• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vaccines may cause autism

You're aware your own body makes formaldehyde, right?

Also, apples, onions, meat, etc contain formaldehyde as well.

You could bother to learn what these words actually mean, you know.

You could also bother to learn about the West's history with asylums, which is where we used to lock up autistics like animals. They didn't suddenly appear. We just stopped throwing them in jail cells for life.

The amount of formalin in immunizations is miniscule compared to the following naturally occurring formaldehyde

Foods Known to Contain Naturally Occurring Formaldehyde
I. Fruits & Vegetables
Food type
Level (mg/kg)
Apple
6.3 – 22.3
Apricot
9.5
Banana
16.3
Beetroot
35
Bulb vegetables (e.g. onion)
11.0
Cabbage
5.3
Carrot
6.7 – 10
Cauliflower
26.9
Cucumber
2.3 – 3.7
Grape
22.4
Green Onion
13.3 – 26.3
Kohlrabi
31
Pear
38.7 – 60
Plum
11.2
Potato
19.5
Spinach
3.3 – 7.3
Tomato
5.7 – 13.3
Water-melon
9.2
White Radish
3.7 – 4.4
Shiitake mushroom (dried)
100 – 406
Shiitake mushroom (raw)
6 – 54.4
II. Meat and meat products
Food type
Level (mg/kg)
Beef
4.6
Pig
5.8 – 20
Sheep
8
Poultry
2.5 – 5.7
Processed meat products
(including ham and sausages)
≤ 20.7
Liver paste
≤ 11.9
2
Foods Known to Contain Naturally Occurring Formaldehyde (Continued)
III. Dairy products
Food type
Level (mg/kg)
Goat’s Milk
1
Cow’s Milk
≤ 3.3
Cheese
≤ 3.3
IV. Seafood
Food type
Level (mg/kg)
Cod
4.6 – 34
Shrimp (raw)
1 – 2.4
Squid
1.8
Fish ball
6.8
Crustacean
1 – 98
Bombay-duck
≤ 140
Formaldehyde was also reported in studies to develop after death in marine fish and crustaceans and accumulate during the frozen storage of some fish species. Its levels can be as high as 400 mg/kg in Bombay-duck after cold storage.
V. Others
Food type
Level (mg/kg)
Alcoholic beverage
0.02 – 3.8
Soft drinks
8.7
Brewed coffee
3.4 – 4.5
Instant coffee
10 – 16
Syrup
<1 – 1.54
Sources: From World Health Organization and others.
 
Guess Andrew Wakefield's revocation of his medical license, removal from the UK medical board and abject humiliation by the entire medical community has been lost on some.


Well it certainly wasn't lost on Dr/Professor John Walker-Smith, who also lost his license since he was the co-author of the retracted Lancet paper, but the difference was that he was exonerated.

Co-Author of Lancet MMR-Autism Study Exonerated on All Charges of Professional Misconduct - Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law & Advocacy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u55MNglDkos

The above article refers to this court case:
Walker-Smith v General Medical Council [2012] EWHC 503 (Admin) (07 March 2012)

If the treatment of John Walker-Smith was a travesty of justice, why wasn't the treatment of Dr. Wakefield also travesty of justice?

I note that Walker-Smith's insurance paid for his appeal, but Wakefield's insurance would not. If Wakefield is the boogeyman everyone says he is, it would seem to me that he would just disappear, fade into hiding, but there he is, giving lectures, telling his side of the story to anyone who will listen, he doesn't back down, he'll face you who accuse him. But the thing is, you won't listen, none of you who are so quick to jump on the Wakefield-is-a-fraud bandwagon, you just assume the medical establishment's version is the only side to this story.

It isn't.
 


The logic in the video used only works if vaccine, in truth, actually work. It's pretty clear that in the case of measles, vaccines do work. But, in other diseases, it's not so clear cut. There is no evidence flu vaccines work for the elderly, for example.
 
