In-office sales is an ethical problem for naturopathic medicine

14th Century Dispensary
A 14th century dispensary is similar to how supplements are sold by licensed naturopaths.

The internet never forgets. On May 31st, Facebook reminded me of an old post I made four years ago asking friends for ideas on merchandising in a “medical” setting. The truth is I was asking for help to create cute and catchy flair for supplements, health gadgets, and detox programs for sale at the naturopathic clinic where I worked.

Your Memories on Facebook screenshot

Most, if not all, naturopaths sell dietary supplements or medications (like thyroid hormones) directly to patients. Many naturopaths also sell “wellness packages” that bundle supplements with several office appointments, lab tests, and therapies such as acupuncture, lymph drainage, and intravenous injections of vitamins and minerals.  Very little, if any, of these products and services are supported by high-quality evidence. Nonetheless, naturopaths make money off these sales, and unlike in any other medical profession, [inlinetweet prefix=”” tweeter=”” suffix=”by @NaturoDiaries”]this sort of profiteering is rampant in the naturopathic community and extremely unethical.[/inlinetweet]


The conventional medical community has been clear on its professional opinion about the in-office sales of medical items: doctors should not sell stuff directly to patients. A 2012 American Medical Association Journal of Ethics paper on this topic states:

In-office sale of health-related products by physicians presents a financial conflict of interest, risks placing undue pressure on the patient, and threatens to erode patient trust and undermine the primary obligation of physicians to serve the interests of their patients before their own.

Furthermore, this AMA Journal of Ethics paper from 2010 states:

Physicians who choose to sell health-related products from their offices should not sell any health-related products whose claims of benefit lack scientific validity. When judging the efficacy of a product, physicians should rely on peer-reviewed literature and other unbiased scientific sources that review evidence in a sound, systematic, and reliable fashion.

Interesting. Naturopaths who chose to follow this guideline would probably have very little to sell!

A 2011 ethics statement from the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) characterizes in-office pharmacies as having no inherent conflict of interest so long as the naturopath adheres to a few guidelines regarding profit, quality assurance, and medical recommendations. In my opinion, these statements does not rectify the conflict of interest that is inherent in all in-office pharmacies settings. The AANP’s position ignores the fact that naturopaths are profiting from the sale of items that have very little evidence, if any, to support their use. It seems that naturopathic professional organizations condone ethically dubious transactions.

Look no further than this post on the AANP website titled, “Using the Four Seasons Profitability,” in which it is recommended to sell a variety of dubious products and services by the season in order to “drive a little more business your way.” Naturopaths are obviously engaging in very questionable businesses practices that run deep in the profession.

In naturopathic school and residency, I learned that the sale of products directly to patients is central to the naturopathic business model. The Bastyr University teaching clinic has their own natural health “pharmacy” where patients could purchase supplements. There was even a naturopathic business course called Health of Business Business of Health (HBBH, for short), taught by a licensed naturopath, who guided naturopathic students and new graduates through the ins and outs of running a profitable practice. Students could earn course credit for taking HBBH courses.

Naturopaths justify their ethically flawed practice of selling supplements and products directly to patients in the following ways:

  • Patients save money when buying products from naturopaths
  • Patients have free-will to purchase elsewhere
  • Products sold by naturopaths have been vetted for quality

Let’s go through these claims and see how each holds up to scrutiny.

Do patients save money when buying supplements at a naturopathic clinic?

Probably not.

During my naturopathic residency, I oversaw the clinic’s dispensary, which stocked dietary supplements, herbal tinctures, protein powders, “detoxification” products, and retail items like cookbooks. Throughout my time at the clinic, I lowered overhead costs and increased revenue. I used to boast about this success on my resume.

Representatives from supplement companies that catered to naturopathic businesses frequently visited our practice to pitch new products. These reps were young, attractive, and often brought lunch. During these informal meetings, I helped establish business relationships that allowed the clinic to purchase products below wholesale prices. Then the clinic would mark-up these products between 65% and 100%, based on the original price, not our reduced, negotiated price. In my experiences, the savings were never passed onto the customer, I mean, patient. It was not explicitly disclosed to patients that we were making a profit on supplement sales that we prescribed to them in that so-called medical setting.

Are patients free to purchase their supplements from any retailer?

Not really.

Naturopathic clinics only offer the illusion of choice and use tactics to rope patients into buying products immediately after they are given a prescription or recommendation.

My naturopathic clinic in Seattle prominently displayed a sign visible upon walking through the front door: “Support small business. Buy local.” This sign was a clever marketing tactic. While we would inform patients that they could purchase their supplements elsewhere, we were also eroding their choice by selling at the checkout desk exactly what we would prescribe. Patients always seemed to support their local naturopath.

Specific items sold in naturopathic clinics are not always available in retail stores or online, which further coerces patients to buy directly from a naturopathic clinic. Naturopaths are increasingly turning to product lines that can only be sold by health care providers registered with the supplement company such as Pure Encapsulations, the product line we carried. This type of exclusivity provides an additional illusion that the clinic only offers premier, quality products, which further rationalizes price mark-ups.

Good stories can sell anything, and naturopaths have good, heartfelt stories. Naturopaths often serve as walking billboards for the alleged wonders of naturopathic medicine. Many have tales similar to my own psoriasis story. (Here is the two-line version: Conventional medicine disappointed me. I miraculously “cured” my psoriasis using naturopathic therapies.) I used my personal health story again and again when talking to prospective patients and selling supplements. I do not think I was intentionally using a sales tactic. I was unwittingly proselytizing to a vulnerable demographic who would do anything, and spend anything, to get better.

Do naturopaths sell only high-quality medical products?

Impossible to know.

The FDA does not guarantee the quality or safety of dietary supplements. Naturopaths can’t possibly guarantee quality or safety either. In 1994, the vitamin lobby was able to pass the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), which restricted the FDA from effectively regulating the vitamin and supplement industry. In other words, no one is regulating supplement companies. Yes, there is such as thing as “Big Vita,” and it strongly supports naturopathic lobbying efforts.

As a result of this unregulated market, the need emerged for so-called “supplement experts” to evaluate the claims, safety, and ingredients of supplement products. Despite being ill-equipped for the job, licensed naturopaths have stepped into this role, providing the image that they are able to judge a product’s safety and efficacy. For a great example of the tortuous reasoning of a licensed naturopath, which provides no helpful information for choosing a supplement, read this blog post on the AANP website. This is exactly the type of confusing advice on supplements one may receive from a licensed naturopath.

In practice, naturopaths tend to depend on the reputation of a supplement company when choosing medical products and supplements. I remember posts in the naturopathic social media groups asking for a “favorite supplement” recommendation for condition X, Y, and Z. Naturopaths are not independently vetting companies. They are asking for popular opinion and going with that in clinical practice.

Naturopaths need to stop selling stuff in their offices

The likelihood that a naturopath would profit off of his or her medical recommendations is practically guaranteed, even if unintentionally. It is a glaring conflict of interest for any medical professional to recommend a substance in one room and then in the next, offer it for purchase.

I know of only one naturopath who chooses not to sell supplements in his office due to the ethical concerns laid out above. There may be others, but just like the overall number of naturopaths who support the CDC childhood vaccination schedule in full, it is a very small percentage of the naturopathic profession. It could be a homeopathically low concentration at best.

Naturopaths who want to stop being portrayed as profit mongers must do better. Stop the in-office sale of medical products, supplements, homeopathic remedies, and items lacking high-quality evidence.

A real medical profession implements rules and codes to protect patients. [inlinetweet prefix=”” tweeter=”” suffix=”by @NaturoDiaries”]Naturopathy turns a blind-eye to patient exploitation in selling supplements to patients.[/inlinetweet]

Correction: An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that the AANP does not have an ethics statement on in-office pharmacies. The text has been updated.
Image: By “Magister Faragius” (Ferraguth) of Naples (book scan of Tacuinum Sanitatis) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

1,166 Replies to “In-office sales is an ethical problem for naturopathic medicine

  1. Erratum, for (I was miraculously “cured” my psoriasis using naturopathic therapies) write (I miraculously “cured” etc) or perhaps (My pioriasis was miraculously “cured” using etc)

  2. Thanks for another great blog post. I have never had a patient who has gone to see a naturopath and not walked out the door with a couple of hundred dollars of supplements.

    1. According to the AARP the average annual cost of prescription drugs for the elderly in 2013 was $11,34.00 and you dare mention a few hundred dollars worth of supplements!

    2. According to the AARP the average annual cost of prescription drugs for the elderly in 2013 was $11,34.00 and you dare mention a few hundred dollars worth of supplements!

      1. Liar. That is not true. Show me a citation that the average elderly person spends $11,340 a year on prescription drugs.

          1. You quotet from their findings. However, most likely you did not grasp the parameter they are measuring.

            1. Oh no I DID grasp the parameters they are using. It’s you that can’t accept the fact that you can be wrong. Your rational=I’m a scientist don’t you dare question me you illiterate little…….. What’s the difference in between God and a doctor or scientists? God doesn’t think he’s a doctor or scientist.

              1. Nope, Ronnyboy, you did not. “According to the AARP” is not a citation. A citation is: author, title and publication. Aside that, you did not understand the parameter. Almost nobody shells out roughly USD 1000 per month for drugs only as you insinuate.It simply does not fly, Ronnyboy.

              2. Nope, Ronnyboy, you did not. “According to the AARP” is not a citation. A citation is: author, title and publication. Aside that, you did not understand the parameter. Almost nobody shells out roughly USD 1000 per month for drugs only as you insinuate.It simply does not fly, Ronnyboy.

              3. Okay, since you seem to have trouble with how citations work, let me be more specific. Please provide a citation in one of the following formats: APA, MLA or JAMA.

              4. It occurs to me that my selection of citation styles is very American-centric, based on the styles most commonly used in American schools and American medicine, and I’m not sure if you’re American. So here is some guidance.

                MLA: https://style.mla.org/
                APA: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/
                JAMA: http://guides.med.ucf.edu/ld.php?content_id=5191991

                Hopefully, this will help you understand what is being asked of you when we say “provide a citation” and why “Acorrding to the AARP” is not a citation.

              5. Still waiting on that citation. Without it, your claim is worthless. I can say “According to the AARP, Ron Roy doesn’t know what he’s talking about” and it’s equally valid as your claim.

      2. The next hole in the knee, Ronnyboy. First, for the time around 2011, the annual total health care expeditures was: Quote: “n 2011, the median annual health care expenditure for persons age 65 and over was $4,206 (figure 2), with about one-quarter of the elderly having expenses under $1,478 (25th percentile) and one-quarter having expenses over $10,289
        (75th percentile). These quartile levels were higher than in 2001 (after adjusting for inflation from 2001 to 2011 dollars). (Source: https://meps.ahrq.gov/data_files/publications/st429/stat429.pdf)

        With ~USD 4.000.– expediture on total health care costs, a few hundred bucks of supplements count. Second, Ronnyboy, selling supplements under false scientifc claims (as many NDs do) is and remains fraud.

        1. As usual you have your head up your ass.

          American workers saw their out-of-pocket medical costs jump again
          this year, as the average deductible for an employer-provided health
          plan surged nearly 9% in 2015 to more than $1,000, a major new survey of employers shows.

          The
          annual increase, though lower than in previous years’, far outpaced
          wage growth and overall inflation and marked the continuation of a trend
          that in just a few years has dramatically shifted healthcare costs to
          workers.

          This is what happens when the government gets involved in unconstitutional matters: http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2014/02/state-insurance-exchanges-may-be-going-bankrupt-2805564.html

          1. Let me lecture you, Ronnyboy. I am from Austria, Europe. Here we have a System like Obamacare, which you seem to despise. Result: Half the costs, 2 years higher life expectancy.

              1. Then maybe this sounds a bit better: Place according to life expectancy ranking: Austria 22, USA 43.

                  1. So you also do not know the correlation between life expectancy and the quality of a medical system in developed countreis.

                  2. Nice try. Well, I speak German (mothertongue), English and Spanish fluently and I understand French, Dutch, Italian and Latin to a certain extent. What is your second language – if you have one ? Oder ist er einer dieser monolingualen Amerikaner ?

                  3. Dude, I’m on your side about science but picking on Americans because they’re not multi-lingual is some elitist and classist crap. Not as many Americans have access to good-quality foreign language instruction. That is a privilege. Not as many Americans have access to immersion situations because a) we live on a continent that is dominated by only a few languages and English is number one–unlike Europe which is a collection of mostly small countries where many languages are spoken and where travel is easy and b) many of us cannot afford to travel off that continent. We often have to spend our money on things that you get to take for granted, like education and healthcare. Most of get almost no vacation time, if any at all.. And those of us who havd the good fortune of some disposable income and time for traveling often have to spend it domestically because our families are often far-flung across a huge country. I have exactly one relative that lives relatively close to me (a few hours by bus or car). Otherwise, it’s days of driving or expensive flights. If you had to choose between spending limited time and money resources on vacations abroad or on seeing your loved ones in the same country, hundreds of miles away, for holidays or when they are sick or dying, what would be your choice?

                    Also, what you’re saying about Americans being monolingual isn’t even entirely true. This attitude tends to completely ignore immigrant and second or third generation Americans who are multi-lingual because their families have mother tongues besides English. Most of the kids I work with as a social worker in Chicago are multi-lingual and they are definitely American. When I hear Europeans talk about dumb, unsophisticated Americans who only speak English, I often hear “The stereotypical white middle Americans whose numbers are dwindling but who conveniently fit my pre-conceived notions about what Americans are, are insufficiently Eurocentric.” It’s not an attractive attitude.

                    I say this as an American who grew up in a relatively recently emigrated European family–let’s just say that my kind was not terribly welcome in Europe and my grandmother, one of the only survivors of her family, ended up in the US. I can’t speak German like my mom’s family can, though I could pick up enough from your simple sentences here. (I’m constantly trying to get my Spanish better because it’s good for work–that’s the other thing. People tend to learn languages when it is necessary to do so because it’s a big commitment.) I’ve lived in two European countries and have had the good fortune to be able to travel a lot more than many Americans–I am in Europe as I write this comment, though it’s an English-speaking country–Ireland. So I’m not coming from a place of personal defensiveness here. I’m pointing out that when Europeans laugh at Americans for not being cosmopolitan and multi-lingual, what they are often actually doing is laughing at people for being less fortunate–poorer, overworked, and less supported by their society. That is not very kind and I’m surprised how few Europeans who engage in this kind of shaming connect the dots. Though perhaps I shouldn’t be. People are often blind to their own privilege and blame those who lack it.

                    So…congratulations. You are an enormously educated individual from a relatively wealthy EU country. You’re one of the luckiest people in the world. I find myself a bit confused by how dedicated you seem to ridiculing people who clearly are out of their depth with you and lack the education to recognize that they are making fools of themselves for your apparent amusement. At some point it just seems mean-spirited. It’s certainly pretty clearly not intended to educate or enlighten.

                    I thank you very earnestly for your contributions to scientific knowledge but I really question your approach in these discussions. Lately in particular, they seem to be edging close to cruelty. I hope that is not your intent.

                  4. I am sorry that this offended you a bit, but this guy tried to show his superiority by complaining about a typo. Admitted, my response was hard handed, but I think this is the only way such people learn at least a little bit. However, increased learning about foreign languages and cultures would probably easen US-centricity a bit which will become a real threat should Trump become president.

                  5. Maybe a quick note on the less fortunate lacking education. Half of my family are farmers and craftsmen. Even if they would not be family I would never reproach them with their lack of a university degree. If they are ignorant of a subject they need, they educate themselves, critically and correctly. They are never proud of their ignorance. With Ron Roy things are very different. From his statements I think he is fully aware that he lacks proper education but is *proud* of that fact. That is not a less fortunate lacking education, but somebody rejecting it. He spreads hypotheses that are potentially dangerous to others while managing to keep a pseudoscientific cloak. I really cherish people wanting to educate themselves, but I can not stand ignorant people who are proud of their ignorance, especially when it comes to science in general and especially to spreading false medical theories that could have severe consequences.

                  6. Anyone not agreeing with you then is ignorant. Anyone not speaking several languages is ignorant. Got it Mr Perfect

                  7. You have *repeatedly* been challenged to provide evidence (beyond shoddy studies) to prove your point. You haven’t. Moreover you refuse to alter your point of view, therefore the same that applies to Ron applies to you.

                  8. Shouldn’t you be WORKING instead of shilling on Discus? I’m not fooled by your typical, predictable shill responses that we have read for years on this site. Just another puppet account.

                  9. You never offered *any* study, just stupid one-liners. Additionally you have proven that the concept of time-zones seems to be alien to you.

                  10. (beyond shoddy studies) Odd you say below I have not offered any studies. Care to apologize?

