Vaccines don't cause autism! - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Vaccines don't cause autism!

Opening Argument

Vaccines don't cause autism!
natbarons
  1. Do vaccines cause autism?

    16 votes
    1. Yes, I support nonsense.
      31.25%
    2. No, all evidence is against it.
      68.75%
I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

I friended myself! 



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • VaulkVaulk 434 Pts
    edited February 12
    I haven't ever seen any definitive evidence that any Vaccine causes autism.  I have however, seen incredible evidence that the additives in vaccines that are commonly administered in the U.S. are extremely toxic and have irrefutable physiological effects on the Human body and more specifically the Human brain.  The common additives in our Vaccinations include but are not limited to Aluminium, Formaldehyde and Thiomersal (Mercury based preservative).

    As I've said, there's just no conclusive evidence that would provide anything definitive that Autism can be caused by Vaccines.  Unfortunately there's no ignoring or denying that Vaccines contain very real and hazardous toxins.  ARE Vaccines more beneficial than harmful?  I'd like to think so, but there's also the required acknowledgement that this won't be the case for every human being in the World.  So in summary, I think Vaccines are a good thing in general...but I would venture as far as to say that Vaccines can be just as bad for some as they are good for others.  I'd sure like to see some medical research on the effects of these toxins, in these specific amounts on the Human body...now THAT might put some perspective on this whole thing.

    BaconToesMasterofPunEmeryPearson
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Vaulk said:
    I haven't ever seen any definitive evidence that any Vaccine causes autism.  I have however, seen incredible evidence that the additives in vaccines that are commonly administered in the U.S. are extremely toxic and have irrefutable physiological effects on the Human body and more specifically the Human brain.  The common additives in our Vaccinations include but are not limited to Aluminium, Formaldehyde and Thiomersal (Mercury based preservative).

    As I've said, there's just no conclusive evidence that would provide anything definitive that Autism can be caused by Vaccines.  Unfortunately there's no ignoring or denying that Vaccines contain very real and hazardous toxins.  ARE Vaccines more beneficial than harmful?  I'd like to think so, but there's also the required acknowledgement that this won't be the case for every human being in the World.  So in summary, I think Vaccines are a good thing in general...but I would venture as far as to say that Vaccines can be just as bad for some as they are good for others.  I'd sure like to see some medical research on the effects of these toxins, in these specific amounts on the Human body...now THAT might put some perspective on this whole thing.

    Poor reasoning and lacking evidence.

    Everything contains stuff that is toxic to us. The food we eat, the air we breathe and even our our bodies contain toxic substances. 

    For instance our own bodies contain a natural low level of formaldehyde (https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/vaccine_ingredients/index.html). Now drinking a bottle of formaldehyde will kill you, but a formaldehyde containing vaccine will neither significantly alter the amount of formaldehyde in your body or have health effect.

    Vaccines have been studied in depth for decades. We have massive sample populations in which to see any unusual results. The negative effects of vaccines either don't exist, are so small that they are undetectable by modern science or are understood and not significant (e.g. the potential for getting mild cold symptoms from a flu vaccine).

    We know vaccines are a good idea.
    PogueMasterofPunEmeryPearson
  • As someone autistic myself, I can say that vaccines don't cause autism. For one thing, as everyone says to kids who've never heard of it; it's not like the flu, something you can catch. Autism is genetic, which means it happens in the genes. There is no possible ways that vaccines can cause autism by altering the genes, let alone cause it.
    Some people may bring up, "Well, what about the rise in autism? We've never experienced it in the (whatever year), yet we're experiencing it now!"
    Look at allergies. Back then, peanuts were an American icon; they were everywhere, every-when, and in everything. Now, for some reason, we have to be careful about tree nuts, not peanuts, in our food. There are a billion allergies that even for someone allergic to everything, except for a cockroach & 2 kinds of mold, can't count. The reason why those numbers have gone up is because there is better tech to diagnose these allergies. There is no disease in the vaccines causing it. It's just tech doing it's heaven-sent work.
    It's the same thing with autism. There is no vaccines that have weird DNA things that the US government is trying to put into there. It's just tech saying, "Hey! There's, like, a million more kids with this!". No vaccines. Just science.
    Now that I think about it, I'm surprised no one is saying that vaccines cause allergies. Weird.
    PogueBaconToesMasterofPun
  • @K0B1
    I completely agree. About a year ago I attended a symposium about autism and there are many factors that take part in autism, and they are mostly genetic. There are also some other things that are believed to cause autism, like lack of flow of oxygen to certain parts of the brain that affect their development. 

    The rise in autism, I think, can also be because there are better tools to diagnose autism, when in the past, many people with autism would go undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. 
    PogueMasterofPun
  • Disclaimer: I'm not disagreeing with the central point on this debate. There is absolutely no link between the broad administration of antibiotics and the incidence of autism. The basis upon which people base this claim is widely and thoroughly debunked, and the scientific article that's commonly cited as supporting it (written by Andrew Wakefield, who lost his medical license as a result of dishonest and irresponsible studies) has long since been retracted. Every claim that anti-vaxxers make regarding the link between any of the ingredients used in vaccines and autism has been thoroughly debunked.

    All of that being said, I do feel the need to address an issue here that I feel is being misrepresented. Autism rates are on the rise, and I agree with the central argument many of you are making, which is that the perceived increase in its incidence is chiefly the result of changes in diagnostics, awareness and classification. That explains a lot of the change in autism incidence over time.

    However, it doesn't explain all of it. The causes of autism are very uncertain. We know that there is some genetic basis for autism, yet the gene or set of genes that are responsible have not been discovered. Researchers are currently investigating a number of avenues for causation, including instability in certain gene clusters, problems during pregnancy or delivery, environmental factors like viral infections, metabolic imbalances, and exposure to chemicals. This is probably why a lot of people envision some link between autism and vaccinations, though their perception fundamentally misunderstands the research. The issue is chiefly what a child in the womb is affected by, not what they are injected with after birth. That means that the chief concern is actually infections/chemicals in the mother that get passed to the child through the placenta. Moreover, it's not as though these factors are becoming a bigger problem today than they were over previous decades. While doctors aren't yet certain what explains the rise in incidence of autism, they do know that an increase in the average age of fathers may have something to do with it, as may the increase in the number of surviving premature infants. Once again, though, neither of these are linked to vaccination.
    Pogue
  • @Vaulk

    Let's go through each of the 3 "common additives in our Vaccinations" that you cite as toxins. There actually is quite a bit of "medical research on the effects of these toxins, in these specific amounts on the Human body".

    Aluminium - 

    "Aluminum is the third most abundant element after oxygen and silicon, and it is the most abundant metal, making up almost 9 percent of the earth's crust. Aluminum is found in plants, soil, water and air. Most plants have low quantities of aluminum, but a few are known to be aluminum accumulators, including some types of tea plants, grasses and orchids...

    Aluminum is used in vaccines as an adjuvant. An adjuvant is  vaccine component that boosts the immune response to the vaccine. Adjuvants allow for lesser quantities of the vaccine and fewer doses...

    Vaccines containing adjuvants are tested extensively in clinical trials before being licensed. Aluminum salts, monophosphoryl A (a detoxified bacterial component), and squalene (a compound of the body’s normal cholesterol synthesis pathway) are the only materials that can be used as adjuvants in the United States. The quantities of aluminum present in vaccines are low and are regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).