The amount of formalin in immunizations is miniscule compared to the following naturally occurring formaldehyde

Foods Known to Contain Naturally Occurring Formaldehyde
I. Fruits & Vegetables
Food type
Level (mg/kg)
Apple
6.3 – 22.3
Apricot
9.5
Banana
16.3
Beetroot
35
Bulb vegetables (e.g. onion)
11.0
Cabbage
5.3
Carrot
6.7 – 10
Cauliflower
26.9
Cucumber
2.3 – 3.7
Grape
22.4
Green Onion
13.3 – 26.3
Kohlrabi
31
Pear
38.7 – 60
Plum
11.2
Potato
19.5
Spinach
3.3 – 7.3
Tomato
5.7 – 13.3
Water-melon
9.2
White Radish
3.7 – 4.4
Shiitake mushroom (dried)
100 – 406
Shiitake mushroom (raw)
6 – 54.4
II. Meat and meat products
Food type
Level (mg/kg)
Beef
4.6
Pig
5.8 – 20
Sheep
8
Poultry
2.5 – 5.7
Processed meat products
(including ham and sausages)
≤ 20.7
Liver paste
≤ 11.9
2
Foods Known to Contain Naturally Occurring Formaldehyde (Continued)
III. Dairy products
Food type
Level (mg/kg)
Goat’s Milk
1
Cow’s Milk
≤ 3.3
Cheese
≤ 3.3
IV. Seafood
Food type
Level (mg/kg)
Cod
4.6 – 34
Shrimp (raw)
1 – 2.4
Squid
1.8
Fish ball
6.8
Crustacean
1 – 98
Bombay-duck
≤ 140
Formaldehyde was also reported in studies to develop after death in marine fish and crustaceans and accumulate during the frozen storage of some fish species. Its levels can be as high as 400 mg/kg in Bombay-duck after cold storage.
V. Others
Food type
Level (mg/kg)
Alcoholic beverage
0.02 – 3.8
Soft drinks
8.7
Brewed coffee
3.4 – 4.5
Instant coffee
10 – 16
Syrup
<1 – 1.54
Sources: From World Health Organization and others.


First, I don't trust either WHO or the CDC for corruption. Now then,

You seem to be saying, because of the presence of formaldehyde in these things, and in the body, therefore injecting it into your body is safe.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that formaldehyde in vaccines are your friend.

"The real reason why a molecule is bad for you—it's never about where it comes from."
(E. Coli is in your body, too, but that doesn't mean it's good for you)

Molecular Level Answers: The Real Reason Why Formaldehyde is Toxic--and how to avoid it

and...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2124506/
 
First, I don't trust either WHO or the CDC for corruption. Now then,

You seem to be saying, because of the presence of formaldehyde in these things, and in the body, therefore injecting it into your body is safe.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that formaldehyde in vaccines are your friend.

"The real reason why a molecule is bad for you—it's never about where it comes from."
(E. Coli is in your body, too, but that doesn't mean it's good for you)

Molecular Level Answers: The Real Reason Why Formaldehyde is Toxic--and how to avoid it

and...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2124506/

Ah...one of those, huh? :roll:

Well then, lets not waste each others time.....you already have arrived at a conclusion and are dismissive of "WHO/CDC boogeyman" and have already shown you are unlikely to budge from your government conspiracy mindset, so lets just say its been a slice and ignore each other.

Toodles. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Well it certainly wasn't lost on Dr/Professor John Walker-Smith, who also lost his license since he was the co-author of the retracted Lancet paper, but the difference was that he was exonerated.

Co-Author of Lancet MMR-Autism Study Exonerated on All Charges of Professional Misconduct - Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law & Advocacy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u55MNglDkos

The above article refers to this court case:
Walker-Smith v General Medical Council [2012] EWHC 503 (Admin) (07 March 2012)

If the treatment of John Walker-Smith was a travesty of justice, why wasn't the treatment of Dr. Wakefield also travesty of justice?

I note that Walker-Smith's insurance paid for his appeal, but Wakefield's insurance would not. If Wakefield is the boogeyman everyone says he is, it would seem to me that he would just disappear, fade into hiding, but there he is, giving lectures, telling his side of the story to anyone who will listen, he doesn't back down, he'll face you who accuse him. But the thing is, you won't listen, none of you who are so quick to jump on the Wakefield-is-a-fraud bandwagon, you just assume the medical establishment's version is the only side to this story.