                  11. Let me explain something to you. One is entitled to his/her own opinion, but not to her own facts. Spreading lies is *not* free speech. So where are your data to support your claims ? This is the second challenge, you haven’t produced anything else than meaningless one-liners.

                  12. Calling my one-liners meaningless is an insult. My observations are not only accurate they are fact based. I read the rubbish science addicts and fools post and I provide an alternative view or comment. Maybe in Austria you have no political humor and no sense of right or wrong, but we do. Maybe Austria should invade the USA and teach us your ways.

                  13. You had several times the choice between presenting your “facts” or being called an idiot. You have chosen at least two times the second variant. Do you know why ? I think you know exactly that upon presenting your “facts” you will be lampooned by people who know science.

                  14. It is great to have such useless advocates as yourself for the anti vaccine cause. You will never be allowed any position of influence as you will always be ignored as an uneducated and illogical mouthpiece.
                    Your persistent display of ignorance will be very useful in pushing a vaccine hesitant parent to vaccinate.

                  15. Your 100% wrong as usual it’s because of people like AutismDadd that people are waking up and seeing the harm caused by vaccines. I personally am responsible for saving hundreds of babies from the horrors of vaccines.

                  16. Advised or better scared by the village idiot with no idea how medicne works or how to assess the safety of something. I hope you get one day sued if one of these babies dies from a preventable disease. Sued to the point that even your heirs have to pay.

                  17. Sue me lol. I’ve covered all my bases on that a long time ago. And besides all I do is show them the information and have them contact people, who already had made the mistake of vaccinating, that have vaccine damaged children and animals.

                  18. It will never happen. I’ve been doing this for longer than I can remember. The only thing a lawyer would get out of suing me is practice.

                  19. According to Ron Roy’s logic, you must be a terribly unhealthy father. If you had a good diet then your child would be strong and would be able to overcome the evils of vaccines. Ron says good nutrition can fight anything. Then your son would not have got autism.

                  20. According to Ron Roy’s logic, you must be a terribly unhealthy father. If you had a good diet then your child would be strong and would be able to overcome the evils of vaccines. Ron says good nutrition can fight anything. Then your son would not have got autism.

                  21. Not a bad read, but leaves much to be said about the overall details of the study. For example homicide and accidental death shouldn’t be included. A narrow definition regarding healthcare only should be used and deaths should be only from forms of illness, not old age.

                  22. Not a bad read, but leaves much to be said about the overall details of the study. For example homicide and accidental death shouldn’t be included. A narrow definition regarding healthcare only should be used and deaths should be only from forms of illness, not old age.

                  23. When medical care is applied in cases of homicide and accidental death in sometimes successful efforts to save lives, it makes a difference. But the topic here is the ethics or lack thereof of naturopaths in selling products at their place of practice; not vaccines.

                  24. But many have compared naturopathic business to Big Pharma and that has led us to vaccines causing maiming and deaths, so strictly staying on topic would alter and prevent discourse.

                  25. But many have compared naturopathic business to Big Pharma and that has led us to vaccines causing maiming and deaths, so strictly staying on topic would alter and prevent discourse.

                  26. When medical care is applied in cases of homicide and accidental death in sometimes successful efforts to save lives, it makes a difference. But the topic here is the ethics or lack thereof of naturopaths in selling products at their place of practice; not vaccines.

                  27. Crapola. Not all life expectancy is due to the medical system. More bullshit from Austria

                1. That’s because the US’s infant mortality rate ( 6.1 per 1000 ) is much higher than Austria’s ( 3.9 per 1000 ). Gee I wonder if being one of the most vaccinated countries has anything to do with that?

                  1. Ronnyboy, let me lecture you: Austrians have almost as many vaccinations as Americans. Aside that, your inferior edcation and unwillingness to correct that precludes you from being in a position to assess that.

                  2. Tommyboy, let me lecture you: Austrians don’t get as many vaccinations as Americans. Aside that, your miseducation and tunnel vision precludes you from being in a position to assess anything scientific.

                  3. Ronnyboy, let me lecture you: Austrians have almost as many vaccinations as Americans. Aside that, your inferior edcation and unwillingness to correct that precludes you from being in a position to assess that.

                  4. That’s an extremely good point. But it may be that the American system simply sucks the life out of its citizens with high cost but poorly effective medical treatments they learned from Austria

                  5. …and Canada gets as many vaccinations as the US or more. Our rate is about 4 per 1000. So as usual Ron Roy’s theory doesn’t hold up in the face of actual data.

                    (Not to mention that different countries *count* infant mortality differently – which you would know if you knew anything)

                  6. …and Canada gets as many vaccinations as the US or more. Our rate is about 4 per 1000. So as usual Ron Roy’s theory doesn’t hold up in the face of actual data.

                    (Not to mention that different countries *count* infant mortality differently – which you would know if you knew anything)

                  7. To add-

                    1. The US and Canada both use the same definition of “live birth” so their rates can be directly compared. I don’t know about Austria, a country of all of 8 million people, about the same size as the US state of Virginia.
                    2. The US’ IMR has been steadily dropping as the number of immunizations and the immunization rate has increased.

                  8. To add-

                    1. The US and Canada both use the same definition of “live birth” so their rates can be directly compared. I don’t know about Austria, a country of all of 8 million people, about the same size as the US state of Virginia.
                    2. The US’ IMR has been steadily dropping as the number of immunizations and the immunization rate has increased.

                  9. Your math is slipping( as usual in your favor ) you forgot the .9. Canada’s infant mortality rate is 4.9 and it ranks 9th, in infant mortality, among 37 developed countries.

                  10. Ronnyboy, apparently you need another lecture: *about* 4 in 1000 means approximately 4 in 1000 which is good enough. However, your qualities in looking something up will not rescue you. As usual you do not respond to the main argument. Do you know why ? Because you do not have the knowledge to do so.

                  11. Gee Johnny would have usually made a big deal out of .9. Maybe that’s why he let you comment.

                  12. More so than Ron printing 6.1 per 1000 without a source. I already provided the reference for the figure I used. Read. Think. Post. Try it sometime. 🙂

                  13. Ronnyboy, do you know what the infant mortality rate is ? Do you know how many vaccinations a child gets within this period ? Do you know how this compares to vaccine schedules in other countries ? You really have shot yourself in the knee. In both knees.

                  14. Since you do not give the definition or how many doses are given during this time period I assume you have no clue – as usual.

                  15. One last time. what exactly is the infant mortality rate and how many shots do infants receive during that period ? Data on table or be called an idiot.

                  16. Do you know how many vaccinations a child gets? Yep enough to kill or make them sick for the rest of their lives.

                  17. That is not the question Ronnyboy. Once again, clearly: Give the definition of infant mortality rate and state how many vaccinations are received during that time.

                  18. That is not the question Ronnyboy. Once again, clearly: Give the definition of infant mortality rate and state how many vaccinations are received during that time.

                  19. Do you know how many vaccinations a child gets? Yep enough to kill or make them sick for the rest of their lives.

                  20. Yes I know what the infant mortality is. The number of vaccines or the dose has different effects on different people. Everyone’s immune system is different so some people are more susceptible to some vaccines than others. Even though the schedule may be the same in some countries the outcomes may vary. Gee for a scientist you sure don’t know much about vaccines do you?

                  21. Don’t lay a smokescreen. What is the definition of infant mortality rate and how many shots does an infant get ? State clearly or be called an idiot. Last chance.

                  22. I see as usual when the CDC agrees with you it’s a good source but when it doesn’t it’s ONLY a single source. Instead of using your name why don’t you use a name I like to apply to another shill: TWISTY. You like to twist the facts so much that I think it would be an appropriate name.

                  23. Now that is the pot calling the kettle black!!! What is your opinion again on the CDC and vaccines?

                  24. How is that calling the kettle black? The CDC, like all other alphabet soup government agencies, is nothing more than an enforcement arm of the pharmaceutical industry.

                  25. Why is the CDC a good source for data when it agrees with what you believe in, but a bad source for data when it disagrees (ie vaccines and vaccine preventable diseases)

                  26. I see as usual when the CDC agrees with you it’s a good source but when it doesn’t it’s ONLY a single source.

                    Nope. You claimed that my figure was wrong. Mine was correct in the context of the data source I used – so your assertion was wrong. So as usual there’s no twisting of anything. You are just wrong.

                  27. Twisty I wasn’t wrong. If anyone was wrong it was by source the CDC. Take it up with that agency.

                  28. I wasn’t wrong.

                    Yes you were. You claimed that my figure was wrong. I can quote you if you like. Your claim is incorrect. I simply used a different source for the figures.

                    If anyone was wrong it was by source the CDC.

                    Nope. The CDC figures are in line with the CDC’s assumptions. My figures are in-line with my sources assumptions. The only person who is wrong is someone claiming that the CDC figures are right and the aggregate figures are wrong. Which is…oh hey…you! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

                  29. I wasn’t wrong.

                    Yes you were. You claimed that my figure was wrong. I can quote you if you like. Your claim is incorrect. I simply used a different source for the figures.

                    If anyone was wrong it was by source the CDC.

                    Nope. The CDC figures are in line with the CDC’s assumptions. My figures are in-line with my sources assumptions. The only person who is wrong is someone claiming that the CDC figures are right and the aggregate figures are wrong. Which is…oh hey…you! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

                  30. Nope. It’s right here:

                    you forgot the .9. Canada’s infant mortality rate is 4.9

                    I didn’t forget anything. It’s just the source differs. So, again you were wrong and there’s the quote. 🙂

                  31. Please decide if you’re making a statement or asking a question before you start typing.

                  32. Ok I guess you so called expertise in math didn’t help in figuring out that it was a statement and a question so I’ll rephrase it. You claim your source was better than mine yet my source agreed with yours on the IM for the USA so why would your source be more accurate than mine?

                  33. Ok I guess you so called expertise in math didn’t help in figuring out that it was a statement and a question so I’ll rephrase it. You claim your source was better than mine yet my source agreed with yours on the IM for the USA so why would your source be more accurate than mine?

                  34. didn’t help in figuring out that it was a statement and a question

                    You really want me to start showing you how to write sentences too?

                    You claim your source was better than mine

                    Nope. You claimed that my number was incorrect. Which is isn’t. So your assertion is incorrect. Just like I’ve been saying.

                    yet my source agreed with yours on the IM for the USA so why would your source be more accurate than mine?

                    So your question is: How is it possible for there to be overlap between two datasets of differing accuracy? This seems pretty obvious – are you SURE you can’t figure this out on your own?

                  35. didn’t help in figuring out that it was a statement and a question

                    You really want me to start showing you how to write sentences too?

                    You claim your source was better than mine

                    Nope. You claimed that my number was incorrect. Which is isn’t. So your assertion is incorrect. Just like I’ve been saying.

                    yet my source agreed with yours on the IM for the USA so why would your source be more accurate than mine?

                    So your question is: How is it possible for there to be overlap between two datasets of differing accuracy? This seems pretty obvious – are you SURE you can’t figure this out on your own?

                  36. I see as usual when the CDC agrees with you it’s a good source but when it doesn’t it’s ONLY a single source. Instead of using your name why don’t you use a name I like to apply to another shill: TWISTY. You like to twist the facts so much that I think it would be an appropriate name.

                  37. Ha ha. Again referencing the cdc. Now for infant mortality and gun deaths.
                    However all their data on vaccines is just cheating lies, right ron

                  38. You’ll notice the CDC doesn’t say the child mortality rate is caused mostly by vaccines.

                  39. And why would it? How any confirmed deaths from vaccines have their been –close to zero. How many confirmed measles deaths per year in infants?–120000

                  40. It doesn’t, Ron. Differences in infant mortality rates across developed countries like Austria and the US are in large part an artifact resulting from the countries use different criteria when calculating infant mortality–e.g., deaths that in the US would be counted as infant mortality in other developed countries are considered to represent stillbirths.

                    It makes infant mortality rates an inappropriate metric when comparing different national health care systems.

                2. That’s because the US’s infant mortality rate ( 6.1 per 1000 ) is much higher than Austria’s ( 3.9 per 1000 ). Gee I wonder if being one of the most vaccinated countries has anything to do with that?

                  1. In 2014 we had a per capita health expediture of roughly USD 5.500.– in comparison to the US with ~ USD 9.400.–. However, the Austrian system could be more efficient since we have a very high hospital density.

                  2. Also may be confounded by a better social net, less IV drug users and less violent crime. I am guessing
                    The US system has always been very heavy on diagnostic testing which increases cost

                  3. Why include IV drug use and violent crime into health costs? Do you include death from old age too?

                  4. I have to spell everything out for you:
                    Social net—social services, basic hygiene and shelter, better psychiatric care, money for food. —all will dec health care costs
                    IV drug use–more Hiv/hepatitis. Way more hospital admissions for endocarditis, overdose etc—all inc cost of health care
                    Violent crime–inc cost of health care

                    These would all be confounding factors in a comparison of US versus Austrian health care
                    Even controlling for these confounders, US health care would still be the most expensive

                  5. So because of a higher level of scumbags stupid enough to use IV drugs and smokers committing slow suicide or anything that doesn’t have to happen but only happen because humans are stupid? That pushes Healthcare cost up alright, so do gun and alcohol sales. How about that. The definition of Health care should be narrowed for comparison, not bloated by the lunatic fringe of stupid human tricks.

                  6. Guess what? You are actually learning whether you like it or not. That is the whole point of statistics such that one can tease out confounding factors such that one can ascertain if there is a true difference between two populations.

                  7. Not David. You may want to think I’m dumb, but that’s your folly. If you get my points about comparison, most of what was discussed doesn’t pan out. And any study attempting to include too much or compares a large aggressive nation with a small passive nation is going to show differences, but not in a meaningful way, just a distorted way

                  8. You have no clue what you are even arguing about? Please tell me what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that the life span in the USA is longer with lesser healthcare expenditures?
                    And yes I do think you are dumb, as you do not have the ability to understand the simplest of study designs.
                    You actually think you are adding to the conversation when you are trying to explain how to compare groups…yet in your ignorance, what you fail to realize, is that is the whole power of statistical methods.

                  9. Yeah blah blah. Its you who has tunnel vision and has to act zombie like in the pursuit of science. I don’t

                  10. Yeah blah blah. Its you who has tunnel vision and has to act zombie like in the pursuit of science. I don’t

                  11. You may want to think I’m dumb

                    This is like some sort of strange inversion of the Sears Wish Book.

                  12. We do not think you are dumb, we know that as a fact. Fact is that the entire European Union has lower health care costs and a higher life expectancy, and the reason for this is precisely the US health care system

                  13. Yea square head that’s what I was saying. USA Healthcare involves more than a smaller less violent nation, so comparisons will be skewed, so how meaningful is that, when it is obvious. If you want to compare them narrow the focus, it will still give meaningful information if you know what you want to find.

                  14. Why include IV drug use and violent crime into health costs? Do you include death from old age too?

                    *blink*

                  15. Austria achieves better health indicators and life span with half the expenditure. This is an impressive accomplishment.
                    Do you have a problem with that assessment. Am I a shill for Austrian healthcare?

                  16. Sounds too simplistic when you don’t provide detail. Is Austria hiring shills at the moment? Seems there are a glut of them here. Not effective but willing to lie for $$. All Brian Deer wanabee’s

                  17. Austria is both more civil (don’t count T Mohr) and likely eat far better that those who waddle up to trough out at McDonalds, so no surprise they live longer

                  18. I’m surprised you actually know where Austria is located. Have you been there in that you say it is “more civil”

                  19. Austria is both more civil (don’t count T Mohr) and likely eat far better that those who waddle up to trough out at McDonalds, so no surprise they live longer

              2. 2 years? Hardly a ringing endorsement.

                How, precisely, do you value this item? How do you think, say, your personal Gofundme campaign would pan out by comparison? Would you point to your history of typing out fart noises in lieu of thought to encourage donors?

            1. …as has been pointed out to Ron Roy several times. Canada has an even more socialized medical system than Obamacare. We are a single-payer system. Like Austria we have lower costs per capita than the US and longer life expectancy (3 years) than the US. Our vaccination schedule is equal to or greater than that of the US (it depends on the province).

            2. …as has been pointed out to Ron Roy several times. Canada has an even more socialized medical system than Obamacare. We are a single-payer system. Like Austria we have lower costs per capita than the US and longer life expectancy (3 years) than the US. Our vaccination schedule is equal to or greater than that of the US (it depends on the province).

              1. The reason for the lower healthcare costs in Canada has nothing to do with the quality of the care it’s the difference in administrative costs. In the US it’s 25% in Canada it’s 12%. These costs are because of government involvement in our medical care.