    The aluminum contained in vaccines is similar to that found in a liter (about 1 quart or 32 fluid ounces) of infant formula. While infants receive about 4.4 milligrams* of aluminum in the first six months of life from vaccines, they receive more than that in their diet. Breast-fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams, formula-fed infants ingest about 38 milligrams, and infants who are fed soy formula ingest almost 117 milligrams of aluminum during the first six months of life."

    http://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum

    Formaldehyde - 

    "Formaldehyde has a long history of safe use in the manufacture of certain viral and bacterial vaccines. It is used to inactivate viruses so that they don’t cause disease (e.g., polio virus used to make polio vaccine) and to detoxify bacterial toxins, such as the toxin used to make diphtheria vaccine. Formaldehyde is diluted during the vaccine manufacturing process, but residual quantities of formaldehyde may be found in some current vaccines. The amount of formaldehyde present in some vaccines is so small compared to the concentration that occurs naturally in the body that it does not pose a safety concern. 

    Formaldehyde is also produced naturally in the human body as a part of normal functions of the body to produce energy and build the basic materials needed for important life processes. This includes making amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins that the body needs.

    Formaldehyde is also found in the environment and is present in different ways. It is used in building materials, as a preservative in labs and to produce many household products.

    The body continuously processes formaldehyde, both from what it makes on its own and from what it has been exposed to in the environment. When the body breaks down formaldehyde, it does not distinguish between formaldehyde from vaccines and that which is naturally produced or environmental. The amount of formaldehyde in a person’s body depends on their weight; babies have lower amounts than adults. Studies have shown that for a newborn of average weight of 6 - 8 pounds, the amount of formaldehyde in their body is 50-70 times higher than the upper amount that they could receive from a single dose of a vaccine or from vaccines administered over time.

    Excessive exposure to formaldehyde may cause cancer, but the latest research has shown that the highest risk is from the air when formaldehyde is inhaled from breathing, and occurs more frequently in people who routinely use formaldehyde in their jobs. There is no evidence linking cancer to infrequent exposure to tiny amounts of formaldehyde via injection as occurs with vaccines."

    https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm187810.htm

    Thiomersal - 

    "Thimerosal is a mercury-containing organic compound (an organomercurial). Since the 1930s, it has been widely used as a preservative in a number of biological and drug products, including many vaccines, to help prevent potentially life threatening contamination with harmful microbes. The documented antimicrobial properties of thimerosal contribute to the safe use of vaccines in multi-dose vials, and the ability to package certain vaccines, such as those for seasonal and pandemic influenza, in multi-dose vials helps facilitate immunization campaigns in the United States and globally that save lives. However, the use of thimerosal as a preservative in U.S. FDA-licensed vaccines has significantly declined due to reformulation and development of new vaccines presented in single-dose containers.

    Thimerosal, which is approximately 50% mercury by weight, has been one of the most widely used preservatives in vaccines. It is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate. Ethylmercury is an organomercurial that should be distinguished from methylmercury, a related substance that has been the focus of considerable study. Methylmercury is the type of mercury found in certain kinds of fish. At high exposure levels methylmercury can be toxic to people. In the United States, federal guidelines keep as much methylmercury as possible out of the environment and food, but over a lifetime, everyone is exposed to some methylmercury.

    At concentrations found in vaccines, thimerosal meets the requirements for a preservative as set forth by the United States Pharmacopeia; that is, it kills the specified challenge organisms and is able to prevent the growth of the challenge fungi (U.S. Pharmacopeia 2004). Thimerosal in concentrations of 0.001% (1 part in 100,000) to 0.01% (1 part in 10,000) has been shown to be effective in clearing a broad spectrum of pathogens. A vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5 mL dose or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose. For comparison, this is roughly the same amount of elemental mercury contained in a 3 ounce can of tuna fish.

    Prior to introduction of thimerosal in the 1930's, data were available in several animal species and humans providing evidence for its safety and effectiveness as a preservative (Powell and Jamieson 1931). Since then, thimerosal has been the subject of numerous studies (see Bibliography- Notable Studies and Assessments Supporting the Safe Use of Thimerosal in Vaccines) and has a long record of safe and effective use preventing bacterial and fungal contamination of vaccines, with no ill effects established other than minor local reactions at the site of injection.

    While the use of mercury-containing preservatives has declined in recent years due to the development of new products formulated into single-dose presentations that do not require preservatives, thimerosal has been used in some immune globulin preparations, anti-venins, skin test antigens, and ophthalmic and nasal products, in addition to some vaccines. Under the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, the FDA compiled a list of regulated products containing mercury, including those with thimerosal (Federal Register 1999). It is important to note that this list was compiled in 1999; some products listed are no longer manufactured and many products have been reformulated without thimerosal."

    https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228
    PogueBaconToesMasterofPunEmeryPearson
  • VaulkVaulk 434 Pts
    @whiteflame ;

    @Vaulk

    Aluminium - 

    "Aluminum is the third most abundant element after oxygen and silicon, and it is the most abundant metal, making up almost 9 percent of the earth's crust. Aluminum is found in plants, soil, water and air. Most plants have low quantities of aluminum, but a few are known to be aluminum accumulators, including some types of tea plants, grasses and orchids...

    Aluminum is used in vaccines as an adjuvant. An adjuvant is  vaccine component that boosts the immune response to the vaccine. Adjuvants allow for lesser quantities of the vaccine and fewer doses...

    Vaccines containing adjuvants are tested extensively in clinical trials before being licensed. Aluminum salts, monophosphoryl A (a detoxified bacterial component), and squalene (a compound of the body’s normal cholesterol synthesis pathway) are the only materials that can be used as adjuvants in the United States. The quantities of aluminum present in vaccines are low and are regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).

    The aluminum contained in vaccines is similar to that found in a liter (about 1 quart or 32 fluid ounces) of infant formula. While infants receive about 4.4 milligrams* of aluminum in the first six months of life from vaccines, they receive more than that in their diet. Breast-fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams, formula-fed infants ingest about 38 milligrams, and infants who are fed soy formula ingest almost 117 milligrams of aluminum during the first six months of life."

    http://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum
    So what I'm getting here in summary is that Aluminium is common in the environment, is regulated by the CBER regarding the inclusion of it in vaccines and is generally ingested in vastly larger quantities by infants than would ever be found in a vaccine injection.  If I've misrepresented of left out a part of your argument then please let me know, otherwise I'll respond to these.

    1. Aluminium is extremely common as you've said, we agree on that.  This however does nothing to support that it's safe to inject it into the human blood stream.  By this logic... Oxygen is far more common than Aluminium yet is gravely deadly to take intravenously. I respect your direction with this argument but the reasoning that because something exists in innumerable proportions on Earth that it must be safe to inject into the blood stream just does not stand.  

    2. The CBER.  The argument that something is safe for injection into the blood stream because it's been evaluated, researched, tested and/or approved by the CBER is insufficient proof or evidence of anything I'm afraid.  The reason why is because, as per the CBER's role within the FDA, the CBER is responsible for approving the medications in our current Pharmaceutical available stock that are killing over 100,000 people in the U.S. every year from adverse side effects.  This is provided by the Journal of the American Medical Association.  This is all setting aside the simple fact that the FDA (As well as the CBER) is fully responsible, accountable, liable and reprehensible for the approval and subsequent distribution of pharmaceutical products that are later recalled every. single. year.  Below is a source of the great ones that were approved that mostly just killed people.
    https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CBER/default.htm
    https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-primary-care-policy-center/Publications_PDFs/A154.pdf
    https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005528

    3. Your logic that because something is ingested into the human body in large quantities, that small quantities should be safe to inject directly into the blood stream is faulty I'm afraid.  The reason it's faulty is because injecting something directly into the blood stream bypasses (Not some) but ALL of the Human body's filtration systems and it travels DIRECTLY to the brain among other vital organs including the Heart.  Intramuscular injection is 5-8 minutes, intravenous injection is approximately 7 seconds to the brain.  Oxygen can also be used as a counter example here because newborn infants not only regularly ingest oxygen but they breath innumerable quantities of it throughout their first six months of life...yet it's completely fatal to inject oxygen intravenously.

    https://sunrisehouse.com/cause-effect/path-drugs-take-body/

    I'll come back to the other two for responses regardless of how much they resemble the same logic of your argument on Aluminium.  The summary here is that your argument that because something's common in our environment, is approved by the FDA (CBER is a division of the FDA) and is ingested regularly...makes it safe for injection into the bloodstream is an incredibly irresponsible ideology that if applied as a rule would have catastrophic consequences.  