It isn't.

Sorry, but I will agree with a group of medical professionals who have done the research over one doctor who has been exposed as a fraud. As far as I know, Wakefield's article is the only one in history to ever be retracted from The Lancet. In fact, he is not even a doctor anymore. His work was considered so fraudulent that he lost his medical license. That doesn't happen that often, and I would assume never without extreme cause.
 
If true (one study doesn't necessarily prove it) they need to work on finding the genetic mutation to screen for it, because stopping vaccines would be devastating. As we have seen from all the people falling for the lies spread on the internet and the outbreak of nasty, deadly diseases.

Or possibly they can look for other kinds of adjuvants to put in vaccines. Bottom line, vaccines are one of the best, most effective medical breakthroughs of humanity.

No drug or treatment out there works as effectively as vaccines do

Additionally, the amount of aluminum in vaccines is very small, and you can probably ingest more from eating foods
 
That is a very misleading headline. They believe there is a genetic link that keeps these individuals from being able to remove the aluminum. I didn't read anything about if they could have been infected with the aluminum by something other than vaccines. In addition there was nothing about whether the vaccines could be made without the aluminum assuming they find the genetic disposition that causes the accumulation.

That's what these news articles do, they make leaps in what the actually study says, and most people don't even bother to read the study, or have the scientific knowledge to understand it. As a scientist, that infuriates me. Just like they make claims that a new potential treatment might be the cure for cancer, of course exaggerating the reality
 
There is exactly zero evidence of that, apart from allergy or batch issues, both of which happen with all medications, food, or anything else consumable.

What's really ridiculous about this whole thing is that vaccines now are actually pretty dramatically restrained, compared to what they were, say, 70 years ago. It's sort of the same thing that happened with birth control. We started out really gettin' in there with high doses, and over time we realized we didn't need to do that, and the doses came down.

And yet, 70 years ago, when vaccine dosages were far higher and had much weirder things in them, autism diagnoses were much lower! Even to this day, relatively few people of that age ever got diagnosed with autism at any point.

Gee, it's almost like autism has nothing to do with vaccines. It's almost like, even at the much higher doses from 70 years ago, the amount of aluminum you got from vaccines was a fraction of what you intake every day from other sources.

It's almost like this whole debate is... based on absolutely nothing.

Most people have little scientific knowledge, and worse, they don't realize the complexities of all around us. They want to blame vaccines, which is dumb. we eat more processed foods that are high fat, high calorie, we have telecommunications and energy and data all around us with our cellular devices and everything wireless, we have increased toxins in our water and food, women are having kids later in life, increase risks of issues. There are tons of things that have changed, yet people can't wrap their heads around that.

But now we have the internet spreading lies and anecdotal stories and people just believe whatever the hell they want to believe. Friggen internet, humans as usual take what should be a valuable source of information and turn it into a massive wealth of misinformation and lies. We should be smarter and more informed, yet, we are more uninformed than ever
 
I don't need a scientific method to explain to you what I witnessed with my own eyeballs. Meningitis followed by cognitive changes within 4 days of receiving a vaccine series is pretty self-evident. I find your appeal to authority little more than a form of evasion. Not to mention, scientists aren't clinicians. They are going by stats and cohorts. They don't witness the things that doctors do. In fact it's the clinicians whose experiences tend to inform the study topics, but they aren't doing that because the ADR systems are flawed and doctors aren't doing their job on reporting vaccine injuries. They aren't doing so because there is a culture of fear in the medical profession of being the nail that sticks out, especially after the UK vaccine research on autism surfaced. Significant effort was put into successfully burying those investigations. Yes the studies had their flaws but all requests from affected families to reformulating or reproducing the studies was thoroughly ignored and the issued buried, along with implementing a culture of fear about ever bringing it up again.