                1. Oh my God. Canada = state run healthcare system. Austria = quasi state run health care system. EU = state run health care systems and mixed models. US = largely privately run health care system. US health care costs: far more than everybody else. On one count you are correct. A major driver are administrative costs, however they are due to the private nature of the US healthcare system and NOT the other way round. This is the living proof that a brain is not necessary to survive.

                2. Oh my God. Canada = state run healthcare system. Austria = quasi state run health care system. EU = state run health care systems and mixed models. US = largely privately run health care system. US health care costs: far more than everybody else. On one count you are correct. A major driver are administrative costs, however they are due to the private nature of the US healthcare system and NOT the other way round. This is the living proof that a brain is not necessary to survive.

                  1. Tommy do have to practice at being ignorant or does it come naturally? It’s the government mandated paperwork / administrative costs that’s makes the US’s healthcare cost higher than in countries where ALL healthcare is paid by the government / taxpayer. All this paperwork is because our government’s involvement with a big portion (medicare and medicaid ) of healthcare.

                  2. Let me explain something to you, Ronnyboy. of the USD 4000 something we have 12% is administration overhead, i.o.w. USD 480. the US has a 25% administration overhead which amounts to roughly USD 2300. This is NOT government mandated paperwork, that is advertising, PR, etc. etc. Plus the US has one of the highest proces for drugs because health care insurances are – due to their lack of size and concurrence – unable to force lower prices as f.i. Canada does very successfully. Ronnyboy, once again, you are talking here with scientists in the medical field, doctors etc. who know their stuff and have an adequate education.

                  3. Not government mandated paperwork. I’ll have to tell a friend of mine who works at the local hospital she was wrong when she told me that. Thanks I’ll be sure to relay that info. She’ll be glad to hear that.

                3. has nothing to do with the quality of the care

                  Actually yes, there is one thing that has to do with the quality of the care. That Canadian care can’t be significantly worse than American care.

                  In the US it’s 25% in Canada it’s 12%.

                  Yes, more socialized systems have efficiencies over your mandatory employer insurance system. When you look at more than just hospital management the difference can be a factor of three. We also negotiate as a country on the pricing for many health products. Which doesn’t just reduce the cost of administration but also reduces the cost of the product.

                  1. I have to agree that prescription medications are cheaper in Canada however a socialized system isn’t necessary in order to lower costs. Our government would never force pharmaceutical companies to lower the costs of drugs even under a socialized system because our politicians, not to mention the CDC,NIH the FDA etc.are bought and paid for by the drug industry. In a truly free market economy the insurance companies could force the issue by paying for the lowest priced drugs. Drug companies would then compete against each other by lowering their prices.

                  2. I have to agree that prescription medications are cheaper in Canada

                    Except that’s something that is not socialized. Things like vaccinations, artificial hips, diagnostics, etc…

                    however a socialized system isn’t necessary in order to lower costs.

                    Glad to see that you finally realize that you don’t have a socialized system by any useful definition.

                    Drug companies would then compete against each other by lowering their prices.

                    Well a) Not every drug company has the same products. It’s simply not good business to attempt to compete in every market. So in many, many cases there is nobody to compete against. b) Drug companies already do this with generics. So your idea doesn’t lower prices any further.

                    However with say artificial hips we can negotiate at the provincial or national level. Doing something the insurance companies can’t – use greater economies of scale and have better information about demand since our population base doesn’t shift.

                  3. In a truly free market economy artificial hips would probably not be needed because doctors would be free to practice healthcare instead of disease care.

                  4. Nice attempt to deflect from the fact you are, as is almost always the case wrong. 🙂 Prescription drugs aren’t socialized. Single-payers have better purchasing power.

                  5. In a truly free market economy artificial hips would probably not be needed because doctors would be free to practice healthcare instead of disease care.

                  6. New trend in Canada is to approach companies with take it or leave it offers. Ie. Go to the artificial hip manufacturers and say, we are willing to pay a 100 dollars for an artificial hip and nothing more. Then most companies give in and supply the product at this cheaper price to stay competitive. Of course the risk is that all the companies could say no.

                  7. Ronnyboy, do you have *any* idea how drug development and sale works ? Other companies competing, what a joke. Drugs are not cars or household items. Once a company has developed a drug at the costs of a three digit million Euro figure, it PATENTS it which means they have a monopoly on the drug for the next 25 years and can charge almost anything they want. You know really nothing, Ronnyboy.

                  8. It’s very easy to go around patents. Simply altering anything slightly will allow a business or individual to market something similar to the one patented.

                  9. You truly have no idea about patents or drugs. If you “alter” a drug you can not sell it anymore. You have to repeat the entire testing – from cell culture to clinical studies. Aside that, a patent covers whole drug classes so slight alteration is bogus.
                    As I said, drugs are not cars or household items. Aside that have you ever read a drug patent ? Have you even seen one ? I have. Several. In fact I even HAVE some patents. I know exactly how that works, you, lacking proper education, apparently not.

                  10. Repeat the entire testing; definition: Bribe the FDA into accepting a new” tested ” drug.

                  11. Let me explain something to you. I have patents. I do innovation. You have none. You do NOT innovate.

                  12. So you can read minds and tell people things you don’t know? And you claim to see ghosts maybe?

                  1. Because of our government being involved in our healthcare with Medicare and Medicaid ALL healthcare agencies have to follow the same rules and regulations as though we had the same system as Canada.

                  2. What is wrong with Canada’s health system. All our health indicators are better than the USA

                4. Hammy as usual wants to narrow his focus (he’s narrow minded) and argue against your overall position with his narrow position. He does it all the time. His general claims about Canadian Healthcare are meaningless. Mr data/ stats inst providing any…notice that?

                  1. Sorry, when you compare countries with the same definition of live birth and different vaccination rates you don’t see the correlation you claim. Therefore you are wrong. 🙂

                  2. Vaccines effect people / babies differently so there will be variation in deaths vs. vaccines.

                  3. Vaccines effect people

                    In no way do they do this ever. You are absolutely entirely and utterly wrong. 🙂

                    Vaccines effect people / babies differently so there will be variation in deaths vs. vaccines.

                    In other words you are claiming that an environment where vaccines cause IM looks no different than an environment where they don’t.

                    So you have agreed that IM says nothing. Again, your argument is false…and you know it. 🙂

                  4. No I’m saying that IM due to vaccines will vary not just because of vaccination rates but because of the differences in everyone’s susceptibility to the toxins in those vaccines. Twisty you knew what I meant your not stupid just corrupt.

                  5. IM due to vaccines will vary not just because of vaccination rates but because of the differences in everyone’s susceptibility to the toxins in those vaccines

                    In other words your hypothesis expects countries with the same or more vaccinations and lower IM. Right? Exactly what you expect to see where there is no correlation between IM and vaccination.

                    Anytime you want to admit you’re done. I’m happy to let you up off the mat.

                  6. Johnny if there was a mat involved I’d have you saying uncle before you even knew what happened. Everyone’s immune system is different some are more susceptible to pathogenic germs, poisons. drugs and vaccines. One size does not fit all. Some people smoke all their lives and stay healthy others develop emphysema, cancer, heart disease etc. I had a friend who drank a fifth of Jack Daniels everyday for years yet his doctor told him his liver was ok. His pancreas was shot but his liver was normal. Most people would have had liver damage.

                  7. Genetic susceptibility plays a huge roll in this. What happened to your previous theory that all you need is good diet and it cures all. You are contradicting yourself!
                    By the way, you are very cocky for a 71 year old man…

                  8. I’m only cocky with vaccine shills. However I can back up my mouth. I cut and split at least eight cords of firewood every year, I have a huge 30 x 80 organic garden that I make even bigger every year, I’ve worked out all my life and although I stopped doing regular squats last year I still work my legs and back very hard. I have a high center of gravity which made squats a pain in the ass. I still did full reps in the squat with 275 the last time I did them. I’ve always love to box, and grapple with the only rules being no scratching, biting and the family jewels were off limits. Yes I am cocky and I can hold my own , in a scrap , with weightlifters less than half my age. What did Johnny say about a mat?

                  9. Oh ronnyboy, do you need a nap? I sense a temper tantrum.
                    Your insecurities are getting the best of you.

                  10. Oh ronnyboy, do you need a nap? I sense a temper tantrum.
                    Your insecurities are getting the best of you.

                  11. I’m only cocky with vaccine shills.

                    I think you mean your delusions of vaccine shills.

                    However I can back up my mouth

                    Not for anything that matters here.

                    the only rules being no scratching, biting and the family jewels were off limits.

                    Eyes, throat and knees are IN when you are practicing? Thanks for confirming that you are either full of it or your partners are taking it easy on you.

                    What did Johnny say about a mat?

                    That I’ve had you pinned to it for ages.

                  12. Oh big deal I forgot eyes. As for throat I believe ( correct me if I’m wrong but in order to choke someone into submission the throat is somehow involved. And how can an arm bar or knee locks be applied if knees and elbows were out of the picture. I’m waiting for an answer. Tommy is in for a surprise. 6 months 6 years and he still wouldn’t be ready.

                  13. Oh big deal I forgot eyes.

                    You forgot something that virtually nobody who fights regularly would forget.

                    if I’m wrong but in order to choke someone into submission the throat is somehow involved

                    Unified rules forbid over twenty-five kinds of approaches including:

                    – Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea
                    – Eye gouging of any kind

                    If you only fought with a small closed group with a consistent set of rules this error might be reasonable but you sure made it sound like you take all comers. Anyone who fights in an unfamiliar ring is going to lay down at least what I’ve outlined.

                    And how can an arm bar or knee locks be applied if knees and elbows were out of the picture.

                    Your confusing targeting knees with using your knees. In an armbar your knees are over the opponent. You are not targeting your opponents knees. Even in a kneebar where you actually are targeting the knee – your opponent can at least tap out when they’re in pain. However a kick, stomp and even a good elbow to the knee doesn’t give them that chance. Which is why in lots of friendly matches you will rule out targeting the knee because it can easily result in a permanent and debilitating injury. Speaking from having put one person in an ambulance without even trying in this respect.

                  14. Who said we followed any rules other than the ones I mentioned? It was submission grappling.

                  15. Who said we followed any rules other than the ones I mentioned? It was submission grappling.

                  16. Who said we followed any rules other than the ones I mentioned?

                    You did. You had to add eyes and if you didn’t have rules for the other things I mentioned then your friends were going easy on you.

                  17. Johnny stop trying to make mountains out of nothing. Obviously when participating in submission wrestling / grappling the object is to force you opponent to submit through the application of pain and only an overly extremely proud individual would suffer any tears or breaks by not submitting. In your case I would hope that you are an extremely proud individual.

                  18. trying to make mountains out of nothing.

                    So if someone heel stomps your knee on the ground. That’s just fine? Like I said it seems pretty obvious you’re lying about a number of things here.

                  19. Johnny again you’re talking out of you ass. In the original MMA competitions there were few rules and that’s why those bouts were illegal. ”However a kick, stomp and even a good elbow to the knee doesn’t give
                    them that chance. Which is why in lots of friendly matches you will
                    rule out targeting the knee because it can easily result in a permanent
                    and debilitating injury.” Did you miss the part about wrestling / grappling where strikes are not allowed? However I will reiterate in the original MMA fights they were very few rules and strikes to the knees were allowed, as they are today, and there were very few permanent injuries. I live in a town where brawling 30 or so years ago was common. There were no rules and I remember of only one person dying and that was from an infection due to a bite.

                  20. Did you miss the part about wrestling / grappling where strikes are not allowed?

                    Actually you said:

                    the only rules being no scratching, biting and the family jewels were off limits.

                    ROFL so when you said “the only rules” you meant there were actually enormous number of rules to keep people from hurting you.

                    Evidence that you’re backpedaling is your sudden concern for eyes. If you really meant from the very beginning that only grappling was allowed. Why do you care about eyes? Do people grapple your eye? Putting pressure on an eye is an eye strike.

                  21. I’m only cocky with vaccine shills.

                    I think you mean your delusions of vaccine shills.

                    However I can back up my mouth

                    Not for anything that matters here.

                    the only rules being no scratching, biting and the family jewels were off limits.

                    Eyes, throat and knees are IN when you are practicing? Thanks for confirming that you are either full of it or your partners are taking it easy on you.

                    What did Johnny say about a mat?

                    That I’ve had you pinned to it for ages.

                  22. I’m only cocky with vaccine shills. However I can back up my mouth. I cut and split at least eight cords of firewood every year, I have a huge 30 x 80 organic garden that I make even bigger every year, I’ve worked out all my life and although I stopped doing regular squats last year I still work my legs and back very hard. I have a high center of gravity which made squats a pain in the ass. I still did full reps in the squat with 275 the last time I did them. I’ve always love to box, and grapple with the only rules being no scratching, biting and the family jewels were off limits. Yes I am cocky and I can hold my own , in a scrap , with weightlifters less than half my age. What did Johnny say about a mat?

                  23. Everyone’s immune system is different some are more susceptible to pathogenic germs, poisons. drugs and vaccines.

                    So you expect to observe a wide degree of variability – exactly what you expect to see where vaccines aren’t a factor.

                    Anytime you want me to let you up. Let me know.

                  24. IM due to vaccines will vary not just because of vaccination rates but because of the differences in everyone’s susceptibility to the toxins in those vaccines

                    In other words your hypothesis expects countries with the same or more vaccinations and lower IM. Right? Exactly what you expect to see where there is no correlation between IM and vaccination.

                    Anytime you want to admit you’re done. I’m happy to let you up off the mat.

                  25. Vaccines effect people / babies differently so there will be variation in deaths vs. vaccines.

                  26. Apparently not as much as you do. 🙂 Your argument that IM positive correlates with vaccinations is a pretty good example of a fantasy of yours. 🙂

                  27. Nope. Canada proves you wrong. Come back when you have some evidence which supports your point.

                  28. Baby gets vaccinated mother just gets home with the baby he dies minutes later. According to your logic that baby would have died anyway. Come on level with me how much are they paying you to participate in this slaughter of babies.

                  29. Do you have any examples of this happening? Documented case of baby dying after getting home from the office. Not in the middle of the night but on returning home from the doctor’s office after a vaccination?

                  30. Three I personally know of. Two of these cases were published in a local paper. I’ve also had two women tell me that their cats died in their arms at the vets office after being vaccinated.

                  31. As you have been told a million times, your anecdotes mean nothing. I am published in the field of measles and found that the measles is a life saving vaccine. My statement is as useless as your anecdotes, except that i am a published authority and you are not. As we used to always say in public health shool, “unless you are God, you must bring data”

                  32. Furthermore, your stories of sudden death from vaccines really makes very little scientific sense (but then again, you know nothing about science and the immune system). You should stick to your theories about diseases later in life.

                  33. Gee 3 babies within a population of 15 thousand people. 1/ 10 million my ass. If doctors were to report the truth that number would be much greater. Most CIDS cases are vaccine caused. I know you won’t look this up but others will: Look up ? search Doctor Archie Kalokerinos and his experience with SIDS among the Aborigines.

                  34. I have anaphylaxis and carry epipens for food, drug and environmental allergies. I have some of the most rare allergies on the books. My immune system is literally a medical curiosity. And I wouldn’t trust anyone but the best medical minds to deal with it. I want to stay alive.

                  35. Ronnyboy, coincidence it NOT causation. You have NO proper education. You have NO proper knowledge of how vaccination or the immune system works. If ignorance would hurt they would be hearing your howling in Australia. What you are doing is a crime.

                  36. Ronnyboy, coincidence it NOT causation. You have NO proper education. You have NO proper knowledge of how vaccination or the immune system works. If ignorance would hurt they would be hearing your howling in Australia. What you are doing is a crime.

                  37. When that coincidence happens thousands of times it’s proof of causation. YOU have no proper knowledge of how the immune system works because of your miseducation. What you are doing is a crime a crime worthy of Josef Mengele. I will keep telling people about the horrors of vaccines until my dying day.

                  38. Baby gets vaccinated mother just gets home with the baby he dies minutes later. According to your logic that baby would have died anyway.

                    No, it’s that logic (and math) demand that some babies will die that way independent to the vaccination. Since I think logic and math are better ways determine true things from false things than talking to you. I am forced to listen to logic and math rather than you.

                    Come on level with me how much are they paying you to participate in this slaughter of babies.

                    I thought you were currently under the delusion that you knew what I do for a living? If so, then you must know what I’m getting paid.

                  39. I know what your regular job is and I know what people think of you. I’m just not sure as to who pays you for disputing anything good, healthy, organic, natural etc. I’m also not sure as to how you and your cohorts should be described. Help me here: Son’s and daughters of Satan / Son and daughters of Mengele or just plain sociopaths. I’m open to suggestions.