    As a disclaimer, I STILL don't believe vaccines cause Autism.
    MasterofPunEmeryPearson
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • whiteflamewhiteflame 268 Pts
    edited February 15
    Vaulk said:
    So what I'm getting here in summary is that Aluminium is common in the environment, is regulated by the CBER regarding the inclusion of it in vaccines and is generally ingested in vastly larger quantities by infants than would ever be found in a vaccine injection.  If I've misrepresented of left out a part of your argument then please let me know, otherwise I'll respond to these.

    1. Aluminium is extremely common as you've said, we agree on that.  This however does nothing to support that it's safe to inject it into the human blood stream.  By this logic... Oxygen is far more common than Aluminium yet is gravely deadly to take intravenously. I respect your direction with this argument but the reasoning that because something exists in innumerable proportions on Earth that it must be safe to inject into the blood stream just does not stand.  

    2. The CBER.  The argument that something is safe for injection into the blood stream because it's been evaluated, researched, tested and/or approved by the CBER is insufficient proof or evidence of anything I'm afraid.  The reason why is because, as per the CBER's role within the FDA, the CBER is responsible for approving the medications in our current Pharmaceutical available stock that are killing over 100,000 people in the U.S. every year from adverse side effects.  This is provided by the Journal of the American Medical Association.  This is all setting aside the simple fact that the FDA (As well as the CBER) is fully responsible, accountable, liable and reprehensible for the approval and subsequent distribution of pharmaceutical products that are later recalled every. single. year.  Below is a source of the great ones that were approved that mostly just killed people.
    https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CBER/default.htm
    https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-primary-care-policy-center/Publications_PDFs/A154.pdf
    https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005528

    3. Your logic that because something is ingested into the human body in large quantities, that small quantities should be safe to inject directly into the blood stream is faulty I'm afraid.  The reason it's faulty is because injecting something directly into the blood stream bypasses (Not some) but ALL of the Human body's filtration systems and it travels DIRECTLY to the brain among other vital organs including the Heart.  Intramuscular injection is 5-8 minutes, intravenous injection is approximately 7 seconds to the brain.  Oxygen can also be used as a counter example here because newborn infants not only regularly ingest oxygen but they breath innumerable quantities of it throughout their first six months of life...yet it's completely fatal to inject oxygen intravenously.

    https://sunrisehouse.com/cause-effect/path-drugs-take-body/

    I'll come back to the other two for responses regardless of how much they resemble the same logic of your argument on Aluminium.  The summary here is that your argument that because something's common in our environment, is approved by the FDA (CBER is a division of the FDA) and is ingested regularly...makes it safe for injection into the bloodstream is an incredibly irresponsible ideology that if applied as a rule would have catastrophic consequences.  

    As a disclaimer, I STILL don't believe vaccines cause Autism.
    Alright, let's talk assumptions in logic, then.

    Your assumption is that injection of a given chemical (in this case, aluminum salts) fundamentally alters the way your body processes it. That's certainly true - we don't process things that go into our bloodstream the same way as we do food or drink. That being said, I think the comparison to oxygen is absolutely off the mark. The issue there is that you're injecting something that is gaseous, i.e. something that pushes liquid away from it. The problem with oxygen isn't that it's toxic in the bloodstream (hell, there's a lot of oxygen in the bloodstream stored with iron in hemoglobin) but that injection of a lot of oxygen all at once fundamentally alters blood flow around it. That's what leads to fatalities.

    The rest of what you've provided in terms of responses are logical deductions that, while valid in some ways, don't fundamentally address the question of why aluminum, at the quantities present in vaccines, is toxic. You say it's "gravely deadly to take intravenously", but I don't see any support for that. That's solely your assertion.

    Meanwhile, there is a bevy of support for the other side, that even our bloodstream can thoroughly process the aluminum out of our system without any toxicity. From Children's Hospital of Philadelphia:

    "Though all of the aluminum present in vaccines enters the bloodstream, less than 1 percent of aluminum present in food is absorbed through the intestines into the blood.

    However, once aluminum is in the bloodstream, it is processed similarly regardless of the source. Approximately 90 percent is processed by binding to a protein called transferrin, and about 10 percent is bound by citrate. Once bound, the majority of aluminum will be eliminated through the kidneys, a small amount through bile, and a small amount is retained in tissues of the body. About half of the aluminum in the bloodstream is eliminated in less than 24 hours and more than three-quarters is eliminated within two weeks. The ability of the body to rapidly"

    As for what happens to the aluminum retained in the body,

    "The small quantity of aluminum retained in the body accumulates over time. Most of the aluminum that accumulates (50 to 60 percent) settles in the bones, some in the lungs (about 25 percent) and some in the brain (about 1 percent). The remaining quantities are distributed in serum, skin, gastrointestinal tract, lymph nodes and glands. In fact, low quantities of aluminum can be found in most organs. By the time children become adults, they will have accumulated between 50 and 100 milligrams of aluminum. Almost all of that accumulated aluminum comes from food."

    http://media.chop.edu/data/files/pdfs/vaccine-education-center-aluminum.pdf

    So, three main takeaways. One, this fundamentally challenges your assumption that food is an entirely separate issue from blood. Even if it's less than 1% of aluminum in food, that still absorbs from the intestines into the blood, and does so every time we ingest even small amounts of the stuff. That adds up to far more than anything that comes from vaccinations, which means the comparison to food is completely valid. Two, there is still a tremendous amount of processing that goes on in the bloodstream, particularly of chemicals like aluminum salts. The body finds a way to sequester and eliminate most of the aluminum we're injected with, which means any actual accumulation of these supposedly toxic salts is extremely minimal. Three, the fact that we've tracked levels of accumulation in various parts of the body and have found that they're common at milligram levels in adults (which is the level we're injected with, each injection being lower than 1 mg, so it's the amount we'd receive if there was no processing) means there's likely little to no toxicity resulting from those levels of aluminum distributed in our systems.

    As for CBER, I think that's a conversation for another day. It sounds like you have some concerns about their capacity to act as a reasonable regulatory agency, and while I disagree with your conclusions, I think discussing it would involve a rather large tangent to this conversation. If you want to discuss issues like this, we can do that after we're done going through the specific question of vaccine safety.
    PogueBaconToesEmeryPearson
  • AmpersandAmpersand 329 Pts
    edited February 16
    Vaulk said:
    @whiteflame ;

    @Vaulk

    Aluminium - 

    "Aluminum is the third most abundant element after oxygen and silicon, and it is the most abundant metal, making up almost 9 percent of the earth's crust. Aluminum is found in plants, soil, water and air. Most plants have low quantities of aluminum, but a few are known to be aluminum accumulators, including some types of tea plants, grasses and orchids...

    Aluminum is used in vaccines as an adjuvant. An adjuvant is  vaccine component that boosts the immune response to the vaccine. Adjuvants allow for lesser quantities of the vaccine and fewer doses...

    Vaccines containing adjuvants are tested extensively in clinical trials before being licensed. Aluminum salts, monophosphoryl A (a detoxified bacterial component), and squalene (a compound of the body’s normal cholesterol synthesis pathway) are the only materials that can be used as adjuvants in the United States. The quantities of aluminum present in vaccines are low and are regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).