And as I already said, because autism is on a spectrum it likely has many etiologies, not just one. The gut microbiome and deficient detox pathways are two ways that autism is formed (neuro-deficiency). Some autistic children become high functioning or normal just from doing elimination diets or the SCD diet, for example. Sometimes it's the way babies are born, micro-damage to the brain caused by suction and forceps. There are many potential causes. And of course genetics.

You make it sound like "scientists worldwide" are such a concrete force of reason when really this is a hotly debated topic. There is a wealth of anecdotal data from parents whose children suffered vaccine injuries before immediately (not years, or months, but weeks) developing autistic cognitive changes.

This is why it is difficult to rationally discuss the science about this topic, your one experience is not scientific and its based on emotion. I don't deny what you perceived or why you feel the way you do, but it just isn't scientific and you can' argue with scientific evidence, using subjective experiences. Human recall of experiences is routinely unreliable. Emotion gets involved and the mind can make things up. I'm not saying that happened here, I'm saying it could happen.
 
This is why it is difficult to rationally discuss the science about this topic, your one experience is not scientific and its based on emotion. I don't deny what you perceived or why you feel the way you do, but it just isn't scientific and you can' argue with scientific evidence, using subjective experiences. Human recall of experiences is routinely unreliable. Emotion gets involved and the mind can make things up. I'm not saying that happened here, I'm saying it could happen.

As has already been expounded, it's not my one emotional experience. There are thousands of parents who noticed behavioral changes in their kids following vaccines. It doesn't get reported because doctors believe the "science" (what they are told by drugs companies) more than they believe the parents who know their own children. The so called thimerosol-free vaccines still contain 1mcg mercury. What happened is that the FDA changed the regulations on what qualifies as mercury free. There's also aluminum and other heavy metals in the vaccines. For example the flu vaccine still contains mercury.

If a child has poor detoxing pathways, then the heavy metals will immediately disrupt their methylation cycle. When the body has compromised detoxing, especially phase II, the first cells to be affected will be nerve cells. After the acute poisoning stage, Mercury then lodges in the organs, with particular affinity for the central nervous system.

We have seen similar problems in children who receive mercury fillings in their baby teeth. Behavioral changes start within days to weeks. Under government health care, all low income families receive mercury fillings instead of the composite resin.

I have seen some autistic children recover a lot of their cognitive function by doing heavy metal chelation with agents such as ALA, DMPS and DMSA. This is discussed a lot in the focus groups. Autism is a disease name with many origins. Heavy metals is just one. My son developed meningitis after his vaccine series. Some immune systems don't just get inhibited by the heavy metals, they actively try to fight it, causing central and peripheral nerve damage... as was the case with my son. The doctors blithely searched for infectious causes meanwhile we kept telling them he just had vaccines. Not only did the neurologist literally laugh in our faces, he did not report the ADR. We had to do that ourselves. This is a common story.

It's all fine and well to walk into a conversation, wave your hand, and call something unscientific or emotional, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of connection between vaccine injury and autism, if you'd care to look. Big pharma has turned any researcher who asks honest questions into a pariah. Can't gather the hard science if everyone is too afraid to look. Fortunately, the general public is not bound by such strictures.

It's not even about herd immunity. We already have that for the most part. It's about money, like it always is.

I believe certain genetically susceptible children, like those with a MTHFR, MTR, or MTRR mutation, should either not be given vaccines or they should be given a detox protocol with their vaccination series. However such a protocol can't be developed without the proper acknowledgment and research. The other issue is that 40% of Americans have some variant of MTHFR, which would cause a lot of headaches if we were to custom tailor medicine for all of them. That really is the main problem here... that drugs do not have universal applications. We just think they do because of how we have classified reactions. For example a lot of doctors call a bad reaction an "allergy". An allergy involves the immune system... a histamine reaction. If you're not having a histamine reaction, then it means your body can't metabolize the drug, either due to a mutation in the CYP450 group or a methylation problem like MTHFR.

The fact is, modern pharmacy is a blunt instrument. They take one chemical and expect everyone to handle it. Those who can't just become the "side effect" category. But a side effect is an effect. If you take an entire group of people who are slow metabolizers of CYP3A4, give them caffeine, and they get shaking hands/anxiety, then that is an effect, not a side effect. We can then reliably say that if a slow metabolizer of CYP3A4 takes caffeine, they will have a high likelihood of shaking hands/anxiety.