                  40. I know what your regular job is and I know what people think of you.

                    You certainly imagine that you do. Which I expect is the same as knowing something for certain in the mind of Ron Roy.

                  41. Let me lecture you, Ronnyboy. Coincidence is NOT causation. Write that down 100 times.

                  42. Let me lecture you Tommyboy. When something happens hundreds of times it’s not a coincidence it’s proof of cause and effect. . Now write that down1000 times.

                  43. Let me lecture you Tommyboy. When something happens hundreds of times it’s not a coincidence it’s proof of cause and effect. . Now write that down1000 times.

                  44. Thomas Mohr: leesen to me now un beleeve me laytar…I’m going to CLAP…pump you up!

                  45. Johnny you Tommy and all these other shills put together wouldn’t be able to kick anybody’s ass either verbally or physically so go back to sleep and keep dreaming.

                  46. Ron ROY
                    How do you explain such outbreaks as the following
                    http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/

                    This outbreak of measles occurred in an unvaccinated religious group in BC. Measles is highly contagious, but no one who received the vaccine got measles? This group does come into contact with many other children and indeed 5 unvaccinated children outside this religious group got measles. However no vaccinated children outside this religious group got measles.

                    A total of 433 cases (325 confirmed and 108 probable) were identified. Rash onset ranged from February 22 to June 9, with 98% during March and April. Fifty-seven percent of cases were students of one school. The median age of cases was 11 years and 68% of cases were aged five to 19 years. Ninety-nine percent of cases were unvaccinated. One case had encephalitis and recovered. Only five cases occurred outside of the affected community. Genotyping results were consistent with importation from the Netherlands outbreak.

                    These kids live in a busy community and would have come into contact on numerous occasions with vaccinated children…but the vaccinated children did not get measles.

                    The only plausible answer to what happened is that vaccines are highly effective.

                  47. Nothing on that link about measles. And big deal measles are innocuous anyway. Now their immune systems are stronger because of it.

                  48. But you have to admit that the measles vaccine is effective in that 99% of children who got measles were unvaccinated. Also, all chidren who were vaccinated that were exposed to these children with measles, did not get measles.

                  49. Those who were vaccinated had their immune systems compromised by not only the way the germ was introduced but by all the toxins in the vaccine. Whereas those who got the disease became immune for life without compromising their immune system.

                  50. You still have to admit that the vaccine worked Correct? It prevented the vaccinated population from getting measles and the unvaccinated population were infected. Both Lowell and yourself cannot say the words that the vaccination clearly prevented measles transmission.

                  51. You still have to admit that the vaccine worked Correct? It prevented the vaccinated population from getting measles and the unvaccinated population were infected. Both Lowell and yourself cannot say the words that the vaccination clearly prevented measles transmission.

                  52. Please explain to me scientifically how an immune system is compromised by a vaccine and is not compromised by the disease itself. Let’s hear it , because that makes zero sense Do you even know what the immune system is or how it works? I guess you are just regurgitating again?

                  53. David, in case of measles it is the other way round. The immune system is NOT compromised by the vaccine itself, but severely compromised by the disease. That goes that far that the MMR vaccine lowers death rates by other diseases as well. This is well known and was somewhat puzzling until it was shown that the measles virus kills off memory cells thus causing an “amnesia” of the immune system. It tales approx 2-3 years till the immune system is back on track again during which period kids are vulnerable. This is what Ron wants. How utterly disgusting.

                  54. “amnesia” of the immune system…hilarious…where’s you data for this amnesia?

                  55. I can’t believe you don’t know this. However here goes: First and foremost no one would ever be expose to all those childhood diseases at once. 2. Vaccines bypass the normal safeguards the body has against pathogens ( the skin, mucus membranes where IgA is produced, stomach acids etc that would in a normal setting would weaken the virus naturally. 3. All the other ingredients of vaccines,( ammonium sulfate, formaldehyde, mercury, ( yes it’s still there )polysorbate 80, bovine extract, human diploid cells etc which would not be present with the naturally occurring germ. If doctors practiced health care instead of disease care pathogenic germs would be of no consequence.

                  56. Just two words: complete bullshit. Firstly, measles for instance leaves you immune compromised for TWO YEARS and that effect is so strong that it can be seen by infection rates and even death rates due to other diseases. Second, Ronnyboy, any injury exposes the body to more antigens than all vaccinations combined and the very same route vaccinations talk. Thirdly, any fruit has more formaldehyde than a vaccine. As I said, would you have a proper education you would know that and not endanger people by giving them the advice of the village fool.

                  57. Vaccines leave some immune compromised for life but according to General Halfwit thats fine.

                  58. Let’s see your trash science that suggests people immunocompromosed for life. All your heroes like Wakefraud are disgraced. You have trash science in trash journals by pseudoscientists. Take your anecdotes and shove them where the sun don’t shine.

                  59. Let’s see your trash science that suggests people immunocompromosed for life. All your heroes like Wakefraud are disgraced. You have trash science in trash journals by pseudoscientists. Take your anecdotes and shove them where the sun don’t shine.

                  60. Step one, go to Google. Step two print life long allergies or some such wording. step three hit enter. step four read. step five think and incorporate new information. step five the light bulb comes on.

                  61. Thanks autismDadd…you just highlighted to all the readers here how your beliefs came about. You do not know how to properly research a subject and you came by your knowledge at google university. You link to conspiracy sites and non peer reviewed “junk science” (your favourite).
                    Now lets do it properly!
                    Step 1: Formulate a hypothesis “vaccines cause lifelong allergies”
                    step 2: Go to pubmed and type in the key words
                    step 3: Look at literature and pick papers: Metanalysis or studies with large sample size, control group, blinding, in high impact journals.
                    For beginners, one could pick a review article if recent and in one of the top journals.
                    step 4: actually read your chosen papers! Look at the methods…did they calculate sample size? did they formulate the question before the study, or trawl the data afterwards? do the control and study groups have equal demographics? did they use appropriate randomization or blinding? did they use the correct statistics for the data etc etc…
                    step 5: If the particular study you are looking at passes all the tests of step 4. Then proceed to look at the data, tables and charts. Do you come to the same conclusion as the author?…etc etc

                    Anyone can write anything they want on the internet…it is not evidence. But autismDadd will never figure that out.

                  62. Thanks autismDadd…you just highlighted to all the readers here how your beliefs came about. You do not know how to properly research a subject and you came by your knowledge at google university. You link to conspiracy sites and non peer reviewed “junk science” (your favourite).
                    Now lets do it properly!
                    Step 1: Formulate a hypothesis “vaccines cause lifelong allergies”
                    step 2: Go to pubmed and type in the key words
                    step 3: Look at literature and pick papers: Metanalysis or studies with large sample size, control group, blinding, in high impact journals.
                    For beginners, one could pick a review article if recent and in one of the top journals.
                    step 4: actually read your chosen papers! Look at the methods…did they calculate sample size? did they formulate the question before the study, or trawl the data afterwards? do the control and study groups have equal demographics? did they use appropriate randomization or blinding? did they use the correct statistics for the data etc etc…
                    step 5: If the particular study you are looking at passes all the tests of step 4. Then proceed to look at the data, tables and charts. Do you come to the same conclusion as the author?…etc etc

                    Anyone can write anything they want on the internet…it is not evidence. But autismDadd will never figure that out.

                  63. Wrong Doctor Emotional. All you said is what I said, with dif language. So how many patients have you saved between posts?

                  64. Very huge difference. The difference between scientific critical thinking and using natural news as your health source. If you applied what I said to any of your theories they would all fall apart.

                  65. Very huge difference. The difference between scientific critical thinking and using natural news as your health source. If you applied what I said to any of your theories they would all fall apart.

                  66. it is quite ridiculous that you think googling a subject is equivalent to a researching a hypothesis in a structured and critical manner. I guess there lays the problem with yourself and other anti-vax is that they are uneducated and lack the ability to think critically.

                  67. A ludicrous statement from a Pro-vac Neanderthal. Your lack of maturity is troubling when you maintain you are a doctor.

                  68. A ludicrous statement from a Pro-vac Neanderthal. Your lack of maturity is troubling when you maintain you are a doctor.

                  69. it is quite ridiculous that you think googling a subject is equivalent to a researching a hypothesis in a structured and critical manner. I guess there lays the problem with yourself and other anti-vax is that they are uneducated and lack the ability to think critically.

                  70. I have saved the above exchange. This shows quite clearly why anti-vcxx lay people such as yourself have such delusions. It is due to your inability to think critically and use of google/non peered review sites. Moreover, it is your belief that this is the same as properly forming a question and researching with the best available evidence published in peer reviewed journals.

                  71. No, you have not done it one single time, Ronnyboy. No data, nothing. What you are doing is an Anne Elk like show presenting crude ideas which clearly demonstrate the non-knowledge of the subject.

                  72. No, you have not done it one single time, Ronnyboy. No data, nothing. What you are doing is an Anne Elk like show presenting crude ideas which clearly demonstrate the non-knowledge of the subject.

                  73. Is there a resource for how to recognize and treat these childhood ailments since many doctors would not know how?

                  74. I wish I had an answer for you. All doctors can do is give symptoms a name. Fibromyalgia is an example of a disease that nothing can be done for but is vaccine caused.

                  75. In two words: bullshit again. Either you present valid data or be again called an idiot.

                  76. There goes that word ( bullshit ) again. And you claim to be a scientist. Ha ha ha ha ha ha

                  77. No studies to support your point of view ? So you prefer again to be called an idiot. Good.

                  78. Where are the data to support your point of view ? None coming forward ? Not one single ? You can dance around the fire and cry MEDICAL MAFIA as long as you want, that does not alter the profound stupidity and lack of knowledge shown here. You are even proud of that and that is really amusing.

                  79. In two words: bullshit again. Either you present valid data or be again called an idiot.

                  80. What is the vaccine that you refer to and do you have the documentation that indicates the fibro-vaccine connection?

                  81. What is the vaccine that you refer to and do you have the documentation that indicates the fibro-vaccine connection?

                  82. DO NOT TRUST Ron Roy. He has NO proper education (by his own admission) and no idea how medicine works. He proves that on and on and on. He has never presented *any* data to prove his claims. You could as well consult a crystal ball. Following his advice is blowing money through the chimney at best.

                  83. You’re blowing smoke up your butt by saying that because the only people that even pretend to believe you are your cohorts.

                  84. Again no data to support your “hypotheses” ? I will tell you something. Your “natural” measles leaves a child TWO YEARS immunocompromised. It might even get diseases it already had and should be immune against. Aside that, your argument have the disease and be immune for life is as idiotic as shaving your head to avoid baldness.

                  85. Strange that all of a sudden this BULLSHIT comes out. The MEDICAL MAFIA is running scared and will pay to have phony studies like this done.

                  86. DO NOT TRUST Ron Roy. He has NO proper education (by his own admission) and no idea how medicine works. He proves that on and on and on. He has never presented *any* data to prove his claims. You could as well consult a crystal ball. Following his advice is blowing money through the chimney at best.

                  87. So among 433 cases, 99 percent were unvaccinated and one was not. You claim correlation? If you ran the p value on that it would be 1/100000000

                  88. Doesn’t matter how much they P, you can only surmise the vaccine was responsible.

                  89. So what is your answer? Why did only the unvaccinated children get measles ?
                    You really do not make any sense

                  90. Its the scientific principle the Coincidence. That same principle is what pediatricians advise parents whose child appears to regress into autism after a series of vaccines, so it must be true.

                  91. Well if a 100 percent of all children with autism had been vaccinated and zero children with autism were unvaccinated…then maybe you could make such a claim. As per usual, your logic is terrible

                  92. Oh its about logic now? So when thousands of parents visit the doctor to tell them their child regressed after their shots and the doctor claims coincidence that’s logical?

                  93. Anecdotes dude. The data shows no correlation nor causation. Why can’t you get this through your thick head.

                  94. Yea just cause you say it its true… Oh and trust weak paid for studies…great advice

                  95. First of all, all studies are funded by someone. Second of all, these are very well designed studies with large sample size and peer reviewed. I would love to see you debunk one of three studies by actually reading it and looking at the data and stats. Since you do not understand stats, and the results are not what you hoped for, you reject them. It is not because I say it is true, it is because about 12 large reproducible studios say so!!

                  96. Not SOMEONE, they are funded by whoever has a vested interest. Don’t know how the corporate world works do you?

                  97. Let me lecture you: Given a certain incidence of an event over time, there is a probability that an event (e.g. diagnosis of autism) happens closely after another event (e.g. vaccination) by pure coincidence. Given the incidence of autism this is quite probable. So just claiming thousands of people have reported therefore ….. is bullshit. The hard stats says there is no link. There are studies with a study size of half a million people (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12421889) that refute your claim. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that a full blown measles episode leaves children susceptible to other diseases (even those they already had) for two years. With your both igonrant village fool talks and ideas you and creeps like Ron Roy endanger children.

                  98. Stick it up your Austrian rear. Take you lecture elsewhere. If it wasn’t a legitimate issue it wouldn’t be decades long. People don’t just decide to fear vaccines, vaccines have a history. Like pharmaceuticals, vaccines have been the subject of lawsuits for decades and because parents were winning, and makers found AT FAULT, they blackmailed the world’s governments for protection. In the USA they have close to blanket protection from all forms of litigation. Where they claim they aren’t protected, the method is in its favor to a degree it worthless. Tell us Mr Hilter what other industry receives blanket protection for “SAFE and EFFECTIVE” products? And don’t start your blah blah that you are going to lecture me. You aren’t fit to lecture anyone.

                  99. Let me lecture you again: Lawsuits do NOT determine scientific facts, especially not in the USA where suing is easy and settlements are cheap because everybody pays the own legal costs. Do you know how that works ? You sue a pharmacompany and if they determine that a settlement is cheaper than an lawsuit they will settle. In Europe, where the loser pays the bill we have virtually NO suits against vaccine makers. Why ? You have to *scientifically prove* the cause, and if you are not able to do so you pay the entire bill which can be very hefty. Even the lawsuit in Italy was squashed by the superior court. I am awaiting your lectures or will they be again be one-liners ?

                  100. In Europe they are victimizing the children and Parents. Must be like mad dogs running the countries. But to win a lawsuit you stooge you need evidence and there are expert wittnesses used. Letting them settle gives them what they want, lower cost and no prison terms. They pay a fraction of profits and make millions, like VIOXX did.

                  101. Let me lecture you again: Litigations are CIVIL lawsuits which do not carry prison sentences and where preponderance of evidence in the eyes of the judge resp. jury is required. You really do not understand the impact of the “the loser pays the bill” principle, do you ?

                  102. You know why you NEVER post anything substantial ? You know you would be blasted out of the water and blamed to your bones in a matter of hours. You’re a coward.

                  103. You don’t post anything substantial either, unless you mean substantial blah blah

                  104. You don’t post anything substantial either, unless you mean substantial blah blah

                  105. This is correct. You didn’t even attend the hillbilly university of Duh. You likely didn’t attend *any* university. As for the rest of your positngs, more oral methane.

                  106. Should Trump be elected this will be the beginning of the end of the USA as a superpower.

                  107. Let me lecture you again: Litigations are CIVIL lawsuits which do not carry prison sentences and where preponderance of evidence in the eyes of the judge resp. jury is required. You really do not understand the impact of the “the loser pays the bill” principle, do you ?

                  108. Let me lecture you again: Lawsuits do NOT determine scientific facts, especially not in the USA where suing is easy and settlements are cheap because everybody pays the own legal costs. Do you know how that works ? You sue a pharmacompany and if they determine that a settlement is cheaper than an lawsuit they will settle. In Europe, where the loser pays the bill we have virtually NO suits against vaccine makers. Why ? You have to *scientifically prove* the cause, and if you are not able to do so you pay the entire bill which can be very hefty. Even the lawsuit in Italy was squashed by the superior court. I am awaiting your lectures or will they be again be one-liners ?

                  109. Ha ha. Struck a nerve with poor little autism dad. He tried to put two sentences together

                  110. Ha ha. Struck a nerve with poor little autism dad. He tried to put two sentences together

                  111. Yeah, and he didn’t even get the name of one of histories most infamous dictators right. In fact he involuntarily refers to to a hilarious Monty Pythons sketch where a Mr. Hilter, a Mr. Bimmler and a Mr. Ron Vibbetrop sit in an small pension in Minehead, Sommerset, planning an excursion to Stalingrad and preparing for the South minehead byelection, supported by the owner of the Axis Cafe….. Not to mention his lack of grasp of the US litigation system that facilitates such cases greatly – as explained previously.

