Reply To: Vaccine contaminants and safety


Home Forums Discussion Forum Vaccine contaminants and safety Reply To: Vaccine contaminants and safety

#49247
Clark
Guest

Point 1. – “Wakefield et al NEVER claimed in the paper that was retracted that MMR was associated with autism.”

But (a) he very much does so now, (b) he did call for three separate vaccinations instead of the combined MMR, in both a press conference and a video news release, and (c) he’d been paid £50,000 of legal aid by solicitors preparing a case against MMR.

“The paper concerned reporting that autistic children presented with gastrointestinal disorders”

Well, mostly autism, but the paper concerned only twelve children in total anyway, and they’d all arrived at Wakefield’s practice because that combination was what he was specialising in.

Point 2. “…if vaccines were not the predominant trigger for autism”, then vaccines are not the predominant cause of the rise in autism, either.

Point 3. – “vaccine manufacturers are immune from class action prosecution due to laws passed by bribed politicians”

But in both the US and the UK, it’s the governments that promote the vaccinations, so of course it’s the governments that should pay compensation for adverse effects, which they do.

Point 4. Yes. This defeats the anti-vaxxers’ theory that adverse reactions are completely covered up, and completely demolishes their claim that vaccines do more harm than good.

“Billions in ‘risk free profits’ are threatened if vaccine withdrawal occurs.”

This claim overlooks the profits that could be made by treating the additional illness that would result were there no vaccination.