    The aluminum contained in vaccines is similar to that found in a liter (about 1 quart or 32 fluid ounces) of infant formula. While infants receive about 4.4 milligrams* of aluminum in the first six months of life from vaccines, they receive more than that in their diet. Breast-fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams, formula-fed infants ingest about 38 milligrams, and infants who are fed soy formula ingest almost 117 milligrams of aluminum during the first six months of life."

    http://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum
    So what I'm getting here in summary is that Aluminium is common in the environment, is regulated by the CBER regarding the inclusion of it in vaccines and is generally ingested in vastly larger quantities by infants than would ever be found in a vaccine injection.  If I've misrepresented of left out a part of your argument then please let me know, otherwise I'll respond to these.

    1. Aluminium is extremely common as you've said, we agree on that.  This however does nothing to support that it's safe to inject it into the human blood stream.  By this logic... Oxygen is far more common than Aluminium yet is gravely deadly to take intravenously. I respect your direction with this argument but the reasoning that because something exists in innumerable proportions on Earth that it must be safe to inject into the blood stream just does not stand.  

    2. The CBER.  The argument that something is safe for injection into the blood stream because it's been evaluated, researched, tested and/or approved by the CBER is insufficient proof or evidence of anything I'm afraid.  The reason why is because, as per the CBER's role within the FDA, the CBER is responsible for approving the medications in our current Pharmaceutical available stock that are killing over 100,000 people in the U.S. every year from adverse side effects.  This is provided by the Journal of the American Medical Association.  This is all setting aside the simple fact that the FDA (As well as the CBER) is fully responsible, accountable, liable and reprehensible for the approval and subsequent distribution of pharmaceutical products that are later recalled every. single. year.  Below is a source of the great ones that were approved that mostly just killed people.
    https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CBER/default.htm
    https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-primary-care-policy-center/Publications_PDFs/A154.pdf
    https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005528

    3. Your logic that because something is ingested into the human body in large quantities, that small quantities should be safe to inject directly into the blood stream is faulty I'm afraid.  The reason it's faulty is because injecting something directly into the blood stream bypasses (Not some) but ALL of the Human body's filtration systems and it travels DIRECTLY to the brain among other vital organs including the Heart.  Intramuscular injection is 5-8 minutes, intravenous injection is approximately 7 seconds to the brain.  Oxygen can also be used as a counter example here because newborn infants not only regularly ingest oxygen but they breath innumerable quantities of it throughout their first six months of life...yet it's completely fatal to inject oxygen intravenously.

    https://sunrisehouse.com/cause-effect/path-drugs-take-body/

    I'll come back to the other two for responses regardless of how much they resemble the same logic of your argument on Aluminium.  The summary here is that your argument that because something's common in our environment, is approved by the FDA (CBER is a division of the FDA) and is ingested regularly...makes it safe for injection into the bloodstream is an incredibly irresponsible ideology that if applied as a rule would have catastrophic consequences.  

    As a disclaimer, I STILL don't believe vaccines cause Autism.
    You've shot yourself in the foot. the logic you try and use now is exactly the logic that has been used against you and applies to your argument. By using it and validating it, you have made pretty much your entire argument.

    Almost every point you made could be summarised as "X is bad in large doses, therefore it is bad in the tiny doses found in vaccines". Using the example of oxygen which you have accepted, you can be harmed by too little or too much of a substance if the physical properties of the substance warrant it. Therefore there is no validity to any of your argument in your initial post and almost the entirety of your second post.

    The only other argument you used is in regards to CBER, which I find illogical and faulty on multiple levels.

    1) Why does 100,000 deaths mean that all their other studies are irrelevant? You seem to have set an arbitrary metric with no real relevance. If the studies and science behind their position on formaldehyde are correct and there is no reason to believe they are wrong, there is no reason to dismiss this evidence because of errors in areas unrelated to formaldehyde.

    2) Why do you assume this is an issue with CBER? One of the key issues is polypharmy - how patients react when they are on multiple drugs due to serious life-threatening conditions. While physicians should avoid multiple doses of different medicines simultaneously, often (with serious illnesses) it's unavoidable and because even if there is a risk of death from ADR that is still a better chance than they would have without the medecine.

    3) Why are you assuming that this carries over to vaccines, which have been well studied for decades and whose effects are well known? They are taken by such large numbers of people that there are studies with massive amounts of participants providing a wealth of information for study. That is not comparable with new drugs just entering the market. Drugs can enter the market with just one or two thousand people having used them in human trials - with vaccines we're talking billions of vaccinations.

    4) There is an overwhelming scientific consensus outside of CBER that vaccines are very beneficial. If you want to reject CBER due to reasons that only apply to them, what does it really matter when there are hundreds of independent scientific studies that support their view
    EmeryPearson
  • VaulkVaulk 434 Pts
    @Ampersand

    I've gathered from your responses that you didn't read my argument and didn't read into the few sources I provided.  I gather this because you're arguing against premises that I didn't present.  

    I never argued 

    Ampersand said:
    Almost every point you made could be summarised as "X is bad in large doses, therefore it is bad in the tiny doses found in vaccines". 
    There's no argument anywhere in my posts that includes that anything is bad in large doses.  In fact I argued that in several cases (Particularly in adults and adolescents), even substantially larger quantities of these substances can be found in the Human body and there's nothing wrong with it.

    I'm starting to think that you're either seeing what you want to see in my posts or you're simply not reading my arguments, instead reading portions and filling in the rest with what you assume I said...which actually just equates to you seeing what you want to see.

    Look you're welcome to make your arguments, unfortunately I never made the argument that you're contesting so whoever it is that you're arguing with, I wish you the best of luck.  Whoever that guy is, he's probably in trouble.

    Ampersand said:
    2) Why do you assume this is an issue with CBER? One of the key issues is polypharmy - how patients react when they are on multiple drugs due to serious life-threatening conditions. While physicians should avoid multiple doses of different medicines simultaneously, often (with serious illnesses) it's unavoidable and because even if there is a risk of death from ADR that is still a better chance than they would have without the medecine.
    Again I think you're just not reading my arguments.  My sources literally (Not figuratively) explain that the 100,000 deaths per year are purely from the negative side effects from Prescription drugs.  The exact quote is: 

    • 106,000 deaths/year from nonerror, adverse effects of medications.

    Do you understand what this statistic means?  Do you comprehend what "Nonerror adverse effects of medications" means?  Here's an example for you:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9555760

    It means that the deaths that were a direct result of medications were not the result of error in administration of the medication...meaning it wasn't because they mixed it with another drug, took too much or used it wrong in any other way.

    I fear this is going to be wasted though, this wouldn't be the first time you've misrepresented my argument but in keeping with recommendations:

    I'm afraid that because you've misrepresented my argument and subsequently failed to rebut it then I will accept this as the small victory that it is and wish you the best.
    EmeryPearson
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Vaulk


    Let's look at the core component of your initial post.

    Vaulk said:
     I have however, seen incredible evidence that the additives in vaccines that are commonly administered in the U.S. are extremely toxic and have irrefutable physiological effects on the Human body and more specifically the Human brain.  The common additives in our Vaccinations include but are not limited to Aluminium, Formaldehyde and Thiomersal (Mercury based preservative).

    As I've said, there's just no conclusive evidence that would provide anything definitive that Autism can be caused by Vaccines.  Unfortunately there's no ignoring or denying that Vaccines contain very real and hazardous toxins.
    They contain bad toxins because you say so. An anecdotal and unsupported claim that can be ignored.

    These toxins are harmful. As you've already conceded, the logic that something is toxic in a certain amount or certain conditions does not mean it is toxic in all amounts and all conditions (the example of oxygen in the air has been discussed already.

    Your logic was faulty.

    Now in response to whiteflame you extend the logic slightly, but only along the same fallacious lines. You make the claim that because ingredients are safe under situation A does not mean they are safe under situation B. Correct, however the inverse is true in that because things are dangerous in situation Y does not mean they are dangerous in situation Z. Therefore just because we know Formaldehyde is dangerous in some conditions (swallowing a jar full of it) does not mean it is dangerous in others (tiny amount as an ingredient in vaccines)

    As such you have absolutely nothing to back up your claims.