                  112. Yeah, and he didn’t even get the name of one of histories most infamous dictators right. In fact he involuntarily refers to to a hilarious Monty Pythons sketch where a Mr. Hilter, a Mr. Bimmler and a Mr. Ron Vibbetrop sit in an small pension in Minehead, Sommerset, planning an excursion to Stalingrad and preparing for the South minehead byelection, supported by the owner of the Axis Cafe….. Not to mention his lack of grasp of the US litigation system that facilitates such cases greatly – as explained previously.

                  113. You shouldn’t tell us you’re a doctor, that’s a scary thought. You’ll have to bore me with trash science this evening so I can sleep

                  114. You shouldn’t tell us you’re a doctor, that’s a scary thought. You’ll have to bore me with trash science this evening so I can sleep

                  115. Let me lecture you: Given a certain incidence of an event over time, there is a probability that an event (e.g. diagnosis of autism) happens closely after another event (e.g. vaccination) by pure coincidence. Given the incidence of autism this is quite probable. So just claiming thousands of people have reported therefore ….. is bullshit. The hard stats says there is no link. There are studies with a study size of half a million people (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12421889) that refute your claim. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that a full blown measles episode leaves children susceptible to other diseases (even those they already had) for two years. With your both igonrant village fool talks and ideas you and creeps like Ron Roy endanger children.

                  116. Well if a 100 percent of all children with autism had been vaccinated and zero children with autism were unvaccinated…then maybe you could make such a claim. As per usual, your logic is terrible

                  117. But I know just saying something happened isn’t evidence. If it was doctors would believe parents who report their child regressed after a series of vaccines. Or is there a double standard?

                  118. There is a huge difference. You are talking about anecdotal data versus a large study of 450 people where everyone unvaccinated got measles. If it was only 7/450 got measles then people would say it is by chance not real. You need to take a stats course buddy!

                  119. That was a report, not a study. And I suppose they asked each person about their MMR’s. Lets have that “study” then.

                  120. Not a study. That’s a friggin report of measles in a community that shuns vaccines for religious reasons. A study would test a hypothesis. Tell me the hypothesis it studied.

                  121. Just by looking at the case numbers community vs non-community reveals what is going on: Quote: “Ninety-nine percent of cases were unvaccinated [remember, there are 450 cases !!!]. One case had encephalitis and recovered. Only five cases occurred outside of the affected community.”.

                    The probability that the outside is equally affected as the community (i.e. vaccines do NOT work) is less than 0.0001. (calculated with a chi-square, but any other test will give a comparable result).

                    However you don’t need to test. Alone the fact that the ratio of cases is over 100:1 in favour of unvaccinated kids is a first sight proof about the efficacy of vaccination.

                    In summary we have 450 immune-compromised individuals of which one had a severe complication that might have been deadly. Of the immune compromized individuals it can be expected that some will get diseases they already had. This is because of the idiocies people like you and Ron Roy spread. Consequently you are coresponsible for that.

                    Now, how about YOU presenting ANY data on your “hypotheses” ? Do you have any or do you continue to post just oral flatulences of a village idiot ?

                  122. Speaking of ”village idiots” your village was wondering where theirs went so I told them to look for you on disqus.

                  123. Speaking of ”village idiots” your village was wondering where theirs went so I told them to look for you on disqus.

                  124. Buh Wah Ha Ha what a stooge you are. We have a segregated community, NOT a mixed community. The segregated community interacts, thus they became exposed. The VACCINATED were NOT part of the segregated community, so exposure was vague and by chance. It resulted in zero cases (Imagine that?) and among those exposed ZERO deaths and a single case of encephalitis in a person who recovered. WOW Mr Austrian Blah Blah Champion, how could it have been a better case scenario? 450 with LIFELONG immunity from measles. And this segregated community accomplished that WITHOUT vaccines. So tell us Mr Genius, what’s the rate of autism in this group? What is their overall health status in comparison to the general public? Supply this information or I will lecture you and call you an idiot.

                  125. Let me explain something to you. You will lecture nobody on nothing. Quote: “This community is known to object to vaccination. This population is not socially or geographically isolated.” This is clearly stated in the introduction and poof goes your argument up the chimney. You are not even able to read your own language properly. The only thing you are able to do is producing brainless and mostly on-lined oral flatulences.

                  126. Let me lecture you further: today, measles outbreaks start with very few, if not single individuals. In this example this means that one individual lead to 450 cases in an unvaccinated community but only 5 cases in a vaccinated community, despite all your natural life long health bullshit.

                    Now lets quote your “lecture”: “Says you, someone who is a bullshit machine”. Again a brainless on-liner flatulance. That and only that is what you are capable to lecture.

                  127. That’s the worst lecture I’ve ever had, but it made me fall on the floor laughing. No wonder we trounced you in two World Wars.

                  128. To that one can only answer: Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Händel, Gluck, Goethe, Schiller, Grillparzer, Hegel, Kant, Schopehauer, etc etc. and the Habsburgs once ruled over Florda, California and parts of Texas when America didn’t even exist. We made an entire civilization. So your last remark doesn’t scratch a little bit.

                  129. Let me lecture you further: today, measles outbreaks start with very few, if not single individuals. In this example this means that one individual lead to 450 cases in an unvaccinated community but only 5 cases in a vaccinated community, despite all your natural life long health bullshit.

                    Now lets quote your “lecture”: “Says you, someone who is a bullshit machine”. Again a brainless on-liner flatulance. That and only that is what you are capable to lecture.

                  130. Whoa. Autism dad actually said more than one line and mad a sad attempt at using his brain. This is not an isolated community. You did not read the study. I live in this area. These kids interact with kids at shopping malls, parks, etc. In fact it says that other kids outside the community who of course were unvaccinated also got measles.
                    Nice try

                  131. Segregation here is irrelevant. They both had probably one disease carrier triggering the epidemics result in an unvaccinated community: over 400 cases, one severe complication. Result in the vaccinated community: 5. This AutismDad#s arguments simply do not fly because he is a learning resistant, half-educated village fool.

                  132. Segregation here is irrelevant. They both had probably one disease carrier triggering the epidemics result in an unvaccinated community: over 400 cases, one severe complication. Result in the vaccinated community: 5. This AutismDad#s arguments simply do not fly because he is a learning resistant, half-educated village fool.

                  133. Yawn. They are basically segregated. So tell me did they close down the Mall to remove the thousands of dead bodies?

                  134. AutismDadd, David knows, you don’t. If you continue to claim that they are segregated you are not only ignorant, but a liar. Aside that it does not matter. One or two infected people in an unvaccinated community -> over 400 cases and a severe complication, one or two infected people in a vaccinated community -> 5 cases. So far to the sense of your natural immunity concept. It is bullshit.

                  135. Mohr you are a world class stooge. No one who has what you claim to have as education could be such a dope. Therefore you are likely a fraud. David too, doesn’t act or think like a highly educated person.

                  136. David and I post data, you have posted over 19000 mostly brainless flatulences because you are either unable or too much of a coward to post real arguments. Aside that, since an epidemic ist much more profitable for a pharma company than a vaccination program, which one is paying you ?

                  137. ” since an epidemic ist much more profitable for a pharma company than a vaccination program”. No your wrong again treating the ill effects from vaccines is far more profitable for pharmaceutical companies. Small list: CIDP, MS, fibromyalgia, cancers, diabetes, Guillian Barre syndrome, autism, thrombocytopenia etc.etc..

                  138. ” since an epidemic ist much more profitable for a pharma company than a vaccination program”. No your wrong again treating the ill effects from vaccines is far more profitable for pharmaceutical companies. Small list: CIDP, MS, fibromyalgia, cancers, diabetes, Guillian Barre syndrome, autism, thrombocytopenia etc.etc..

                  139. The Autism Epidemic has been good to Pharma and Government protection from litigation has protected their profits and kept them in business.

                  140. David and I post data, you have posted over 19000 mostly brainless flatulences because you are either unable or too much of a coward to post real arguments. Aside that, since an epidemic ist much more profitable for a pharma company than a vaccination program, which one is paying you ?

                  141. Mohr you are a world class stooge. No one who has what you claim to have as education could be such a dope. Therefore you are likely a fraud. David too, doesn’t act or think like a highly educated person.

                  142. AutismDadd, David knows, you don’t. If you continue to claim that they are segregated you are not only ignorant, but a liar. Aside that it does not matter. One or two infected people in an unvaccinated community -> over 400 cases and a severe complication, one or two infected people in a vaccinated community -> 5 cases. So far to the sense of your natural immunity concept. It is bullshit.

                  143. Sorry, I made a typo on my iPhone…as I was between 2 emergency surgeries and was typing fast. What were you doing while I just saved sight in two patient’s eyes. You were probably sitting in your armchair contemplating how you have been dealt a raw deal in life and writing useless one liners.

                  144. Sorry, I made a typo on my iPhone…as I was between 2 emergency surgeries and was typing fast. What were you doing while I just saved sight in two patient’s eyes. You were probably sitting in your armchair contemplating how you have been dealt a raw deal in life and writing useless one liners.

                  145. Just by looking at the case numbers community vs non-community reveals what is going on: Quote: “Ninety-nine percent of cases were unvaccinated [remember, there are 450 cases !!!]. One case had encephalitis and recovered. Only five cases occurred outside of the affected community.”.

                    The probability that the outside is equally affected as the community (i.e. vaccines do NOT work) is less than 0.0001. (calculated with a chi-square, but any other test will give a comparable result).

                    However you don’t need to test. Alone the fact that the ratio of cases is over 100:1 in favour of unvaccinated kids is a first sight proof about the efficacy of vaccination.

                    In summary we have 450 immune-compromised individuals of which one had a severe complication that might have been deadly. Of the immune compromized individuals it can be expected that some will get diseases they already had. This is because of the idiocies people like you and Ron Roy spread. Consequently you are coresponsible for that.

                    Now, how about YOU presenting ANY data on your “hypotheses” ? Do you have any or do you continue to post just oral flatulences of a village idiot ?

                  146. Fact 450 cases. Fact zero deaths or long term complication. Fact lifelong immunity. Fact no need to run for the hills.

                  147. What if a child in the community was being treated for cancer or has immunodeficiency…and came into contact with one of these unvaccinated children. Just collateral damage?

                  148. I’ll wait while you shift the goal posts. Collateral Damage? Why are there 19 countries with vaccine injury compensation programs? Yea collateral damage, and not just one child, thousands. Quite the comparison, thousands to one.

                  149. What if a child in the community was being treated for cancer or has immunodeficiency…and came into contact with one of these unvaccinated children. Just collateral damage?

                  150. Let me lecture you: If 10.000 people get measles (as you desire), up to 20 will die, 5 in hundred will be permanently disabled. Your argumentation sounds like a drunk driver defending his recklessness by arguing that no accident happened so far.

                  151. You mean not being indoctrinated by modern medicine / big pharm / the MEDICAL MAFIA makes me unqualified to judge? Wrong as usual Tommyboy.

                  152. HELLO!!!! There were ONLY 450..no deaths..no lingering illness…450 now with lifelong natural immunity…case closed…no need for Austrian blah blah!

                  153. HELLO !!!! most drunken drivers do NOT cause accidents. Do you advocate drunken driving ?

                  154. These infected kids went into the general community and managed to get 5 other unvaccinated kids infected with measles. Vaccination status and herd immunity protected everyone else. If everyone was unvaccinated like you would like….then measles would have spread through the general population and killed 1/1000 and blinded many others.

                  155. You called this a study over and over. So lets say its a study, what did the study find? Of 450 who successfully conquered the Measles 450 now have lifelong immunity. Of 450 only one had TEMPORARY encephalitis. ZERO deaths. Its a great study

                  156. Some may get SSPE. Some may have hearing/vision problems. Those don’t all show up right away. I had long suspected that I had some hearing loss. This was finally documented in college when I had to have a hearing test for a job. The audiologist said it was probably from measles or mumps. I had those diseases at ages 5-6.

                  157. My colleague is probably the world authority on the epidemiology of eye disease. He states that the most impressive change he has seen in the course of his career is the reduction in childhood blindness due to worldwide implementation of the measles vaccine.

                  158. Some may get SSPE. Some may have hearing/vision problems. Those don’t all show up right away. I had long suspected that I had some hearing loss. This was finally documented in college when I had to have a hearing test for a job. The audiologist said it was probably from measles or mumps. I had those diseases at ages 5-6.

                  159. Fact 450 cases. Fact zero deaths or long term complication. Fact lifelong immunity. Fact no need to run for the hills.

                  160. Yes. That is the whole point. “Just saying something happened isn’t evidence”. That is why we use statistics to analyze if it is a random occurrence versus a true occurrence. There is absolutely no double standard…you are the one asking for a double standard I think I know why you only say one liners. Whenever you say more than a one liner, you show your ignorance!!!

                  161. Doesn’t matter how much they P, you can only surmise the vaccine was responsible.

                  162. Ron, you can not provide any data that supports your position. Furthermore you agreed that you expect variability – exactly what you’d expect if your hypothesis is false.

                    That is pretty definitively your ass getting kicked.

                  163. Johnny I and many others have proven you wrong more times than I can count. You will never admit the truth because your love of money exceeds any semblance of a conscience you might have. I will admit that because of you and your partners in crime I’ve been able to meet people who are far more knowledgeable than me, concerning the dangers of vaccines, and because of them I will be able to save even more people from the horrors of vaccines. So please keep posting.

                  164. Johnny I and many others have proven you wrong more times than I can count.

                    Except that you can’t point out even one clear case of this. For example this case you’ve had to agree that even in your imagined world where vaccines create infant mortality there’s going to be significant variability between countries IM. Which is exactly what you expect to see in a world where there is no link between IM and vaccines.

                    So I suppose you could say that you’ve kicked your own ass here. If that makes you feel any better.

                  165. Johnny I and many others have proven you wrong more times than I can count.

                    Except that you can’t point out even one clear case of this. For example this case you’ve had to agree that even in your imagined world where vaccines create infant mortality there’s going to be significant variability between countries IM. Which is exactly what you expect to see in a world where there is no link between IM and vaccines.

                    So I suppose you could say that you’ve kicked your own ass here. If that makes you feel any better.

                  166. Johnny I and many others have proven you wrong more times than I can count. You will never admit the truth because your love of money exceeds any semblance of a conscience you might have. I will admit that because of you and your partners in crime I’ve been able to meet people who are far more knowledgeable than me, concerning the dangers of vaccines, and because of them I will be able to save even more people from the horrors of vaccines. So please keep posting.

                  167. Johnny you Tommy and all these other shills put together wouldn’t be able to kick anybody’s ass either verbally or physically so go back to sleep and keep dreaming.

              2. Show us Canada’s vaccine schedule compared to the USA then. And tell us about Canada’s mandatory system.

              3. The Canadian medical system ah yes that’s the one where one of my aunts was treated for heart disease for eight years. I said eight because on the ninth year the doctors said oops it’s NOT heart disease. Yeah that medical care

                  1. Tommy I would like to know who you worked for when you co-authored those science papers and what prize you won.

                  2. If you would be able to do proper literature research you would not ask this question. The next proof of incompetence.

                  3. He knows that already because he has the publication list. Apparently you can’t post more than meaningless one-liners

                  4. Your answer is all the proof I need. You somehow added your name to those science papers or you’re using someone else’s name because you’re certainly no scientist.

                  5. Yeah, Ronnyboy. and there are unicorns and elves in the woods. Plus, beware of the Leprechauns. If you would be able to do a proper literature research you would have seen my affiliation and could have checked it. Apparently you are not even able to do such a simple thing.

                  6. You where not miseducated. According to your own admission you where not properly educated at all.

                  7. Nice try. Apparently I have to remind you that Englich is my second language and that you have NO second language and are not even able to understand your own language as you have proven.

                  8. Das ist das einzige was Du kannst. Auf Tippfehlern herumreiten. Wissenschaft oder sonst was – nichts. Erbärmlich. Und vergiss nicht: Deine Sprache, Kultur und fast alles trägt den Stempel: “Made in Europe”.

                  9. This one-liner about the use of where and were is your entire lecture ? The rest is flatulence ? Wow.

                  10. This one-liner about the use of where and were is your entire lecture ? The rest is flatulence ? Wow.

                1. Ah yes, another one of your “Canadian” relatives. The same relatives who didn’t know private practice in Canada just meant the doctors opened their own office. Give up already.

                2. The Canadian medical system ah yes

                  The anecdotal evidence system. Ah yes, that’s where people like Ron Roy takes his (probably seriously skewed if not outright fabricated) stories and thinks he’s making a point.

    1. Where can I find the blog post? How is she allowed to make the claim on her website of being able to treat 85% of cancers? Evil woman….do you think she actually believes it?

