Dog lovers are annoying

i didn't read any post in this thread

 

I think it's a good idea to look at what people have eaten historically as some basis for what is natural to eat, but come on guys... God didn't put us here in this particular setting.

What I mean is we have evolved and still are evolving and what we used to eat might not be what is best for us to eat.

Milk is one of very few foods that could sustain human life indefinitely without any other food. That's a pretty big argument for milk, IMO. And the trait to digest lactose has evolved in humans. It's a modern trait.

I think diet is interesting but when people get all polarized black and white everyone stops listening. It's hard to keep an open mind.

 

Right man. This crap turned in to novel after novel of posts about food after starting about dogs!?!? Just too damn confusing to worry about all the GMO's, veganism, vegetarianism, humane slaughtering and all this just hurts my head. I'm going to Wendy's and get a big A$$ burger, fries and frosty!

 

That's why god flooded the planet the first time yall, tighten up and pay attention.

 

tard, I finally clicked on this kook tread just now when it was 17 pages in with plans of posting what you just did while knowing not a damn thing bout the tread. Then I open it up and first words I see are "milk cows". Still not reading any other full post except yours and I'm bouncing from this kook tread stat. Peace bros. Enjoy the gabbing bouts dogs/milk cows...

 

It's like you didn't read a single thing I wrote. My friend has perfect results on his blood tests. Every paper is going to have some bias, but at least what I post has been peer reviewed. Meaning other scientists have had a chance to read through the data, check the methods, and give it their blessing. Just taking the data, cherry picking results, and selling a book is circumventing the system, and makes it questionable to anyone in the scientific field.
As for your last link, that shows they are retesting vaccine effectiveness for specific neural attacking diseases (like the mumps) since they are reemerging. These diseases are making a comeback thanks to the increasing number of people who will not vaccinate. Let's not get into the vaccination thing again.

 

Just back to the old archy threads.

 

you contradict yourself. where's the scientific peer reviewed unbiased research that vaccines are safe and effective. and no don't show an epidemiologic study or chart, bc as you state with the china study it does not prove anything.

and no you didn't say your friend has perfect blood results

as for the last link it shows that most people 70 to 99 percent who were vaccinated contracted the virus (UNEFFECTIVE}. you cannot prove its from unvaccinated people.

you know what i'm tiered of this back and forth with you. we will never agree on a lot of things.

like I said you do you and I do me.

if I say something like the check out the china study, let it be. its not like i'm telling them to check out something ridiculous like breatharianism. most peeps on this forum are intelligent enough to make up their own minds without you telling them.

 

That study doesn't mean vaccines caused the disease. It means the the vaccine is no longer very effective. If you actually read real scientific papers on vaccines, you would know that they cannot cause the disease they are treating.
Vaccines go through a stricter overcheck than peer review (clinical trials, dosage studies, placebo trials, FDA approval, etc). But there are tons of paper on the effectiveness of vaccines and that they don't cause things like autism.
I have no problem with you doing what you want with your own body. Just stop spreading pseudoscience around the internet. The antivaxxers are bringing back diseases that should have been gone long ago. No one else, other than chich, posts this stuff here. Even chich sticks to only a couple topics and doesn't buy into everything on the net. We don't even discuss it, and haven't until you start posting again.

 

ok now we are on the subjects of vaccines lol.I feel for the kids nowadays they are fukd.when I was a kid,i got like 5 shots total,nowadays kids need 12 shots a month,10 months out of the year.vaccines do phuk people up I know first hand,my nephew got a bad shot and now hes autistic.one day he was a normal regular kid,then a few weeks after the dr visit he started becoming crazy.see my brother and his wife are like u people,not seeing the bigger picture,but they are metarded and shouldn't even have kids,they are horrible parents.they cater to my neice more than the boy when he needs serious help.the shot really fukd up his head,hate to say it but his future he will probably be a drug addict or alcoholic and end up in prison if he doesn't kill himself first.my neice is a little bytch,shes just like her mother,always talking shyt about everyone.they used to sleep over every weekend and now they don't because I called my bros wife a fat stupid cunnt.some people are in really bad marriages,my brother being one of them.

 

that's what I said, the vaccine was ineffective.

there is no proof that the unvaccinated caused these cases.

there is however proof that vaccines cause injury making them not safe. to date 2.7 billion dollars has been awarded to people injured by vaccines
this isn't internet conspiracy, this is straight from the US Department of Health and Human Resources

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html#Stats

and if they don't cause things like autism then why did the courts rule they do?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccine-case-an-exception-or-a-precedent/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...court-case-reignite-controversial-debate.html


if you argue that the cases are small proportionally to total shots given, just remember that small portion could be someone close to you.