It's no different than with vaccines. If some subset of the population is prone to CNS effects of vaccines due to genetic mutations, we better figure out what those are and determine eligibility based on that, rather than bury our heads in the sand under the doctrine of herd immunity, which is really just a smoke screen for protecting big pharma's wallet.
 
Last edited:
Ah...one of those, huh? :roll:

Well then, lets not waste each others time.....you already have arrived at a conclusion and are dismissive of "WHO/CDC boogeyman" and have already shown you are unlikely to budge from your government conspiracy mindset, so lets just say its been a slice and ignore each other.

Toodles. :2wave:

Oh, my,how you assume what my point of view is. My motives for posting one way or the other might not be what they seem. I wouldn't be too quick to assume anything in this world of ours, especially from people I do not know on the internet, and I would recommend others to do the same.

Now, on what you just wrote: I could make the very same argument about you, in reverse. Naturally, that idea won't occur to you.

I post to see if there are more compelling arguments than the one I possess, because if that weren't true, why bother with debating?

Anyway, and I'm usually disappointed, but that's neither here nor there. Not that my disappointment
is neither right or wrong, I can only go by my own sensibilities. But, I dont' find "arguments relying on authority" a compelling argument.

I don't find that compelling at all.

I haven't reached any conclusion, though I may be leaning one way, so given that you are so wrong on that point, how many other arguments do you assume you have it right but are actually wrong? You might be wrong a lot more than you realize. Isn't the truth worth seeking?

I'm after the strongest argument, and my view is not to be too quick to assume I have it, and you shouldn't either.
 
As has already been expounded, it's not my one emotional experience. There are thousands of parents who noticed behavioral changes in their kids following vaccines. It doesn't get reported because doctors believe the "science" (what they are told by drugs companies) more than they believe the parents who know their own children. The so called thimerosol-free vaccines still contain 1mcg mercury. What happened is that the FDA changed the regulations on what qualifies as mercury free. There's also aluminum and other heavy metals in the vaccines. For example the flu vaccine still contains mercury.


[...]

yes, and when i argue this, the reaction is that such reactions are "one in million". But, I question that, and i say "are they?" What are the actually safety stats. Studies can be manipulated in subtle ways to skew outcomes. If they were so rare, how come i find severely injured people without having to try very hard? For me to find someone ( outside of googling them ) but to go around the neighborhood and find someone who won the meagamillion lottery, I could spend a life time and not meet that someone. But, I don't have to go too far to find someone injured, severely injured, by a vaccination. This idea that severe injuries from vaccines as being "rare" just doesn't ring true to me. In fact, a friend of mine, her daughter went into anaphylactic shock following and HPV vaxx, and now, a couple of weeks later, she is experiencing seizures.

I really appreciate your comment, it's nice to see someone commenting who has done their homework. I'm going to take a back seat, and let you present this case.

What can't stand is the broad brush the pro-vaxx establishment paints against dissent. The establishment wants people to immediately jump to "loons" "quacks' etc., reaction when anyone challenges the orthodoxy on vaccines. We're seeing things that is being brushed under the carpet, and we are just asking questions. Why is it that we are immediately called names, shamed, etc., isn't that how cults operate? Dare I say that the world of vaccines is a veritable cult? I was member of a cult back in the late 60s, and I think I know a cult when I see one.

Just the very fact they do this, that ought to tell you something is wrong with this picture. I think it would behoove everyone to watch this reporters TED talk on "astroturf". Things just might not be what they seem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU
 
This is why it is difficult to rationally discuss the science about this topic, your one experience is not scientific and its based on emotion. I don't deny what you perceived or why you feel the way you do, but it just isn't scientific and you can' argue with scientific evidence, using subjective experiences. Human recall of experiences is routinely unreliable. Emotion gets involved and the mind can make things up. I'm not saying that happened here, I'm saying it could happen.