        1. This shows how it will be impossible to clean house from within with regards to naturopathic medicine. If this Dr Huber with her ridiculously false claims is their main mouthpiece…

        2. This shows how it will be impossible to clean house from within with regards to naturopathic medicine. If this Dr Huber with her ridiculously false claims is their main mouthpiece…

        1. Ironically, at the bottom of the website there are all the sponsors of this naturopathic association—all the big vitamin companies like Nordic naturals etc.
          As far as I know, the AMA is not sponsored by big pharma. I do not see them having such links and advertisements to industry on their website.
          Hypocrites!!!!

        2. Ironically, at the bottom of the website there are all the sponsors of this naturopathic association—all the big vitamin companies like Nordic naturals etc.
          As far as I know, the AMA is not sponsored by big pharma. I do not see them having such links and advertisements to industry on their website.
          Hypocrites!!!!

    2. Colleen Huber and her sugar feeds cancer bullshit again. They even published a “study” where they claim a 85% success rate. I think I have reviewed it here in a previous post. If you look closely at the numbers and what they did, Huber should be prosecuted. She is really reckless and dangerous.

        1. Ronny, let me explain something to you. You don’t even understand the difference between germ theory and the pleomorphism hypothesis becuase you think that *both* are true – when they are in fact mutally exclusive. You admitted of having no higher eductation. I.o.W. you are in no position to judge. Got it ?

        2. Ronny, let me explain something to you. You don’t even understand the difference between germ theory and the pleomorphism hypothesis becuase you think that *both* are true – when they are in fact mutally exclusive. You admitted of having no higher eductation. I.o.W. you are in no position to judge. Got it ?

          1. No they’re not. If the soil / terrain / body is not in a healthy state / balance it’s possible that being exposed to a germ that is the result of someone elses disease will cause a similar problem in that person but that doesn’t negate the fact that that particular germ had mutated originally in that other persons body because of an unhealthy state. This is why holistic practitioner don’t attack the germ the restore the body to a healthy state and then the mutated germ will be restored to it’s non pathogenic state. Was that clear enough? Hello hello ? Oh Tommy can’t hear he’s still got his head up…………….

            1. Just two words: complete bullshit. Quote: “This is why holistic practitioner don’t attack the germ the[y] restore the
              body to a healthy state and then the mutated germ will be restored to it’s non pathogenic state”. No understanding of germ theory, no understanding of mutations either and no understanding of the polymorphism theory.

              Aside that see, this approach is *exactly* why Ezekiel Stephan died. What many NDs do (and what you describe here) is akin to trying to fend off an ongoing attack of a sexual predator by talking about his childhood.This is also complete bullshit. You really do not understand even how disease works.

                1. Ronny, one who – by his own admition – does not have an education can not judge if others are miseducated. In simple English for you: No education as auto-mechanic, no judging works of auto-mechanics, got it ?

                2. Ronny, one who – by his own admition – does not have an education can not judge if others are miseducated. In simple English for you: No education as auto-mechanic, no judging works of auto-mechanics, got it ?

                  1. Anyone can educate themselves, especially in the age of computers. My nephew leaned, on his own, so much about computers that when he took a class on computers in high school the teacher admitted he knew more than he did. He frequently bailed out the teacher when he ran into problems. In his first year of college he’s the one who tied in all the colleges computers together. So Tommy I WILL continue my education ans without having the tunnel vision students in various sciences have to maintain in order to graduate.

                  2. Someone who does not understand that toxicity does not depend only on amount, but also on weight and time given has no education in biology. Someone who does not understand that pleomorphism hypothesis and germ theory are mutually exclusive has no education either in that matter. Sorry Ron you are not in the position to judge.

                  3. Do you have problems comprehending ? Or do you have a reading problem ? Toxicity depends on dose, weight, time administered, availability and clearance. Example: The Aluminum in vaccines is not available due to the lack of solubility. Gee, that really can#t be that difficult to understand.

                  4. Vaccine advocates say two things about this: 1) that the aluminum
                    dissolves and is flushed from the body in a few days, or an amount of
                    time that renders it harmless, and 2) that the aluminum that doesnt
                    dissolve remains harmlessly at the site of injection (i.e., that its not
                    really “absorbed”). Both claims are false. Claim 1 is contradicted by
                    the Flarend study, which shows that only 6% (for hydroxide) and 22% (for
                    phosphate) of Al adjuvant was eliminated after 1 month. Claim 2 is
                    contradicted by studies by Dr Gherardi, which show that the aluminum
                    disperses throughout the body, and into the brain, in nanoparticulate
                    form (i.e. it moves around the body faster than it dissolves). Claim 2
                    is also contradicted by Flarend which demonstrated that Al adjuvant
                    appeared in many organs like the brain, spleen and liver.

                  5. Like usual Ron, you are REGURGITATING what you have read on another website, but have not done any of the research yourself. Which website this time???
                    If you bothered to read the flared study, you will see that the authors conclude…”it is unlikely that the aluminum contained in the vaccine can have a significant influence of the risk of exposure to aluminum, which explains the safety of aluminum adjuvants.”
                    So obviously one of your pseudoscientists, on some conspiracy site, is taking things out of context again.
                    Thanks for providing the reference to prove our point yet again.

                  6. They did not conclude that:”it is unlikely that the aluminum contained in the vaccine
                    can have a significant influence of the risk of exposure to aluminum,
                    which explains the safety of aluminum adjuvants.” Your putting that in quotation marks doesn’t make it any less of a lie.

                  7. Ron! Read the paper. Think for yourself. Flarend is not one of your quacks who believes adjuvants are dangerous. In fact his whole body of research shows how safe they are

                  8. I am still waiting for you to quote the conclusion of this study. I copied and pasted what i read. you said it is wrong. So please copy and paste what you read (i know you didn’t read it because you could not understand it if you did….and I know you just regurgitate what you read on conspiracy websites)

                  9. Waiting waiting. For quote from conclusion of flarend paper. Very easy just to copy and paste the conclusion Ron Roy. Problem is that you probably have never read anything except conspiracy sites or perhaps an abstract

                  10. Argument 1: “The body gets rid of most of the aluminium in just a few days.”

                    Argument 1 is wrong in view of Flarend and Movsas.
                    Flarend describes a study of radioactive (“radiolabeled”) aluminum
                    adjuvant injected into rabbits. Both Al hydroxide and Al phosphate
                    adjuvants were tested, in vaccine-relevant dosages. The Flarend paper is
                    well known, was published in the mainstream, vaccine-friendly journal Vaccine
                    in 1997, and is referenced by both Keith and Mitkus. Flarend is a
                    widely-cited study and represents the best available science on the
                    elimination of injected Al adjuvant.

                    Flarend injected radiolabeled AlOH and AlPO4 into rabbits, and
                    monitored the urinary excretion of the aluminum. After 28 days, the
                    rabbits were dissected and aluminum concentration was measured in body
                    tissues. The radioactivity allowed very accurate measurements of
                    aluminum excretion, and where it traveled in the body.

                    Flarend unequivocally determined that the aluminum was NOT eliminated
                    in “just a few days”, as claimed by the Oxford Vaccine Group. Instead,
                    Flarend found that most of the aluminum was retained in the body even
                    after 28 days. Flarend states:

                    “The cumulative amount of aluminum eliminated in the
                    urine during the 28 days of the study was 6% of the Al hydroxide and 22%
                    of the Al phosphate adjuvant dose. Aluminum from both adjuvants was
                    still being excreted at a steady rate at day 28.”

                    Since injected aluminum is not eliminated in the feces, about 94% and
                    78% of Al hydroxide and Al phosphate, respectively, remained in the
                    body after 28 days. The Oxford Vaccine Group is blatantly lying about
                    the elimination of Al adjuvant.

                    Further, Flarend also reported that the aluminum persisted in the blood for weeks. Flarend states

                    “The aluminum concentration [in blood] produced by AH
                    [Al hydroxide] adjuvant at 1 hour was similar to the concentrations
                    found from 2 to 28 days.”

                    (Statements in brackets added for clarity.)

                    The concentration in the blood of Al phosphate also persisted for weeks, but at a higher level.

                    The Movsas study (2013) used human infants and obtained similar
                    results. Movsas measured aluminum in urine and blood before and after
                    routine vaccination with 1200mcg aluminum at the 2-month date. No change
                    in urine or blood levels was observed (strangely, the actual
                    measurements were not disclosed)*. Movsas states:

                    “No significant change in levels of urinary or serum aluminum were seen after vaccination.“

                    The obvious question is “where did the aluminum go”? It was injected
                    into the body, but it didn’t show up in the blood or urine. It’s in the
                    body somewhere, but we don’t know where.

                    Movsas was “reassured” by these results, which makes no sense. Movsas states:

                    “We were reassured to find no significant postvaccine
                    rise in serum aluminum level after vaccination of preterm infants with
                    vaccines containing a total of 1200 μg of aluminum.“

                    The above statement is bizarre. We don’t know where the aluminum
                    went, and thats not reassuring at all. Many tissues are very sensitive
                    to aluminum, like the brain. Movsas’s irrational interpretation is an
                    example of the bias doctors have to ignore the harm caused by their
                    treatments (See our FAQ/About page for commentary about this). Also see NOTE below about Movsas*.

                    The Flarend and Movsas results obviously contradict the “just a few days” claim by the Oxford Vaccine Group and other vaccine advocates.

                    The Flarend and Movsas results are not surprising in view of the
                    present scientific understanding of aluminum adjuvants. Today, it is
                    known that Al adjuvant particles persist in the body and are not
                    eliminated, even after years. Its important to note that the Al adjuvant
                    particles dissolve very slowly; they remain in the body as particles,
                    not dissolved aluminum ions. The Al adjuvant is eaten by macrophages
                    (white blood cells), and then transported around the body and into the
                    brain by the macrophages. Since macrophages do not travel in the blood
                    (they travel via the lymphatic system), it’s not surprising that the
                    aluminum was not observed in the blood. The transport of aluminum
                    adjuvant nanoparticles is explained here: http://vaccinepapers.org/al-adjuvant-nanoparticles-can-travel-brain/

                    Conclusion

                    The Oxford vaccine group is wrong when they claim that “The body gets rid of most of the aluminium in just a few days.”

                  11. Ron. Now you are outright lying through your teeth. That is not what the conclusion of the flarend paper says. Flarend, himself, unequivocally says that his research shows that aluminum adjuvants are safe in vaccines. You did not read his paper and are misquoting him.

                  12. READ the actual paper in VACCINE. You are still regurgitating what other people say. Flarend states over and over again in his paper that his study clearly shows that the body is easily able to clear the small amount of aluminum adjuvant.
                    You are not reading his paper, you are still looking at other people’s conspiracy sites.

                  13. READ the actual paper in VACCINE. You are still regurgitating what other people say. Flarend states over and over again in his paper that his study clearly shows that the body is easily able to clear the small amount of aluminum adjuvant.
                    You are not reading his paper, you are still looking at other people’s conspiracy sites.

                  14. 28 days later and the aluminum was still in the rabbits body is safe? And this was based on one shot. Kids today receive as much as 850mcg in one dose of a combination vaccine. Another study:

                    Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?

                    Tomljenovic L1, Shaw CA.

                    Author information

                    Abstract

                    Aluminum
                    is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used
                    vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum
                    adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of
                    action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of
                    data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of
                    this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely
                    accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum
                    adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in
                    humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for
                    autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological
                    complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health
                    consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may
                    have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects
                    underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and
                    scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a
                    framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly
                    contentious medical issue.

                  15. As I already pointed out to you. The methodology of this “study” is crap. With the same methodology on can prove a correlation between consumption of organic food and autism.

                  16. Ronnyboy, again you are talking bullshit. Flamend has already been pointed out to you. Additionally, if you waould have read and understood the paper, it says that only 10% of the Aluminum went into the serum within 28 days which is in line with an insoluble substance. This is corroborated by Movsas who detects no rise in Al levels. So that is in line with the insolubility of AlOH3. An insoluble material can not be toxic. Toxicity requires a solution of the poison. Aside that, copy pasting without quoting the source correctly is considered copyright infringement, Ronnyboy. If you had a proper university degree you would know that.

                  17. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886

                    Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most
                    commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread
                    use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their
                    mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a
                    concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these
                    compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is
                    safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however,
                    clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious
                    immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant
                    form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and
                    associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and
                    widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility
                    that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential
                    adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the
                    medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will
                    provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of
                    this highly contentious medical issue.

                  18. Argument 1: “The body gets rid of most of the aluminium in just a few days.”

                    Argument 1 is wrong in view of Flarend and Movsas.
                    Flarend describes a study of radioactive (“radiolabeled”) aluminum
                    adjuvant injected into rabbits. Both Al hydroxide and Al phosphate
                    adjuvants were tested, in vaccine-relevant dosages. The Flarend paper is
                    well known, was published in the mainstream, vaccine-friendly journal Vaccine
                    in 1997, and is referenced by both Keith and Mitkus. Flarend is a
                    widely-cited study and represents the best available science on the
                    elimination of injected Al adjuvant.

                    Flarend injected radiolabeled AlOH and AlPO4 into rabbits, and
                    monitored the urinary excretion of the aluminum. After 28 days, the
                    rabbits were dissected and aluminum concentration was measured in body
                    tissues. The radioactivity allowed very accurate measurements of
                    aluminum excretion, and where it traveled in the body.

                    Flarend unequivocally determined that the aluminum was NOT eliminated
                    in “just a few days”, as claimed by the Oxford Vaccine Group. Instead,
                    Flarend found that most of the aluminum was retained in the body even
                    after 28 days. Flarend states:

                    “The cumulative amount of aluminum eliminated in the
                    urine during the 28 days of the study was 6% of the Al hydroxide and 22%
                    of the Al phosphate adjuvant dose. Aluminum from both adjuvants was
                    still being excreted at a steady rate at day 28.”

                    Since injected aluminum is not eliminated in the feces, about 94% and
                    78% of Al hydroxide and Al phosphate, respectively, remained in the
                    body after 28 days. The Oxford Vaccine Group is blatantly lying about
                    the elimination of Al adjuvant.

                    Further, Flarend also reported that the aluminum persisted in the blood for weeks. Flarend states

                    “The aluminum concentration [in blood] produced by AH
                    [Al hydroxide] adjuvant at 1 hour was similar to the concentrations
                    found from 2 to 28 days.”

                    (Statements in brackets added for clarity.)

                    The concentration in the blood of Al phosphate also persisted for weeks, but at a higher level.

                    The Movsas study (2013) used human infants and obtained similar
                    results. Movsas measured aluminum in urine and blood before and after
                    routine vaccination with 1200mcg aluminum at the 2-month date. No change
                    in urine or blood levels was observed (strangely, the actual
                    measurements were not disclosed)*. Movsas states:

                    “No significant change in levels of urinary or serum aluminum were seen after vaccination.“

                    The obvious question is “where did the aluminum go”? It was injected
                    into the body, but it didn’t show up in the blood or urine. It’s in the
                    body somewhere, but we don’t know where.

                    Movsas was “reassured” by these results, which makes no sense. Movsas states:

                    “We were reassured to find no significant postvaccine
                    rise in serum aluminum level after vaccination of preterm infants with
                    vaccines containing a total of 1200 μg of aluminum.“

                    The above statement is bizarre. We don’t know where the aluminum
                    went, and thats not reassuring at all. Many tissues are very sensitive
                    to aluminum, like the brain. Movsas’s irrational interpretation is an
                    example of the bias doctors have to ignore the harm caused by their
                    treatments (See our FAQ/About page for commentary about this). Also see NOTE below about Movsas*.

                    The Flarend and Movsas results obviously contradict the “just a few days” claim by the Oxford Vaccine Group and other vaccine advocates.

                    The Flarend and Movsas results are not surprising in view of the
                    present scientific understanding of aluminum adjuvants. Today, it is
                    known that Al adjuvant particles persist in the body and are not
                    eliminated, even after years. Its important to note that the Al adjuvant
                    particles dissolve very slowly; they remain in the body as particles,
                    not dissolved aluminum ions. The Al adjuvant is eaten by macrophages
                    (white blood cells), and then transported around the body and into the
                    brain by the macrophages. Since macrophages do not travel in the blood
                    (they travel via the lymphatic system), it’s not surprising that the
                    aluminum was not observed in the blood. The transport of aluminum
                    adjuvant nanoparticles is explained here: http://vaccinepapers.org/al-adjuvant-nanoparticles-can-travel-brain/

                    Conclusion

                    The Oxford vaccine group is wrong when they claim that “The body gets rid of most of the aluminium in just a few days.”

                  19. wrong. He is a quack who downplays what happens to adjuvants and supports the belief stimulating the immune system with aluminum mimics a reaction to an actual virus, which is impossible.

