Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mothra said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

If you truly believe Vaccines are bad for you then he is the guy for the job. If you believe that vaccines are saving millions of lives it seems like an unnecessary gamble to put in a guy that changes his position on vaccines depending on his audience to be in charge

---

He doesn't believe vaccines are bad for you. He believes that some vaccines are bad for some people, and that the vaccine schedule for children is absurd.

---

If you think the vaccine schedule for children is absurd you should see the schedule of deaths without them. Just because you lost the lottery doesn't mean the rest of us want our children to die because you are scared

---

I would venture to say I know a damn sight more than you do about it, but why don't you enlighten us with statistics. If you were born pre-1986, you had around 4-6 vaccines total. Now it's around 70 jabs.

Tell us what the mortality rate for children was both before and after 1986 for the diseases kids are being vaccinated for today?

---

Such BS

---

Proving you a fool is so easy...

---

Yet you have no response to the videos I posted from various experts that state children can easily handle all the vaccines recommended and I am supposed to believe you Dr. Google. Just stop with your nonsense. Just admit you are clueless.

---

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15287394.2011.573736?scroll=top&needAccess=true

---

This article was vigorously debunked when it came out. It was written by a non-scientist, and among other flaws it fails to distinguish between autism and speech or language impairments.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-propaganda-in-baltimore-sun/

---

It's interesting you posted an article that acknowledged vaccines may contribute to autism in vulnerable populations, which is essentially what I and others (and the article on the NIH website) stated. This, from your article:

"[T]here's still a bit of room for reasonable doubt about whether there is no link between vaccines and autism in "susceptible" populations...."

While it's hilarious the way that's worded - as if the author is attempting to hedge a bit just in case his "all vax all the time" friends have a problem with what is a clear statement of fact - his is indeed correct, as I've been saying for the past several years.

Look, if you want to turn your kids into pin cushions under the current vaccine schedule (as you admittedly have), feel free. But don't force the rest of us to go along with the dog and pony show.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mothra said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

If you truly believe Vaccines are bad for you then he is the guy for the job. If you believe that vaccines are saving millions of lives it seems like an unnecessary gamble to put in a guy that changes his position on vaccines depending on his audience to be in charge

---

He doesn't believe vaccines are bad for you. He believes that some vaccines are bad for some people, and that the vaccine schedule for children is absurd.

---

If you think the vaccine schedule for children is absurd you should see the schedule of deaths without them. Just because you lost the lottery doesn't mean the rest of us want our children to die because you are scared

---

I would venture to say I know a damn sight more than you do about it, but why don't you enlighten us with statistics. If you were born pre-1986, you had around 4-6 vaccines total. Now it's around 70 jabs.

Tell us what the mortality rate for children was both before and after 1986 for the diseases kids are being vaccinated for today?

---

Such BS

---

Proving you a fool is so easy...

---

Yet you have no response to the videos I posted from various experts that state children can easily handle all the vaccines recommended and I am supposed to believe you Dr. Google. Just stop with your nonsense. Just admit you are clueless.

---

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15287394.2011.573736?scroll=top&needAccess=true

---

This article was vigorously debunked when it came out. It was written by a non-scientist, and among other flaws it fails to distinguish between autism and speech or language impairments.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-propaganda-in-baltimore-sun/

---

It's interesting you posted an article that acknowledged vaccines may contribute to autism in vulnerable populations, which is essentially what I and others (and the article on the NIH website) stated. This, from your article:

"[T]here's still a bit of room for reasonable doubt about whether there is no link between vaccines and autism in "susceptible" populations...."

While it's hilarious the way that's worded - as if the author is attempting to hedge a bit just in case his "all vax all the time" friends have a problem with what is a clear statement of fact - his is indeed correct, as I've been saying for the past several years.

Look, if you want to turn your kids into pin cushions under the current vaccine schedule (as you admittedly have), feel free. But don't force the rest of us to go along with the dog and pony show.