My friend's daughter went into anaphylactic shock immediately following a Gardasil vaxx, and a week later she started having seizures, and this was several months ago and she is still having seizures. She never had them before the vaxx.

I know, pro vaxxers are going to say "correlation is not causation".

But that isn't an accurate statement, is it? No, it's not.

A better statement would be "correlation may, or may not be, causation", but it's a good place to start looking for the culprit."

Wouldn't a good detective say that?

But, you'll never hear the pro vaxxers say that, will you? Of course not, and that is precisely why I don't trust anyone in the pro vaxx medical community, because, for them, vaccines are a veritable cult -- i.e., vaccines aren't the problem, they will never be the problem, and there is no way they are going to hurt anyone, ever, vaccines are sacred, never mind the the minor detail that during the clinical trial they spiked the placebo in the placebo controlled group with the same adjuvant that was used in the vaccine administered in vaxxed control group (that way, the vaccine safety record can be claimed to be "no worse than a placebo" eh? ) never mind the minor detail over $3.5 billion has been awarded via the National Child Vaccine Injury Act, not to mention why in tarnation does the act even exist, in the first place.
 
Last edited:
It's the same chemical, dude. It has exactly the same molecular structure whether we made it, or an apple did. There is no difference in how the body processes it. Also "outside sources" includes all the foods we eat every day that naturally have formaldehyde.

You seem to be ignorant of basic chemistry, here.


Your thoughts on the following: ?

Molecular Level Answers: The Real Reason Why Formaldehyde is Toxic--and how to avoid it


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2124506/pdf/487.pdf
 
Ah...one of those, huh? :roll:

Well then, lets not waste each others time.....you already have arrived at a conclusion and are dismissive of "WHO/CDC boogeyman" and have already shown you are unlikely to budge from your government conspiracy mindset, so lets just say its been a slice and ignore each other.

Toodles. :2wave:


Well, there certainly is some dissent within the ranks of the CDC, and I don't pay attention to infowars, but when the Huffington Post, or The Hill, or the more main stream media report it, I take it they checked their sources, so we have this, and the devil is in the details, so I'm inclined
to accept this letter as authentic:

https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CDC_SPIDER_Letter-1.pdf

And I sure as hell wouldn't want to waste your time pointing to court cases that indict the integrity of the makers of vaccines which you are so willing to inject into the bodies of children while knowing that if they made cookies, you wouldn't give those cookies to your kids, but vaccines, well, we inject them directly into the body, so hay no problemo.

List of largest pharmaceutical settlements - Wikipedia

Merck Hit With Antitrust Class Action Over Vaccine Data - Law360

Merck to Pay $950 Million in Vioxx Settlement - WSJ

GlaxoSmithKline to Plead Guilty and Pay $3 Billion to Resolve Fraud Allegations and Failure to Report Safety Data | OPA | Department of Justice


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126053/#ref15
http://www.nvic.org/nvic-archives/conflicts-of-interest.aspx

Not to mention the inconvenient fact that over $3.5 billion has been awarded by the vaccine injury couirt (and why is there a vaccine injury court in the first place? there is no cough syrup injury court? ) But, of course, vaccines are sacred, there is no way they could harm anyone, so lets force kids to get vaccinated, whether the parents want it nor not, and those kids who got the life sucked out of them by vaccines, oh well, them's the breaks, can't win 'em all, eh?

'scuse me if I don't trust the vaccine juggernaut.
 
Last edited:

Well, of course we already know formaldehyde is dangerous over a certain exposure level, or on places on our body that are abnormal and without the ability to clear it -- i.e. the skin or the lungs.

I don't see anything new here.

Addressing vaccines specifically, it is both very low dose and in parts of our body that already deal with low levels of formaldehyde, including that made by our own cells, which is why it's not an issue. I don't see anything new here.

This link also says exactly what I just explained: it's the same molecule no matter where you get it. Vaccine formaldehyde isn't somehow more dangerous by volume than bodily-produced formaldehyde. So if a given level of internal formaldehyde is safe when you make it yourself, or when you intake it from normal food items, then it's also safe when it's from a vaccine. It's the same molecule.
 
Back
Top Bottom