    In regards to  CBER you only respond to one of my points, meaning I could not bother to respond and your point would still be ineligible as you haven#t dealt with my rebuttal, but let's see what you claimed:

    Vaulk said:
    Ampersand said:
    2) Why do you assume this is an issue with CBER? One of the key issues is polypharmy - how patients react when they are on multiple drugs due to serious life-threatening conditions. While physicians should avoid multiple doses of different medicines simultaneously, often (with serious illnesses) it's unavoidable and because even if there is a risk of death from ADR that is still a better chance than they would have without the medecine.
    Again I think you're just not reading my arguments.  My sources literally (Not figuratively) explain that the 100,000 deaths per year are purely from the negative side effects from Prescription drugs.  The exact quote is: 

    • 106,000 deaths/year from nonerror, adverse effects of medications.

    Do you understand what this statistic means?  Do you comprehend what "Nonerror adverse effects of medications" means?  Here's an example for you:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9555760

    It means that the deaths that were a direct result of medications were not the result of error in administration of the medication...meaning it wasn't because they mixed it with another drug, took too much or used it wrong in any other way.

    I fear this is going to be wasted though, this wouldn't be the first time you've misrepresented my argument but in keeping with recommendations:

    I'm afraid that because you've misrepresented my argument and subsequently failed to rebut it then I will accept this as the small victory that it is and wish you the best.
    There are several claims here that are totally unsupported and in fact are contrary to your own source, which I suggest you read.

    You state "It means that the deaths that were a direct result of medications were not the result of error in administration of the medication...meaning it wasn't because they mixed it with another drug, took too much or used it wrong in any other way."

    This is illogical. it is an error if they give someone the wrong medication. it is an error if they give someone the right medication but in the wrong amount. It is NOT an error if they purposely give someone multiple medications because they have complex issues which require it - even if they know there is a risk in mixing medicines in this way. It is a purposeful choice where the decision is made to give multiple drugs to a person even though it is risky because not doing so is even riskier.

    You will note that when the study you reference talks about what they exclude they mention only errors (not purposeful decisions) and do not mention polypharmy:

    "We excluded errors in drug administration, noncompliance, overdose, drug abuse, therapeutic failures, and possible ADRs."

    These deaths are tragic, but that is the nature of human mortality and people having complicated health conditions where there is no perfect solution. It is not an issue of drug error, nor is it an issue with the CBER.

    You will also note that your study is 20 years old, itself states that its results must be viewed with caution and your entire argument is based on the logic that we should assume one body of the FDA is wrong because there are issues with an entirely different body of the FDA.

    EmeryPearson
  • Pogue said:
    Vaccines don't cause autism!


    No, they don't. It's the poison in the vaccines that cause autism.
    In the sinful lifestyle's that we live, we need certain vaccines. Like what would we do without antibiotics? But we are also aware of the "Population Reduction" agenda, it is there that the poisons are introduced and cause anywhere from autism and other debilitating problems, to even death.
    EmeryPearson
  • PoguePogue 492 Pts
    Evidence said:
    Pogue said:
    Vaccines don't cause autism!


    No, they don't. It's the poison in the vaccines that cause autism.
    In the sinful lifestyle's that we live, we need certain vaccines. Like what would we do without antibiotics? But we are also aware of the "Population Reduction" agenda, it is there that the poisons are introduced and cause anywhere from autism and other debilitating problems, to even death.
    What poison? The poison that has saved countless lives, eliminated diseases? What "Population Reduction" agenda? Autism is genetic.  All the aluminum, mercury, and formaldehyde are not in a high enough dose to kill you. Your body produces those chemicals. The thimerosal in vaccines, is one thing, gone. There is no correlation or causation between autism and thimerosal. Now, this is thimerosal. 

    On the right, there is the mercury atom (Hg). By itself, it can cause a lot of damage. It is primarily toxic in its methylmercury form. That is mercury attached to a Ch3 group. A thing I find cool about mercury is its ability to switch between a 0, 1 plus, or 2 plus oxidative states, each giving different properties. 2 plus allows the mercury to participate in organic compound formation. That is exactly what it is doing here!  To the left, it is bound by a sulfur, then connected to an entire aromatic benzene derivative. On the right of the mercury, we have an ethyl group. This does not look like the toxic state of mercury at all! Since thimerosal was believed to cause autism, but now it is proven that it doesn't, vaccines do not cause autism. The other toxic stuff is not in a high enough dose to kill anyone, unless severely alergic. 
    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • Evidence said:

    No, they don't. It's the poison in the vaccines that cause autism.
    In the sinful lifestyle's that we live, we need certain vaccines. Like what would we do without antibiotics? But we are also aware of the "Population Reduction" agenda, it is there that the poisons are introduced and cause anywhere from autism and other debilitating problems, to even death.
    Alright, a lot of questions for you.

    What poisons are in vaccines that cause autism?

    How does a “sinful lifestyle” cause viral outbreaks?

    Explain this “‘Population Reduction’ agenda. Who is implementing it? Where’s your evidence that it’s been implemented? What poisons are they introducing? What evidence to you have that those “poisons” cause these harms?
    PogueEmeryPearson
  • Pogue said:
    Evidence said:
    Pogue said:
    Vaccines don't cause autism!


    No, they don't. It's the poison in the vaccines that cause autism.
    In the sinful lifestyle's that we live, we need certain vaccines. Like what would we do without antibiotics? But we are also aware of the "Population Reduction" agenda, it is there that the poisons are introduced and cause anywhere from autism and other debilitating problems, to even death.
    What poison? The poison that has saved countless lives, eliminated diseases? What "Population Reduction" agenda? Autism is genetic.  All the aluminum, mercury, and formaldehyde are not in a high enough dose to kill you. Your body produces those chemicals. The thimerosal in vaccines, is one thing, gone. There is no correlation or causation between autism and thimerosal. Now, this is thimerosal. 

    On the right, there is the mercury atom (Hg). By itself, it can cause a lot of damage. It is primarily toxic in its methylmercury form. That is mercury attached to a Ch3 group. A thing I find cool about mercury is its ability to switch between a 0, 1 plus, or 2 plus oxidative states, each giving different properties. 2 plus allows the mercury to participate in organic compound formation. That is exactly what it is doing here!  To the left, it is bound by a sulfur, then connected to an entire aromatic benzene derivative. On the right of the mercury, we have an ethyl group. This does not look like the toxic state of mercury at all! Since thimerosal was believed to cause autism, but now it is proven that it doesn't, vaccines do not cause autism. The other toxic stuff is not in a high enough dose to kill anyone, unless severely alergic. 


    @Pogue All the aluminum, mercury, and formaldehyde are not in a high enough dose to kill you.

    The vaccines themselves may not be enough to cause autism, infertility, and death, but you are forgetting the "extra" that you guys give us in Chem-Trails, in our water like in Flint Michigan, in the processed foods we buy in grocery stores, .. these are all calculated in every city. If the city gets less poisons in their water/food, then they do heavier chem trailing in that area.

    Why do you think we have to fill out a questionnaire on none related illnesses when we go in to the doctor, especially to the hospital for something as simple as a cut in our fingers? All this info goes on our record in the computer, which is then geographically analyzed, and automatically transferred to the chem-trailing planes to which areas need more coverage.

    Please stop your hand waving with your; .. What "Population Reduction" agenda? Autism is genetic Evidence, didn't you know that? What else are you going to tell me, that how It started millions and billions of years ago in my rat ancestors, because of their filthy lifestyle!
    Yeah, .. as if "We your righteous government are just trying to protect you, that's all! You just haste science!"
    PogueEmeryPearson
  • PoguePogue 492 Pts
    Evidence said:
    Pogue said:
    Evidence said:
    Pogue said:
    Vaccines don't cause autism!


