twenty almost as soon as she could talk. The psychologist who diagnosed her said she had the cognitive abilities of a nine-year-old. So I don’t know what you mean by, “Even a kid with ASD …”

People with ASD have more pronounced strengths and weaknesses than the rest of us but they are not diseased or defective, as anti-vaxxer nutters would have us believe.

Hey AJ Philips,

"This is a very ignorant and offensive comment. People on the autism spectrum are often extremely intelligent."

Given the thread refers to vaccinations I can see it really wasn't in good taste to say what I did.
Though I didn't specifically state that I held an opinion that 'all kids with ASD are less intelligent', I accept my comment might've implied this.
I do accept that many kids with Autism are very intelligent and my comment seemed ignorant of this.

In a way I support my right to say ignorant and somewhat offensive things;
I frown at political correctness and social justice ideals, and I don't like the general concept of everyone continually blowing hot air up each others rear ends to reassure each other they are good people...

A person might use the saying 'easy as falling off a log' without consideration of whether another person may have actually fallen off a log at one point in their lives and injured themselves.
(Though that can't really be compared to what I said and I accept that.)
So I oppose the general idea that we have to check off every single potential 'point of potential offense' before saying anything.

With that said, I wasn't aware you had a daughter with ASD, that comment wasn't intended to be deliberately offensive 'on a personal level' if it was and I'm sorry if you were offended by it in that way.
I can sometimes make short and offensive comments, but I would not seek to deliberately do so in an underhanded or spiteful manner.
I don't like the idea of self-censoring myself or my opinions, but if I'd known I'd have chosen my words more carefully.

I think it was a misguided attempt to put ASD onto vaccinations. Some of our greatest achievers this world has seen were autistic.