                  20. Impossible? Yes dr autism dadd and where is your immunology/md degree from? You have an academic appointment at what university?

                  21. Ha. You challenged the wrong person. I have a bsc. MD. Mph. And medical speciality. As well as an appointment at a major university.

                  22. Obviously, you have no scientific background whatsoever, as you cannot understand an extremely simply designed study.

                  23. I didn’t sAy that. I said the prevalence of autism is the same in vaccinated and unvaccinated kids

                  24. All the studies show that it is the truth over and over again. Show me a population based study that says otherwise?

                  25. You merely imply they exist in a manner that makes it an open and shut case…They don’t exist.

                  26. I tried to find studies showing that and could not find them. Sounds like you are blowing smoke

                  27. AutismDadd do you have problems reading English ? Where are the studies that support your claims ? On the table or be called an idiot.

                  28. AutismDadd do you have problems reading English ? Where are the studies that support your claims ? On the table or be called an idiot.

                  29. I provided you four major studies showing that autism rates are equal between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. You just will not look at them

                  30. Why are they bogus? Perhaps because they prove without any doubt that mmr does NOT cause autism.

                  31. Don’t be daft. I’ve NEVER read a study that proved its point. It may conclude it, but that’s the bogus part. And they are heavily littered with fluff like “suggests” “may indicate” blah blah, that’s just double talk and lingo.

                  32. So basically you have never read any studies. So all your beliefs I built on an anecdotes and you reject the scientific method.

                  33. Funny how pro-vac Neanderthals want to write little conclusions w/o evidence. Where have we heard of that before?

                  34. You very likely never have read any study, at least not to the point of understanding it. So once again, where are your data supporting your point ? You have the choice of either presenting them or being called an idiot.

                  35. I tried to find studies showing that and could not find them. Sounds like you are blowing smoke

                  36. What trash science. If a child receiving MMR has a sibling with autism, but the other child doesn’t become autistic it means no association? What utter rubbish

                  37. Seriously dude. How can you not understand this article. Trash science? It shows that the prevalence of autism was equal in an unvaccinated versus vaccinated in a high risk population. Even with your limited intellect you should be able to understand this study.

                  38. So who would expect anything else from a HIGH RISK POPULATION? How is that meaningful?

                  39. Wow, do I really have to explain this study to you. It is really not that complicated.
                    One often chooses a high risk population, so that one will have a higher prevalence of the disease being studied.
                    They then showed that the prevalence of autism in this high risk population was the same between those who were vaccinated or not. Obviously, if vaccines caused autism, then one would expect a higher incidence of autism in the vaccinated population then the non vaccinated population.
                    Since the incidence rates were the same…this is compelling proof that vaccines do not cause autism.
                    This is an extremely easy study to understand…what is the problem?

                  40. How would you prove who is in a high risk population? Even in families with a child with autism has children who don’t. So how does that count as high risk?

                  41. Autismdadd. Seriously. What is wrong with you? This is an easy study to understand. At least come up with an intelligent statement? At least Lowell and Ron seem to grasp simple concepts, although they distort them.
                    Let’s try again. Pretend it is not a high risk population as all that matters is that the groups are the same with the only difference being that one group is vaccinated and the other is not. The rates of autism are equal. Therefore this is evidence that the mmr does not cause, nor is it even temporally associated with autism.
                    Wow. I think a 5 year old could grasp this concept

                  42. I agree you sound like a 5 year old. Plus you don’t answer direct questions you just give pointless lectures

                  43. I agree you sound like a 5 year old. Plus you don’t answer direct questions you just give pointless lectures

                  44. Autismdadd. Seriously. What is wrong with you? This is an easy study to understand. At least come up with an intelligent statement? At least Lowell and Ron seem to grasp simple concepts, although they distort them.
                    Let’s try again. Pretend it is not a high risk population as all that matters is that the groups are the same with the only difference being that one group is vaccinated and the other is not. The rates of autism are equal. Therefore this is evidence that the mmr does not cause, nor is it even temporally associated with autism.
                    Wow. I think a 5 year old could grasp this concept

                  45. So autism dadd, here are citations for well done large studies in the 3 most prestigious journals (JAMA, NEJM, Lancet), as well as a cochrane review all showing that autism is not related too MMR. Besides wakefield fraudulent farce of 12 patients that has been retracted, what evidence can you provide to the contrary.

                    Taylor B, Miller E, Farrington CP, et al. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet. 1999;353(9169):2026-2029.

                    Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, et al. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(19):1477-1482.

                    Demicheli V, Rivetti A, Debalini MG, Di Pietrantonj C. Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2:CD004407.

                    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2275444

                  46. Let me explain something to you. Your posts regarding research in high risk populations, especially this: So who would expect anything else from a HIGH RISK POPULATION? How is that meaningful?” and this: “So who would expect anything else from a HIGH RISK POPULATION? How is that meaningful?” prove beyond doubt that you have no clue whatsoever how research is done. Doing research in high risk populations means that the prevalence of a disease is higher which in turn means that associations can be detected with much more statistical power. This is science 101. Not knowing this means you are in no position whatsoever to assess the validity of autism research. David and I are in the position. What you post can be described by two words: utter bullshit. Or more precisely: http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/

                  47. I don’t give a fart about your assessments on credibility of anything. That is not my “opinion”, that is how science works. I have a proper degree plus 25+ years experience, you don’t even have the education. Therefore you are in no position to judge. Got it ?

                  48. I got Milk. I find it disturbing you think you know all. No modesty, just straightforward I’m better than you. Makes for an inflexible mind which makes you a prime candidate to preach science. So you would then claim science is omnipotent?

                  49. Let me guess, for the sake of openmindedness and flexibility you also let somebody with proven incompetence in automechanics repair a defective brake ?

                  50. I don’t give a fart about your assessments on credibility of anything. That is not my “opinion”, that is how science works. I have a proper degree plus 25+ years experience, you don’t even have the education. Therefore you are in no position to judge. Got it ?

                  51. Sum them up for me. Do they use terms like” may suggest” “may indicate” etc? Then they may be bogus

                  52. You don’t know how the immune system works, do you ? The adjuvant is given to enhance the reaction towards the antigen by ways of signaling an unspecific activation.

                  53. Yea just what I said. How does the immune system understand that? IT DOESN’T and it can’t. Its an artificial Hail Mary from scientists experimenting on consumers. No amount of B.S. statements like yours will change what’s going to happen from what you’d like to happen.

                  54. Yea just what I said. How does the immune system understand that? IT DOESN’T and it can’t. Its an artificial Hail Mary from scientists experimenting on consumers. No amount of B.S. statements like yours will change what’s going to happen from what you’d like to happen.

                  55. Quote: “How does the immune system understand that ?” I.o.W: you do not know how the immune system, especially the interplay between specific and unspecific activation works. AutismDad, you are dealing here with scientists in cancer research with 25+ years experience who know very well how an adjuvant works.

                  56. You fooled me then. Your simplistic nonsense is not an explanation, its low grade rubbish

                  57. If you had any idea about the immune system, you would know that following an injury the unspecific part of the immune system is activated first, followed by the specific part. The better the unspecific activation, the stronger the following specific response. This is how adjuvants work. Apparently you do not know that.

                  58. Its a theory and vaccines effect the order of response, so it isn’t as you say. We aren’t discussing injury, unless you mean vaccine injury

                  59. Oh my God. First of all, does the expression theory of gravitation tell you something ? Have you ever seen an object fall bottom-up ? In science a “theory” is a hypothesis that is that firm established by evidence that it amounts to a fact. I.o.W. you do not understand science. Aside this, the injury is the injection. Do I really have to explain this to you ?

                  60. You’ve shown me that all I’ll hear from you is theory and hypothetical ideas. I don’t consider that concrete proof, but those with Blind Faith in science Syndrome think its the gospel. No wonder you are called nerds.

                  61. In other words, no idea about immunology or science at all. Once again, in science a theory is the highest class of certainty. Read any textbook on immunology.

                  62. Wow what garbage. No wonder the World is so screwed up. I mean really theory is NOT concrete, therefore it not of high certainty. Maybe it is to those who are indoctrinated and parrot the propaganda, but to any with the ability to think logically, that’s trash science.

                  63. Cute, you are lecturing me about definitions of scientific terms We are talking here about science, therefore the definition given by the National Academy of Sciences of the USA counts: Theory: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” In other words, something very certain. You don’t even know how to use your own mother tongue correctly. Let me lecture you: the correct word in Enlish for what you want to express is “hypothesis” which the action of adjuvants in immunology is certainly not.

                    Aside that, is gravitational theory (note, that is a theory !) also something uncertain for you ? I hope you stay away from anything that flies.

                  64. That’s a lot of blah blah. Is that your specialty? What about theories about adjuvants then and their negative outcomes? Must be certain and substantiated then. Thanks for that information

                  65. Let me lecture you. The correct word is “hypotheses” and NOT theory. How about YOU presenting some data on your “hypotheses” ? Up to know there is nothing.

                  66. This is something you should know. But I guess you chose to ignore it in favor of a popular theory.

                  67. This is not how things work. You have a hypothesis, you have to provide supporting data. From your responses I conclude that you are unable to do that. Dismissed.

                  68. Wrong. I am exposing you as an ignorant who has no idea what he is talking about.

                  69. I’m letting you do it for me. Your ego seems inflated and you have some sort of God complex that warps your every statement.

                  70. Basically you do not believe in anything unless you can see it. So you ignore years and years of research and scientific progress because you do not understand it. Even your precious gurus like mercola etc would not deny these simple scientific certainties that children learn in basic science.

                  71. Please explain to me how I have zero credibility as I am an MD specialist with publications in major journals. As opposed to you who is a troll who seems to have even trouble figuring out pubmed, and last education in science was 30 years ago in grade 8.

                  72. Do all MD specialists post juvenile responses? Seems to be common. Is it part of your indoctrination?

                  73. Ronnyboy, where are YOUR publications ? Oh sorry I forgot. No proper education, no publication.

                  74. Could you clarify this “where no foot has gone before” slogan of yours? “That’s a lot of blah blah blah” isn’t really working for me unless you’ve discovered some sort of yogic hemorrhoidal self-treatment that you’ve failed to mention but which also reassures one that having left thought in a shallow grave somewhere is a novelty.

                  75. Again….makes no sense

                    Given your demonstrated level of ideation, the only place that occurs to me that you could “put your foot where no foot has gone before” is your asshοle. Is that clearer?

                    In fairness, I don’t know how experimental you are in the bedroom. Is there a symmetric or asymmetric toenail-trimming rule in place with you and your partner, or is it freestyle?

                  76. They ignore or outright lie about any negative outcomes when it comes to vaccines.The goal of the pharmaceutical industry is to make money period and anyone who helps them in that goal is rewarded those who find fault are put through a living hell.

                  77. Yes we know. I have that on your list of conspiracy theories along with 911.
                    We are still waiting for this data that you said your superiors are not allowing you to release yet. When is that going to occur?

                  78. We are still waiting for this data that you said your superiors are not
                    allowing you to release yet. When is that going to occur? What the hell are you talking about?

                  79. I recall you saying that Naessens people or someone you knew had data that they were going to release when they are ready that was going to change everything? Do I have to go back through all your messages to find it?

                  80. Found it. You said you have sources and data that are yet unrevealed. You said that would prove us all wrong but that you cannot reveal it until you are allowed too.

                  81. This sounds like the Obama birth certificate nonsense. Someone was always going to release that Kenyan BC “next week, month, whatever”.

                  82. Oh. My. Goddess.

                    You don’t even know how the word theory (as opposed to hypothesis) is used in science. Please go away.

                  83. No one forced you to join in. Why don’t you take up cliff diving….water optional

                  84. Oh. My. Goddess.

                    You don’t even know how the word theory (as opposed to hypothesis) is used in science. Please go away.

                  85. Eight brainless one-liners alone as a response to my posts and not *one* containing anything of substance. The work of an oral Flatulist. Of course it sounds like blah blah to you. Sciencetalk always sounds like bla bla for the village fools.

                  86. Your every utterance only serves to further display your total ignorance of all things scientific.

                  87. Oh and you are Super Toad and you are here to save science from the evil Vaccine Safety Promoters?

                  88. Your every utterance only serves to further display your total ignorance of all things scientific.

                  89. Sounds like bullshit. An unspecific part? It has no name? The specific part? No name? Explain how the unspecific part causes the specific part to be stronger.

                  90. unspecific activation? In other words a free for all and lets whatever happens happen. No way to control or predict the outcome. No wonder 19 countries have vaccine injury compensation plans.

                  91. Don’t you come here and start up about anaphlaxis, I am an anaphylactic allergy patient that carries epipens for life threatening allergies. I LIVE IT EVERY DAMN DAY.

                  92. Yes I am and I am an old bitch, born before all of this dumb blabber about vaccines. I have anaphylaxis because GENETICS. I have rare autoimmune disease (multiple) again, because genetics. Not vaccines.

                  93. No. It was to organic eggs which were laid by the chickens my grandparents raised and the anaphylaxis happened in my grandparents home. Old-time farming people that didn’t believe in fast food, ‘chemicals’ and anything else woo woos like to blame and shame for. I didn’t have fast food or “chemicals” as a child. I WAS BORN THIS WAY. To this day I have egg allergies and they got worse when I turned middle aged–which is very typical for GENETIC allergy and autoimmune patients. I did not grow out of my food allergies like most kids.

                    So dad, maybe junior over there is autistic because you allowed fast food? Shall I start my blame and shame list for you now? I sure can act superior in the fast food department because I was not exposed to that at all!

                    But really, I don’t want to shame you at all. Your child was born that way. You just need to accept that and learn to accept other people with disabilities and illnesses. It was hard for me to accept my illnesses for what they were and that there is no cure right now. I try to work on making my life more comfortable and fun–and I’ll be damned if I am going to allow myself to be shamed and blamed.

                  94. Oh brother. So you are nonvaccinated? Never had a vaccine cultivated with chick embryo or chicken protein?

                  95. Think about this for a minute. Your question by its very nature acknowledges that I was born. this. way. If your immune system is prone to making IgE antibodies to the proteins found in eggs it will make those antibodies no matter how you are exposed to them whether you are exposed through awesome organic eggs, factory-farmed eggs, or egg in vaccines. It’s the egg protein that the immune system makes the IgE for–it doesn’t give a damn where those eggs came from. Your immune system does whatever the hell it wants to–you are not in control and there is no cure or answer as to why this is. Maybe if it concerns you so much you need to support food allergy research.

                    And as for vaccinations ANY vaccination I take, and I do take them when I am on immune suppressing therapy or chemo so that I don’t die from the flu, etc., has to be done and monitored in a board certified allergist MD office for 1-3 hours. I absolutely cannot go around taking whatever vaccine is offered due to the eggs.

                  96. And you can prove it never started with vaccines in the first place? Don’t you know they have moved away from chicken protein to human protein? And other animal protein like green monkey and others were used? Inject vaccines containing foreign protein and voila allergy to that foreign protein.

                  97. DAD…this is what I am trying to point out to you…It. Does. Not. Matter. how the protein was introduced into my body, topically, injection, by mouth, my immune system made antibodies to the protein in eggs, period. It sees a foreign protein no matter which door it comes through. It’s one of the allergies I carry epipens for. I’ve almost died from eggs. The egg reaction is the same no matter, even TOUCHING eggs and getting them on my skin will start a reaction. If I had never been vaccinated my body would have developed an egg reaction because DING DING DING! I was born. that. way.

                    I have a whole bunch of deadly allergies you won’t understand and have nothing to do with egg in vaccines. As a teenager I had multiple hospital visits for COSMETICS. Full blown anaphlylaxis after applying a bunch of cheap makeup like teenage girls do. Full blown anaphylaxis after applying benzyl peroxide OTC acne treatment as a teenager.

                    And yes they most certainly do use eggs in vaccines nowadays which is why I have to have a special kind of flu shot that can only be given in a board certified allergist office. I only take vaccines now when there is a clear and present danger to my life, like during immune suppression. I don’t take vaccines otherwise or like other people do getting their flu shot every year.

                  98. DAD…this is what I am trying to point out to you…It. Does. Not. Matter. how the protein was introduced into my body, topically, injection, by mouth, my immune system made antibodies to the protein in eggs, period. It sees a foreign protein no matter which door it comes through. It’s one of the allergies I carry epipens for. I’ve almost died from eggs. The egg reaction is the same no matter, even TOUCHING eggs and getting them on my skin will start a reaction. If I had never been vaccinated my body would have developed an egg reaction because DING DING DING! I was born. that. way.

                    I have a whole bunch of deadly allergies you won’t understand and have nothing to do with egg in vaccines. As a teenager I had multiple hospital visits for COSMETICS. Full blown anaphlylaxis after applying a bunch of cheap makeup like teenage girls do. Full blown anaphylaxis after applying benzyl peroxide OTC acne treatment as a teenager.