    No, they don't. It's the poison in the vaccines that cause autism.
    In the sinful lifestyle's that we live, we need certain vaccines. Like what would we do without antibiotics? But we are also aware of the "Population Reduction" agenda, it is there that the poisons are introduced and cause anywhere from autism and other debilitating problems, to even death.
    What poison? The poison that has saved countless lives, eliminated diseases? What "Population Reduction" agenda? Autism is genetic.  All the aluminum, mercury, and formaldehyde are not in a high enough dose to kill you. Your body produces those chemicals. The thimerosal in vaccines, is one thing, gone. There is no correlation or causation between autism and thimerosal. Now, this is thimerosal. 

    On the right, there is the mercury atom (Hg). By itself, it can cause a lot of damage. It is primarily toxic in its methylmercury form. That is mercury attached to a Ch3 group. A thing I find cool about mercury is its ability to switch between a 0, 1 plus, or 2 plus oxidative states, each giving different properties. 2 plus allows the mercury to participate in organic compound formation. That is exactly what it is doing here!  To the left, it is bound by a sulfur, then connected to an entire aromatic benzene derivative. On the right of the mercury, we have an ethyl group. This does not look like the toxic state of mercury at all! Since thimerosal was believed to cause autism, but now it is proven that it doesn't, vaccines do not cause autism. The other toxic stuff is not in a high enough dose to kill anyone, unless severely alergic. 


    @Pogue All the aluminum, mercury, and formaldehyde are not in a high enough dose to kill you.

    The vaccines themselves may not be enough to cause autism, infertility, and death, but you are forgetting the "extra" that you guys give us in Chem-Trails, in our water like in Flint Michigan, in the processed foods we buy in grocery stores, .. these are all calculated in every city. If the city gets less poisons in their water/food, then they do heavier chem trailing in that area.

    Why do you think we have to fill out a questionnaire on none related illnesses when we go in to the doctor, especially to the hospital for something as simple as a cut in our fingers? All this info goes on our record in the computer, which is then geographically analyzed, and automatically transferred to the chem-trailing planes to which areas need more coverage.

    Please stop your hand waving with your; .. What "Population Reduction" agenda? Autism is genetic Evidence, didn't you know that? What else are you going to tell me, that how It started millions and billions of years ago in my rat ancestors, because of their filthy lifestyle!
    Yeah, .. as if "We your righteous government are just trying to protect you, that's all! You just haste science!"
    Evidence to support that? Chem-trails do not exist! They are actually con-trails; a trail of condensed water from an aircraft or rocket at high altitude, seen as a white streak against the sky.
    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • Evidence said:

    No, they don't. It's the poison in the vaccines that cause autism.
    In the sinful lifestyle's that we live, we need certain vaccines. Like what would we do without antibiotics? But we are also aware of the "Population Reduction" agenda, it is there that the poisons are introduced and cause anywhere from autism and other debilitating problems, to even death.
    Alright, a lot of questions for you.

    What poisons are in vaccines that cause autism?

    How does a “sinful lifestyle” cause viral outbreaks?

    Explain this “‘Population Reduction’ agenda. Who is implementing it? Where’s your evidence that it’s been implemented? What poisons are they introducing? What evidence to you have that those “poisons” cause these harms?
    @whiteflame ; - What poisons are in vaccines that cause autism?

    Are you trying to investigate me if I'm a chemist or not, to tell you exactly what chemicals, what doses etc. are used in each country, state, city, hospital and clinic?

    Let's say you go to a restaurant and after eating, on the way home you start getting sicker and sicker. After being bedridden for three days, you go back to the Restaurant to complain. The Manager asks you: "What poisons do you think was in your food that you think got you sick?" Do you have any evidence from a chemist, the breakdown of the poisons, the amounts?" etc. Or are you just trying to ruin the reputation of this establishment?

    How does a “sinful lifestyle” cause viral outbreaks?

    Promiscuous lifestyle causes V.D. which can cause blindness. But of course the blindness could be hereditary also.  Homosexual anal-sex causes AIDS, but of course Gays can go sleep around with straight girls and give them AIDS, where now any sex can cause AIDS.

    Just like a man walks in an Abortion Clinic and shoots the nurse and the doctor. He claims "God told him to do it". Thus, God is bad, abortion is OK.
    Every disease on earth is because of sin, because of a sinful lifestyle where now even the righteous are infected. And now of course because both the wicked and the righteous suffer from disease, .. it can't be the result of sin.

    Explain this “‘Population Reduction’ agenda.

    https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

    Read it yourself.

    whiteflame - Who is implementing it?

    The exact same ZioNazi organization that did this:



    The plan, the process, the exterminations have never stopped since, actually with this new "You Have Cancer" initiative/agenda, they kill more people, and especially "torture" more people and a lot longer than they ever dreamed possible. Today, a sub-human (anyone not of the superior race) can be tortured for up to 7 years, especially the children



    (CLUE at time 1:20)

    whiteflame - Where’s your evidence that it’s been implemented?



    I just give you this one, but there is even better, a lot better evidences out there, but I found that they get pulled off from the public if it gets too many views. So check it out for yourself!

    whiteflame - What poisons are they introducing? What evidence to you have that those “poisons” cause these harms?


    PogueBaconToesEmeryPearson
  • Evidence said:

    @Pogue All the aluminum, mercury, and formaldehyde are not in a high enough dose to kill you.

    The vaccines themselves may not be enough to cause autism, infertility, and death, but you are forgetting the "extra" that you guys give us in Chem-Trails, in our water like in Flint Michigan, in the processed foods we buy in grocery stores, .. these are all calculated in every city. If the city gets less poisons in their water/food, then they do heavier chem trailing in that area.

    Why do you think we have to fill out a questionnaire on none related illnesses when we go in to the doctor, especially to the hospital for something as simple as a cut in our fingers? All this info goes on our record in the computer, which is then geographically analyzed, and automatically transferred to the chem-trailing planes to which areas need more coverage.

    Please stop your hand waving with your; .. What "Population Reduction" agenda? Autism is genetic Evidence, didn't you know that? What else are you going to tell me, that how It started millions and billions of years ago in my rat ancestors, because of their filthy lifestyle!
    Yeah, .. as if "We your righteous government are just trying to protect you, that's all! You just haste science!"
    You know, for someone whose name is "Evidence", you're quick to throw around bare assertions.

    But let's leave aside the complete lack of support for your argument for just a second and focus on the substance.

    From the start, you basically concede the point that the "poisons" you point to in vaccines are not of sufficient quantity to cause the very conditions that you asserted were caused by vaccines. You say "may not," but since you're not responding to the support that Pogue is providing, it seems as though you're conceding his point.

    Looking at the rest of your point, it's honestly difficult to see how you're doing yourself any favors. Let's assume "Chem-Trails... water... processed foods" are responsible for poisoning us in some way, and that that is additive to the amount coming from vaccines. If that's the case, then why are you concerned about vaccines? These are things we're exposed to on a daily basis, in large amounts. A vaccine is a drop in the bucket by comparison, so how can vaccines be causative for "autism, infertility, and death"? If I believe you, then these are the causes, and vaccines are just a sideshow.
    PogueEmeryPearson
  • Evidence said:
    Alright, clearly I was wrong to take you seriously. It seems as though your position is to basically believe a great deal of conspiracy theories based on extremely tenuous support (which appears to be mostly other people making their own assertions without evidence), and to generally turn away from the central question (which is whether or not vaccines cause autism) and focus instead on the theories you support. You have an agenda, and you'll parlay that agenda to anyone who challenges your position. Well, if that's the case, I feel no need to respond to this. You'll probably dismiss any actual evidence I present you with anyway.
    PogueBaconToesEmeryPearson
  • Evidence said:

    @Pogue All the aluminum, mercury, and formaldehyde are not in a high enough dose to kill you.