---

Here is the quote in context:

Quote:

---

The hypothesis that vaccines cause autism has been about as thoroughly falsified through research as any health hypothesis can be. Even if, by bending over backward into a back-breaking contortionist pose to be "open-minded", some people will concede that there's still a bit of room for reasonable doubt about whether there is no link between vaccines and autism in "susceptible" populations, there is no room for reasonable doubt left over whether vaccines caused the so-called "autism-epidemic" of the last two decades. They did not. Similarly, the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal, which used to be in several childhood vaccines until the end of 2001, when thimerosal was removed from all but some flu vaccines, has been about as cleared of being a cause of autism as it is possible for a substance to be.

---

So if you're willing to go through sufficient mental contortions it might be possible to convince yourself that there's a scrap of evidence for a link in extremely rare cases. But the idea of any link to an "autism epidemic" is clearly and unequivocally wrong.

My point was specifically about the study you posted, though. As you can see, it fails to support its claims.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mothra said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

If you truly believe Vaccines are bad for you then he is the guy for the job. If you believe that vaccines are saving millions of lives it seems like an unnecessary gamble to put in a guy that changes his position on vaccines depending on his audience to be in charge

---

He doesn't believe vaccines are bad for you. He believes that some vaccines are bad for some people, and that the vaccine schedule for children is absurd.

---

If you think the vaccine schedule for children is absurd you should see the schedule of deaths without them. Just because you lost the lottery doesn't mean the rest of us want our children to die because you are scared

---

I would venture to say I know a damn sight more than you do about it, but why don't you enlighten us with statistics. If you were born pre-1986, you had around 4-6 vaccines total. Now it's around 70 jabs.

Tell us what the mortality rate for children was both before and after 1986 for the diseases kids are being vaccinated for today?

---

Such BS

---

Proving you a fool is so easy...

---

Yet you have no response to the videos I posted from various experts that state children can easily handle all the vaccines recommended and I am supposed to believe you Dr. Google. Just stop with your nonsense. Just admit you are clueless.

---

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15287394.2011.573736?scroll=top&needAccess=true

---

This article was vigorously debunked when it came out. It was written by a non-scientist, and among other flaws it fails to distinguish between autism and speech or language impairments.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-propaganda-in-baltimore-sun/

---

It's interesting you posted an article that acknowledged vaccines may contribute to autism in vulnerable populations, which is essentially what I and others (and the article on the NIH website) stated. This, from your article:

"[T]here's still a bit of room for reasonable doubt about whether there is no link between vaccines and autism in "susceptible" populations...."

While it's hilarious the way that's worded - as if the author is attempting to hedge a bit just in case his "all vax all the time" friends have a problem with what is a clear statement of fact - his is indeed correct, as I've been saying for the past several years.

Look, if you want to turn your kids into pin cushions under the current vaccine schedule (as you admittedly have), feel free. But don't force the rest of us to go along with the dog and pony show.

---

Here is the quote in context:

Quote:

---

The hypothesis that vaccines cause autism has been about as thoroughly falsified through research as any health hypothesis can be. Even if, by bending over backward into a back-breaking contortionist pose to be "open-minded", some people will concede that there's still a bit of room for reasonable doubt about whether there is no link between vaccines and autism in "susceptible" populations, there is no room for reasonable doubt left over whether vaccines caused the so-called "autism-epidemic" of the last two decades. They did not. Similarly, the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal, which used to be in several childhood vaccines until the end of 2001, when thimerosal was removed from all but some flu vaccines, has been about as cleared of being a cause of autism as it is possible for a substance to be.

---

So if you're willing to go through sufficient mental contortions it might be possible to convince yourself that there's a scrap of evidence for a link in extremely rare cases. But the idea of any link to an "autism epidemic" is clearly and unequivocally wrong.

My point was specifically about the study you posted, though. As you can see, it fails to support its claims.

---

Straw man. I never said or suggested (nor did the study I posted suggest) that there is a definitive link between vaccines and the "autism epidemic." I merely pointed out that your own article says it's a possibility that vaccines could contribute to autism in vulnerable populations.

So let's try to stay on topic.