                    And yes they most certainly do use eggs in vaccines nowadays which is why I have to have a special kind of flu shot that can only be given in a board certified allergist office. I only take vaccines now when there is a clear and present danger to my life, like during immune suppression. I don’t take vaccines otherwise or like other people do getting their flu shot every year.

                  99. And you can prove it never started with vaccines in the first place? Don’t you know they have moved away from chicken protein to human protein? And other animal protein like green monkey and others were used? Inject vaccines containing foreign protein and voila allergy to that foreign protein.

                  100. Think about this for a minute. Your question by its very nature acknowledges that I was born. this. way. If your immune system is prone to making IgE antibodies to the proteins found in eggs it will make those antibodies no matter how you are exposed to them whether you are exposed through awesome organic eggs, factory-farmed eggs, or egg in vaccines. It’s the egg protein that the immune system makes the IgE for–it doesn’t give a damn where those eggs came from. Your immune system does whatever the hell it wants to–you are not in control and there is no cure or answer as to why this is. Maybe if it concerns you so much you need to support food allergy research.

                    And as for vaccinations ANY vaccination I take, and I do take them when I am on immune suppressing therapy or chemo so that I don’t die from the flu, etc., has to be done and monitored in a board certified allergist MD office for 1-3 hours. I absolutely cannot go around taking whatever vaccine is offered due to the eggs.

                  101. No. It was to organic eggs which were laid by the chickens my grandparents raised and the anaphylaxis happened in my grandparents home. Old-time farming people that didn’t believe in fast food, ‘chemicals’ and anything else woo woos like to blame and shame for. I didn’t have fast food or “chemicals” as a child. I WAS BORN THIS WAY. To this day I have egg allergies and they got worse when I turned middle aged–which is very typical for GENETIC allergy and autoimmune patients. I did not grow out of my food allergies like most kids.

                    So dad, maybe junior over there is autistic because you allowed fast food? Shall I start my blame and shame list for you now? I sure can act superior in the fast food department because I was not exposed to that at all!

                    But really, I don’t want to shame you at all. Your child was born that way. You just need to accept that and learn to accept other people with disabilities and illnesses. It was hard for me to accept my illnesses for what they were and that there is no cure right now. I try to work on making my life more comfortable and fun–and I’ll be damned if I am going to allow myself to be shamed and blamed.

                  102. You don’t know how the immune system works, do you ? The adjuvant is given to enhance the reaction towards the antigen by ways of signaling an unspecific activation.

                  103. And for some reason you think that the human body can magically distinguish between the “evil” aluminium which comes from a vaccine, and the “good” alumninium absorbed following ingestion.

                  104. Did you purposely ignore what I just posted? Where does it say good or bad aluminum? The shills who up voted your response are just as ignorant as you are. You’re all in denial of the truth even when it hits you in between the eyes.

                  105. Ron, you are on record as saying 100% of the aluminium derived from oral ingestion is excreted by the kidneys (so is “harmless”).
                    You also maintain that the aluminium derived from injection is not excreted, and causes brain damage.

                    By what ridiculous, contorted biochemical mechanism do you think this is possible?
                    Can you explain why you think there are differences in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of aluminium, and explain how the body magically distinguishes between chemically identical aluminium molecules?

                  106. http://beyondconformity.co.nz/hilarys-desk/part_two_astounding_hypocrisy_-_ingestion_and_injection

                    What do vaccine contaminants do? What about DNA? What about aluminium?
                    There are lots of medical articles now being published, sounding the
                    alarm about aluminium in vaccines, but the medical system defaults to
                    its routine dogma which says: “You “eat” aluminium, so it’s safe to inject it and the body just expels it from the body really fast.” Their
                    own medical literature has stated for 11 years, that aluminium in
                    vaccines is a significant contributor to the body burden (Yokel McNamara
                    2001) , because unlike “ingested” aluminium, the body absorbs injected
                    aluminium into organs and bones.

                  107. Well, Ronyboy, that is the difference between no education and a proper university degree. Yokel 2002, injection of soluble Al into rats, 0.005% was found in the brain.

                  108. Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations.

                    Tomljenovic L1, Shaw CA.

                    Author information

                    Abstract

                    Immune
                    challenges during early development, including those vaccine-induced,
                    can lead to permanent detrimental alterations of the brain and immune
                    function. Experimental evidence also shows that simultaneous
                    administration of as little as two to three immune adjuvants can
                    overcome genetic resistance to autoimmunity. In some developed
                    countries, by the time children are 4 to 6 years old, they will have
                    received a total of 126 antigenic compounds along with high amounts of
                    aluminum (Al) adjuvants through routine vaccinations. According to the
                    US Food and Drug Administration, safety assessments for vaccines have
                    often not included appropriate toxicity studies because vaccines have
                    not been viewed as inherently toxic. Taken together, these observations
                    raise plausible concerns about the overall safety of current childhood
                    vaccination programs. When assessing adjuvant toxicity in children,
                    several key points ought to be considered: (i) infants and children
                    should not be viewed as “small adults” with regard to toxicological risk
                    as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic
                    insults; (ii) in adult humans Al vaccine adjuvants have been linked to a
                    variety of serious autoimmune and inflammatory conditions (i.e.,
                    “ASIA”), yet children are regularly exposed to much higher amounts of Al
                    from vaccines than adults; (iii) it is often assumed that peripheral
                    immune responses do not affect brain function. However, it is now
                    clearly established that there is a bidirectional neuro-immune
                    cross-talk that plays crucial roles in immunoregulation as well as brain
                    function. In turn, perturbations of the neuro-immune axis have been
                    demonstrated in many autoimmune diseases encompassed in “ASIA” and are
                    thought to be driven by a hyperactive immune response; and (iv) the same
                    components of the neuro-immune axis that play key roles in brain
                    development and immune function are heavily targeted by Al adjuvants. In
                    summary, research evidence shows that increasing concerns about current
                    vaccination practices may indeed be warranted. Because children may be
                    most at risk of vaccine-induced complications, a rigorous evaluation of
                    the vaccine-related adverse health impacts in the pediatric population
                    is urgently needed.

                  109. I see when an article by a reputable scientist disputes your ideas it’s crap. Oh ok I’ll have to remember that.

                  110. “Reputable scientist” does not impress me one little bit. I look at the methodology which you can not due to your lack of education. A scientist publishing correlations based on groups rather than individuals is not a reputable scientist.

                  111. Yes. If you correlate in this way you could “prove” that organic food causes autism.

                  112. And do reputable scientists have a one size fits all approach to vaccines or an individual approach?

                  113. Orac( David Gorski ) critical of a study that proves aluminum adjuvants are dangerous I’m shocked I tell you shocked. Nice try Tommy as if Gorski would agree with anything that would hurt the criminal vaccine industry.

                  114. All these Gorski attacks are telling me that he is having great success at countering anti-vax bullshit.

                  115. I didn’t know Gorski employed anyone. What a tired, boring argument. Are you working for the AANP or supplement companies? Or perhaps my old boss?!

                  116. This is the author of that science blog that you posted:(NaturalNews) Karmanos Cancer Center surgical oncologist Dr. David
                    Gorski — already the subject of a Natural News investigation that has submitted numerous allegations to the Federal Bureau of Investigation — is now linked to a “skeptics” kingpin caught on tape soliciting sex from a young man, according to sources.

                    Dr. David Gorski — aka “ORAC” — is the mentally deranged leader of an online hate group
                    calling themselves “skeptics.” An ongoing Natural News investigation
                    has revealed that Gorski is just one of several co-conspirators who
                    engage in online racketeering, identity deceptions and alleged cyber crimes to commit scientific fraud while destroying their targeted enemies in the holistic health realm.

                    Gorski is widely described as a pseudoscientist and quack,
                    and collaborates with other purveyors of quackery and deception such as
                    “Stephen P Novella; Kimball C. Atwood IV, MD; Mark A. Crislip, MD;
                    Harriet Hall, MD; and Paul Ingraham,” reports Child Health Safety.
                    The words and phrases often used to describe David Gorski include
                    “pathological,” “Silence of the Lambs” and “psychologically unfit to
                    treat patients.”

                    “Gorski routinely behaves like a megalomaniac
                    and has taken the vaccination debate down into the ‘cyber gutter’ with
                    his vile and vindictive bully posts to anyone who dares to question him,
                    typically attacking them with paragraph after paragraph of
                    smokescreens, name-calling, and ‘e-bloviating.’ It’s a sure fire bet
                    that whenever Gorski uses pejoratives like ‘quack’ and ‘science denier,’
                    he has zero interest in any logical or reasonable discussion,” says Ty
                    Bollinger, creator of the globally popular Truth About Cancer docu-series.

                    David Gorski urges his fellow science trolls to engage in “emotional warfare”
                    by impersonating other people (using “sock puppet” trolling tactics) to
                    spread fictional, highly charged accounts of horrible things that
                    happen to parents who don’t obediently surrender their children to
                    endless vaccination demands. Gorski’s deranged attacks also put lives at
                    risk. He “built his platform of distraction and misinformation against
                    the importance of the critical subjects of systemic detoxification and
                    heavy metal toxicity for almost 12 years,” Rashid A. Buttar told Natural
                    News. “Initially during his attacks on me, Dr. Gorski posed as a single
                    mother of an autistic child. But he was exposed as a card carrying
                    member of an organization called Quackbusters by JB Handley, a self
                    proclaimed group protecting the sanctity of medicine.”

                  117. Ronnyboy, that does not impress me one little bit. Let me lecture you. Your “reputable scientist” has been heavily criticized for their absolute crappy methodology and not once, but repeatedly. Their last paper was even retracted by the editor of the journal which is extremely rare and very embarassing. They used t-tests where an ANOVA was appropriate, failed proper blinding etc. etc. and these are only the minor flaws. This post proves beyond any doubt that you completely lack the knowledge to assess the validity of your claims in a scientific way. As you said, you have not been brainwashed by higher eduction, but the reason for this is that there simply is nothing to wash.

                  118. Ronnyboy, regarding Natural News, everything on this website has to be assumed to be a lie unless proven otherwise.

                  119. Looking through your comments…they are all one liners
                    You never cite any peer reviewed papers. You do not offer an educated point of view. You just spout one line garbage

                  120. I’m pointing out the nonsense and making fun of stupidity and misinformation. Why debate idiots who have Blind Faith Syndrome? You types need metal health support.

                  121. OK, lets correct the mistakes in the post. The correct wording for what you do is “I am talking nonsense”. You have not pointed out anything because pointing out something requires that you reason why something is nonsense. Have you done that ever ? No. “and making fun of stupidity and misinformation”. What you are actually doing is spreading misinformation. The fun part does not apply since your posts are not funny. “Why debate idiots who have Blind Faith Syndrome? You types need metal health support.” Since you do not post any data to support your point of view, your point of view must be faith based. So your question apparently applies to us (although we don’t debate you because stupidity can not be debated). We reply to you because your misinformation potentially damages people. And now, on the table with your data or be called an idiot.

                  122. David, it does not make sense to present this to Ron. He himself admitted two things, lacking (a) a proper higher education and knowing how to look things up rather than (b) knowing things themselves. However, in order to be able to put facts in context meaningfully one needs (a) as well as (b). Add to that a severe Dunning-Krüger effect and one gets the old proverb against ignorance even Gids fight in vain.

                  123. David, it does not make sense to present this to Ron. He himself admitted two things, lacking (a) a proper higher education and knowing how to look things up rather than (b) knowing things themselves. However, in order to be able to put facts in context meaningfully one needs (a) as well as (b). Add to that a severe Dunning-Krüger effect and one gets the old proverb against ignorance even Gids fight in vain.

                  124. Wow, finally a paper. Incredible. Have you actually read and understood it ? Apparently not since it directly counters your claims about the neurotoxicity of Aluminum.

                  125. If you believe it does you are a complete fraud, and a member of the liar’s club.

                  126. Did you read the paper ? Did you UNDERSTAND it ? No. It says that nanoparticles may also appear in other organs via transportation by macrophages. So what ? That is known. It states that in some rare circumstances this might trigger an autoimmune disease. So what ? This is also known. Autoimmune diseases cn be triggered by *any* immune stimulus. It also states that in case of Aluminum accumulation in the brain is very low i.e. 1:10E7 that is 0.000001%. That is corroborated by Flaned. Of course you did neither read nor understand the paper because both requires sufficient command of the English language which you do not have. If one is lying, it is you. Remember you claimed that a paper refers to a segregated community when both the paper and a witness said it is not ? In court you would have lost any credibility alone by this.

                  127. According to Hugh Fudenberg, MD, the world’s leading immunogeneticist
                    and 13th most quoted biologist of our times (nearly 850 papers in peer
                    review journals): If an individual has had 5 consecutive flu shots
                    between 1970 and 1980 (the years studied) his/her chances of getting Alzheimer’s Disease is 10 times higher
                    than if he/she had one, 2 or no shots. Dr. Fudenberg said it was so and
                    that it was due to mercury and aluminum that is in every flu shot. The
                    gradual mercury and aluminum buildup in the brain causes cognitive
                    dysfunction.

                    Flu shots contain 25 micrograms of mercury. One microgram is considered toxic.

                  128. Ronnyboy, this is the result of having no eductation. Fudenberg has written a lot but that does not impress me one little bit. His quote was never supported by *any* studies dealing with this subject. It is a personal opinion and refuted. Sorry Ronnyboy, science does NOT work by quoting some people, it works only by presenting data. Oh sorry, i forgot, you can’t because you lack the education.

                  129. 800 papers published in peer review journals but when he goes against your employers all of a sudden he’s a quack an idiot. Yeah typical reaction from the purveyors of poisons.

                  130. You do not get it. A long publication list does not impress me. If the hypothesis proposed does not fly it does not fly.

                  131. It does fly. It just doesn’t put money into the MEDICAL MAFIA’s coffers. Listen very carefully and I will give YOU a lecture: Any substance / cure / therapy that doesn’t benefit the drug industry will be denigrated in every way possible including the vilification of such substances / cures and therapies by shills as yourself. End of lecture.

                  132. 800 papers published in peer review journals but when he goes against your employers all of a sudden he’s a quack an idiot. Yeah typical reaction from the purveyors of poisons.

                  133. Not an opinion a ten year study he conducted. Of course you missed that because it contradicts, what you constantly lie about, that aluminum in vaccines is perfectly safe.

                  134. Nice try but you FAIL again. You’re a glutton for punishment aren’t you? The first link is inconsequential and the second although quoting doctor Fudenberg, very accurately I might add, are obviously not the sources I used. However I encourage everyone to click on the second link and they will see what happens to any honest scientist who dares to go against anything that will affect the profits of the MEDICAL MAFIA. Again thanks for the second link.

                  135. Ronnyboy, don’t try to squeal yourself out, post a citation, but please NOT a 30 year old newspaper and NOT “google it it is easy”. Are you able to do that or do we have to wait forever AGAIN ?

                  136. Ronnyboy, this is the result of having no eductation. Fudenberg has written a lot but that does not impress me one little bit. His quote was never supported by *any* studies dealing with this subject. It is a personal opinion and refuted. Sorry Ronnyboy, science does NOT work by quoting some people, it works only by presenting data. Oh sorry, i forgot, you can’t because you lack the education.

                  137. Ha ha. Isn’t this the same fudenberg who said he could cure children’s autism by injecting them with his own bone marrow? I forgot about that guy.
                    autism dadd –what do you think, want to try injecting an 85 year old quacks bone marrow into your child?

                  138. 800 papers in peer review journals and he’s a god but when he goes against big pharm he’s denigrated and called every name in the book. Typical of the MEDICAL MAFIA. His bone marrow theory was probably right and so was his attempt a chelation, Chelation has been used for decades to remove heavy metals from people who were being poisoned by them therefor it would remove the mercury and aluminum that babies got from vaccines which caused autism. You obviously ignore the science that would harm the profits of your employer. And you shills wonder why you’re called shills.

                  139. 800 papers in peer review journals and he’s a god but when he goes against big pharm he’s denigrated and called every name in the book. Typical of the MEDICAL MAFIA. His bone marrow theory was probably right and so was his attempt a chelation, Chelation has been used for decades to remove heavy metals from people who were being poisoned by them therefor it would remove the mercury and aluminum that babies got from vaccines which caused autism. You obviously ignore the science that would harm the profits of your employer. And you shills wonder why you’re called shills.

                  140. so does that mean you will not try injecting his bone marrow into your child? You mean you do not believe in fudenberg’s research? He is going to cure your child

                  141. Haven’t they used bone marrow transplants to help sick vaccine victims get over leukemia