    The vaccines themselves may not be enough to cause autism, infertility, and death, but you are forgetting the "extra" that you guys give us in Chem-Trails, in our water like in Flint Michigan, in the processed foods we buy in grocery stores, .. these are all calculated in every city. If the city gets less poisons in their water/food, then they do heavier chem trailing in that area.

    Why do you think we have to fill out a questionnaire on none related illnesses when we go in to the doctor, especially to the hospital for something as simple as a cut in our fingers? All this info goes on our record in the computer, which is then geographically analyzed, and automatically transferred to the chem-trailing planes to which areas need more coverage.

    Please stop your hand waving with your; .. What "Population Reduction" agenda? Autism is genetic Evidence, didn't you know that? What else are you going to tell me, that how It started millions and billions of years ago in my rat ancestors, because of their filthy lifestyle!
    Yeah, .. as if "We your righteous government are just trying to protect you, that's all! You just haste science!"
    You know, for someone whose name is "Evidence", you're quick to throw around bare assertions.

    But let's leave aside the complete lack of support for your argument for just a second and focus on the substance.

    From the start, you basically concede the point that the "poisons" you point to in vaccines are not of sufficient quantity to cause the very conditions that you asserted were caused by vaccines. You say "may not," but since you're not responding to the support that Pogue is providing, it seems as though you're conceding his point.

    Looking at the rest of your point, it's honestly difficult to see how you're doing yourself any favors. Let's assume "Chem-Trails... water... processed foods" are responsible for poisoning us in some way, and that that is additive to the amount coming from vaccines. If that's the case, then why are you concerned about vaccines? These are things we're exposed to on a daily basis, in large amounts. A vaccine is a drop in the bucket by comparison, so how can vaccines be causative for "autism, infertility, and death"? If I believe you, then these are the causes, and vaccines are just a sideshow.

    @whiteflame You know, for someone whose name is "Evidence", you're quick to throw around bare assertions.

    Bare assertions would not cause TPTB to hunt me. So it's not just that I think I know the truth, but obviously they do too.


    whiteflame - But let's leave aside the complete lack of support for your argument for just a second and focus on the substance.
    From the start, you basically concede the point that the "poisons" you point to in vaccines are not of sufficient quantity to cause the very conditions that you asserted were caused by vaccines. You say "may not," but since you're not responding to the support that Pogue is providing, it seems as though you're conceding his point.

    Look, we both know it's not as black & white as you wish to make it out to be. Like in the C. Camps, sometimes the "showers" were actually showers.

    whiteflame - Looking at the rest of your point, it's honestly difficult to see how you're doing yourself any favors. Let's assume "Chem-Trails... water... processed foods" are responsible for poisoning us in some way, and that that is additive to the amount coming from vaccines. If that's the case, then why are you concerned about vaccines? These are things we're exposed to on a daily basis, in large amounts. A vaccine is a drop in the bucket by comparison, so how can vaccines be causative for "autism, infertility, and death"? If I believe you, then these are the causes, and vaccines are just a sideshow.

    Oh no, it's the other way around, it is the vaccine that is a critical dose, I'm sure you know that.
    If you survived the vaccines, all you need from then on is a small dose in the right amount within the Chem trails, or food to achieve any of the multitudes of diseases they set us up for, and now pick and choose which to debilitate us by.

    Just like MK-ULTRA traumas, once you survived that, all you need is a small command to set you off.
    I mean this is so obvious for those of us "who see" (lol, just like in the movie They Live: "We got one who can see!"), only they are smart, .. of course. All they had to do is create a small, but significant diversion so we would not see it. They gave us sheeple hundreds of channels, and now smart phones to keep us docile. This also helps to keep "An-Eye" on us, recording everything we say, who we said it to, what interests us most, our likes and dislikes, .. I mean it's a perfect plan, they are ahead of us by miles knowing where we're going, what we think, ..

    Like that movie "Minority Report", .. sci-fi fantasy my foot! From what I can tell, they have actually achieved it. Maybe not to the movies extent, but pretty darn close.
    PogueEmeryPearson
  • PoguePogue 492 Pts
    @Evidence
    Vaccines do not have a high enough dose to kill you! This is known science. If you think it does, which you are not clear about because you have many contradicting claims, then how come our bodies do not kill us. They produce the poisons (which you have not provided), in a much higher dose. I have a question. If they were trying to kill us, why have people been living longer and diseases are getting eliminated because of vaccines? Seems counter-intuitive. 
    You also have not countered my thimerosal argument. Also, your arguments seem to just be a bunch of words put together that are not related. you bring points in that are unrelated 

    Unrelated: Why did you mark my chem-trail argument as a fallacy? 
    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 492 Pts
    Evidence said:
    Evidence said:

    @Pogue All the aluminum, mercury, and formaldehyde are not in a high enough dose to kill you.

    The vaccines themselves may not be enough to cause autism, infertility, and death, but you are forgetting the "extra" that you guys give us in Chem-Trails, in our water like in Flint Michigan, in the processed foods we buy in grocery stores, .. these are all calculated in every city. If the city gets less poisons in their water/food, then they do heavier chem trailing in that area.

    Why do you think we have to fill out a questionnaire on none related illnesses when we go in to the doctor, especially to the hospital for something as simple as a cut in our fingers? All this info goes on our record in the computer, which is then geographically analyzed, and automatically transferred to the chem-trailing planes to which areas need more coverage.

    Please stop your hand waving with your; .. What "Population Reduction" agenda? Autism is genetic Evidence, didn't you know that? What else are you going to tell me, that how It started millions and billions of years ago in my rat ancestors, because of their filthy lifestyle!
    Yeah, .. as if "We your righteous government are just trying to protect you, that's all! You just haste science!"
    You know, for someone whose name is "Evidence", you're quick to throw around bare assertions.

    But let's leave aside the complete lack of support for your argument for just a second and focus on the substance.

    From the start, you basically concede the point that the "poisons" you point to in vaccines are not of sufficient quantity to cause the very conditions that you asserted were caused by vaccines. You say "may not," but since you're not responding to the support that Pogue is providing, it seems as though you're conceding his point.

    Looking at the rest of your point, it's honestly difficult to see how you're doing yourself any favors. Let's assume "Chem-Trails... water... processed foods" are responsible for poisoning us in some way, and that that is additive to the amount coming from vaccines. If that's the case, then why are you concerned about vaccines? These are things we're exposed to on a daily basis, in large amounts. A vaccine is a drop in the bucket by comparison, so how can vaccines be causative for "autism, infertility, and death"? If I believe you, then these are the causes, and vaccines are just a sideshow.

    @whiteflame You know, for someone whose name is "Evidence", you're quick to throw around bare assertions.

    Bare assertions would not cause TPTB to hunt me. So it's not just that I think I know the truth, but obviously they do too.


    whiteflame - But let's leave aside the complete lack of support for your argument for just a second and focus on the substance.
    From the start, you basically concede the point that the "poisons" you point to in vaccines are not of sufficient quantity to cause the very conditions that you asserted were caused by vaccines. You say "may not," but since you're not responding to the support that Pogue is providing, it seems as though you're conceding his point.

    Look, we both know it's not as black & white as you wish to make it out to be. Like in the C. Camps, sometimes the "showers" were actually showers.

    whiteflame - Looking at the rest of your point, it's honestly difficult to see how you're doing yourself any favors. Let's assume "Chem-Trails... water... processed foods" are responsible for poisoning us in some way, and that that is additive to the amount coming from vaccines. If that's the case, then why are you concerned about vaccines? These are things we're exposed to on a daily basis, in large amounts. A vaccine is a drop in the bucket by comparison, so how can vaccines be causative for "autism, infertility, and death"? If I believe you, then these are the causes, and vaccines are just a sideshow.