 

oh, i see you have kids...

 

Doctors and scientists > court/jury.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Autism/Index.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...tism-vaccines-mccarthy-view-medicine-science/
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/huge-meta-study-vaccines-reveals-no-link-autism

And just one of the many studies on effectiveness of vaccines:
http://m.jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/201/11/1607.full

For cep: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140313172935.htm

 

It is scary.

 

first I will address your links from the journal of infectious diseases and iflscience which bases its article from the journal of pediatrics. both journals have come under scrutiny for possible biased information as a result of receiving advertising dollars from drug companies and funding from organizations that receive their funding from drug companies.

secondly national geographic receives government grants and advertising dollars and donations from drug companies.

these sources and their information contradict the fact that court cases judged in favor of and compensations were awarded proving that a vaccine caused autism and the fact that there is even a vaccine compensation court that has awarded nearly 3 billion dollars due to vaccine injury.

thirdly the cdc is a government organization, and I hope that we can both agree that the government is corrupt.

peer reviewed studies contradicting the cdc's findings.
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/247218/

as for cep's link I agree that autism could be the result of multiple factors but that does not rule out vaccines as one of them.

 

Yawn.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2...cine-conspiracy-theories-from-nine-years-ago/
"Did the CDC water down the original results? It did not. This misconception comes from an erroneous perception of this screening study and other epidemiological studies. The perception is that an epidemiological study can have only 1 of 2 outcomes: either an association is found (or confirmed), or an association is refuted. Very often, however, there is a third interpretation: an association can neither be found nor refuted. Let’s call the first 2 outcomes “positive” and “negative” and the third outcome “neutral.” The CDC screening study of thimerosal-containing vaccines was perceived at first as a positive study that found an association between thimerosal and some neurodevelopmental outcomes. This was the perception both independent scientists and antivaccine lobbyists had at the conclusion of the first phase of the study. It was foreseen from the very start that any positive outcome would lead to a second phase. Whereas the original plan was to conduct the second phase as a case-control study, we soon realized this would be too time consuming. The validity of the first-phase results needed urgent validation in view of the large potential public health impact. Did the CDC purposefully select a second phase that would contradict the first phase? Certainly not. The push to urgently perform the second phase at health maintenance organization C came entirely from myself, because I felt that the first-phase results were too prone to potential biases to be the basis for important public health decisions. Health maintenance organization C was the only site known to myself and my coauthors that could rapidly provide sufficient data that would enable a check of the major findings of the first phase in a timely manner.
Because the findings of the first phase were not replicated in the second phase, the perception of the study changed from a positive to a neutral study. Surprisingly, however, the study is being interpreted now as negative by many, including the antivaccine lobbyists. The article does not state that we found evidence against an association, as a negative study would. It does state, on the contrary, that additional study is recommended, which is the conclusion to which a neutral study must come."

If you don't believe that or the CDC, due to the source, there is always more:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018252/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25344/
I guess other countries are in on the conspiracy:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22184954


"these sources and their information contradict the fact that court cases judged in favor of and compensations were awarded proving that a vaccine caused autism"

Let's try and use a little intelligence here. Are you really claiming that because a court/jury awarded money for something, that makes it a science fact? The same court system awards money for stupid reasons every single day.

Aside from all that, thimerosal has been removed from most childhood vaccinations in the USA: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/30/wor...rcury_based_preservative_in_vaccines_partner/
Which is interesting, seeing how more children have been diagnosed with autism now versus when I was a child. Another interesting point in that article is that organization that once called for all thimerosal to be removed from pediatric vaccines, now thinks it is ok based on the numerous studies on the topic.

Vaccines are not perfect, however. They can and do have some side effects: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#flu
The side effects can end up resulting in court cases, just like is found throughout the medical industry.
Another nice little article on the subject: http://gizmodo.com/setting-the-record-straight-debunking-all-the-flu-vacc-1455630807
None of this will matter to you, because you made up your mind long before you saw any data. Ready to end this?

 

Would it be possible for both of you to create a different thread to deal with this back and forth...maybe you should just PM each other...the fact of the matter is neither will agree with the other...doesn't matter the type amount of evidence regardless of topic because philosophy still dictates the science and bias exists within all humans given the sociological, philosophical,etc. you find peer reviewed literature for what ever opposing point of view for anything you want to study...

Maybe both of you should just meet in person rather than continue these public debates on a thread started to troll another member...

 

Let them roll, what's the problem? It's a Forum, they're discussing, try to keep the thought police roar to a minimum. You & waynetheinsaaaane are really no one to talk about anything resembling hijacking and / or trolling.