    Oh no, it's the other way around, it is the vaccine that is a critical dose, I'm sure you know that.
    If you survived the vaccines, all you need from then on is a small dose in the right amount within the Chem trails, or food to achieve any of the multitudes of diseases they set us up for, and now pick and choose which to debilitate us by.

    Just like MK-ULTRA traumas, once you survived that, all you need is a small command to set you off.
    I mean this is so obvious for those of us "who see" (lol, just like in the movie They Live: "We got one who can see!"), only they are smart, .. of course. All they had to do is create a small, but significant diversion so we would not see it. They gave us sheeple hundreds of channels, and now smart phones to keep us docile. This also helps to keep "An-Eye" on us, recording everything we say, who we said it to, what interests us most, our likes and dislikes, .. I mean it's a perfect plan, they are ahead of us by miles knowing where we're going, what we think, ..

    Like that movie "Minority Report", .. sci-fi fantasy my foot! From what I can tell, they have actually achieved it. Maybe not to the movies extent, but pretty darn close.
    Barely anyone dies from vaccines. It is only if your immune system is really weak and/or severely allergic to the stuff in vaccines. 
    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • Pogue said:
    Evidence said:
    Evidence said:

    @Pogue All the aluminum, mercury, and formaldehyde are not in a high enough dose to kill you.

    The vaccines themselves may not be enough to cause autism, infertility, and death, but you are forgetting the "extra" that you guys give us in Chem-Trails, in our water like in Flint Michigan, in the processed foods we buy in grocery stores, .. these are all calculated in every city. If the city gets less poisons in their water/food, then they do heavier chem trailing in that area.

    Why do you think we have to fill out a questionnaire on none related illnesses when we go in to the doctor, especially to the hospital for something as simple as a cut in our fingers? All this info goes on our record in the computer, which is then geographically analyzed, and automatically transferred to the chem-trailing planes to which areas need more coverage.

    Please stop your hand waving with your; .. What "Population Reduction" agenda? Autism is genetic Evidence, didn't you know that? What else are you going to tell me, that how It started millions and billions of years ago in my rat ancestors, because of their filthy lifestyle!
    Yeah, .. as if "We your righteous government are just trying to protect you, that's all! You just haste science!"
    You know, for someone whose name is "Evidence", you're quick to throw around bare assertions.

    But let's leave aside the complete lack of support for your argument for just a second and focus on the substance.

    From the start, you basically concede the point that the "poisons" you point to in vaccines are not of sufficient quantity to cause the very conditions that you asserted were caused by vaccines. You say "may not," but since you're not responding to the support that Pogue is providing, it seems as though you're conceding his point.

    Looking at the rest of your point, it's honestly difficult to see how you're doing yourself any favors. Let's assume "Chem-Trails... water... processed foods" are responsible for poisoning us in some way, and that that is additive to the amount coming from vaccines. If that's the case, then why are you concerned about vaccines? These are things we're exposed to on a daily basis, in large amounts. A vaccine is a drop in the bucket by comparison, so how can vaccines be causative for "autism, infertility, and death"? If I believe you, then these are the causes, and vaccines are just a sideshow.

    @whiteflame You know, for someone whose name is "Evidence", you're quick to throw around bare assertions.

    Bare assertions would not cause TPTB to hunt me. So it's not just that I think I know the truth, but obviously they do too.


    whiteflame - But let's leave aside the complete lack of support for your argument for just a second and focus on the substance.
    From the start, you basically concede the point that the "poisons" you point to in vaccines are not of sufficient quantity to cause the very conditions that you asserted were caused by vaccines. You say "may not," but since you're not responding to the support that Pogue is providing, it seems as though you're conceding his point.

    Look, we both know it's not as black & white as you wish to make it out to be. Like in the C. Camps, sometimes the "showers" were actually showers.

    whiteflame - Looking at the rest of your point, it's honestly difficult to see how you're doing yourself any favors. Let's assume "Chem-Trails... water... processed foods" are responsible for poisoning us in some way, and that that is additive to the amount coming from vaccines. If that's the case, then why are you concerned about vaccines? These are things we're exposed to on a daily basis, in large amounts. A vaccine is a drop in the bucket by comparison, so how can vaccines be causative for "autism, infertility, and death"? If I believe you, then these are the causes, and vaccines are just a sideshow.

    Oh no, it's the other way around, it is the vaccine that is a critical dose, I'm sure you know that.
    If you survived the vaccines, all you need from then on is a small dose in the right amount within the Chem trails, or food to achieve any of the multitudes of diseases they set us up for, and now pick and choose which to debilitate us by.

    Just like MK-ULTRA traumas, once you survived that, all you need is a small command to set you off.
    I mean this is so obvious for those of us "who see" (lol, just like in the movie They Live: "We got one who can see!"), only they are smart, .. of course. All they had to do is create a small, but significant diversion so we would not see it. They gave us sheeple hundreds of channels, and now smart phones to keep us docile. This also helps to keep "An-Eye" on us, recording everything we say, who we said it to, what interests us most, our likes and dislikes, .. I mean it's a perfect plan, they are ahead of us by miles knowing where we're going, what we think, ..

    Like that movie "Minority Report", .. sci-fi fantasy my foot! From what I can tell, they have actually achieved it. Maybe not to the movies extent, but pretty darn close.
    Barely anyone dies from vaccines. It is only if your immune system is really weak and/or severely allergic to the stuff in vaccines. 

    Barely anyone dies from vaccines? By what standards?
    Like saying: "No one gets sick from the poisons in the water in Detroit (and surrounding towns like Flint), unless, .. _____ whatever excuse you want to put here _____.

    Or watching both the 6 and the 10 o'clock News in Detroit, including the Paper (I grew up in Detroit, that's why I keep mentioning it) for a month and you notice a huge reduction in crimes. This is what the public sees, yet working in Detroit in my younger days doing plastic covers for furniture, I would witness some terrible crimes, yet never mentioned on TV or in the Paper.
    Same with the deaths caused by the poison in the water, .. or people who died from Chemo, and Radiation treatments who NEVER had Cancer!
    Or elderly who go into the hospitals for a cold, or other non-life threatening problems, and three days later die (mostly those who have no immediate family contacts, and are collecting Social Security) and this has been going on since the creation of UN/NASA.

    Or, you could say that chem-trailing never killed anyone, .. directly, .. because the whole idea of Chem-trails is to get us sub-human animals of the ape family to the doctors and then into the Hospitals, .. it is there that they put us down, which of course will not be recorded, or made News of.
    ErfisflatPogueEmeryPearson
  • EvidenceEvidence 444 Pts
    Pogue said:
    @Evidence
    Vaccines do not have a high enough dose to kill you! This is known science. If you think it does, which you are not clear about because you have many contradicting claims, then how come our bodies do not kill us. They produce the poisons (which you have not provided), in a much higher dose. I have a question. If they were trying to kill us, why have people been living longer and diseases are getting eliminated because of vaccines? Seems counter-intuitive. 
    You also have not countered my thimerosal argument. Also, your arguments seem to just be a bunch of words put together that are not related. you bring points in that are unrelated 

    Unrelated: Why did you mark my chem-trail argument as a fallacy? 

    @Pogue said: Vaccines do not have a high enough dose to kill you! This is known science.

    Yeah, and drinking fresh water never killed anyone either, and that too is known science. Yet we read of some brave investigative reporter shown how entire villages in Africa have been poisoned by drinking that fresh water.

    Have you noticed that my third video I posted in that above response to @Whiteflame was removed!? Why?
    Because THEY don't want anyone start believing in us "Conspiracy Therorists". 
    EmeryPearson
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch