Good post. Few people are aware of that. Much of the controversy is over thimerisol and now aluminum, but aborted fetal tissue is definitely relevant to say the least....

Yeah, I was frankly a little surprised and shocked when I came across that study.

Much of the issue with using human tissue in vaccines is that it stimulates an immune system response so that the body recognizes it's own cells as the enemy and therefore goes about attacking itself.

This leads to varying levels of auto immune problems, with the worst obviously being autism or even death.

Further evidence is in plain view when looking at SIDS and the neurodegeneration that follows after heavy vaccination in infants.

US has the heaviest vaccine schedule, and as a side effect also has the highest SIDS rates too.

http://journals.lww.com/jneuropath/Citation/1995/05000/APOPTOTIC_NEURODEGENERATION_IN_SUDDEN_INFANT_DEATH.34.aspx

Much of the issue with using human tissue in vaccines is that it stimulates an immune system response so that the body recognizes it's own cells as the enemy and therefore goes about attacking itself.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Great information, thanks.

And this is the entire point of modern day vaccines, it's why there were 3 in the mid 80s, and many many more now.

In the 80s they were to prevent disease. Today they are designed to reduce intelligence, but also cause lifelong problems that require big pharma drugs to fix.

More profit from more vaccines, more disease so more profit from treating disease, and less intelligence for the masses.

Win win situation for the ruling class. And the hivemind on reddit ignorantly supports it too...

You are a prime example of what is wrong with anti-vaccers. You get just a little bit of information, a single study that is usually debunked a few years later anyway, and do no additional research before pushing this information on other people like it's proven science.

Here's the big hint that something's amiss with this study, that they jump straight from coincidental timing to a conclusion about cause:

Autistic disorder change points years are coincident with introduction of vaccines manufactured using human fetal cell lines, containing fetal and retroviral contaminants, into childhood vaccine regimens. This pattern was repeated in the US, UK, Western Australia and Denmark. Thus, rising autistic disorder prevalence is directly related to vaccines manufactured utilizing human fetal cells.

This is a classic mistake, such that almost every person on reddit has heard the phrase "Correlation does not equal causation." Just because autism diagnoses rose in the same time period that the vaccines were introduced does not mean there is a connection.

Other things occurred in the same time period analyzed as well that are much more likely the cause of increased diagnoses, primarily increased awareness of the disease itself, causing more parents to have their child checked when they see any sign of autism, and more doctors to have the ability to diagnose the disease, or have doctors they know they can refer the case to.

Secondly, this is very wrong, and you are either proving my point about not doing your research, or you are purposefully skewing the facts in order to try and scare people:

Anyone reading this, think about whether or not you're comfortable with injecting human tissue from other fetuses into your child.

You are not injecting human tissue from other fetuses in to a child.

...the claim that vaccines are made using “aborted fetal tissue.” This comes from the simple fact that a human cell line originally derived from an aborted fetus decades ago is used to grow the viral stocks used to make some vaccines. This is such a non-issue that even the Catholic Church says it’s acceptable to use these vaccines because “the risk to public health, if one chooses not to vaccinate, outweighs the legitimate concern about the origins of the vaccine” and because parents “have a moral obligation to protect the life and health of their children and those around them.” That doesn’t stop radical antiabortionists from trying to represent cells hundreds of cell divisions removed from the original fetus from which they were derived as somehow being “fetal tissue” or “fetal parts,” rather than what they are: A cell line.

Here is a link to the rest of an article that explains why your study is wrong, but more importantly was conducted, written, and published by people who have obvious agenda to find a particular result. They were not unbiased, and no unbiased study will ever replicate these results because they are not based in sound science.

Ugh thank you. Like wow this sub is full fucking stupid with all the anti-Semites & idiot anti-vaxers

Just because autism diagnoses rose in the same time period that the vaccines were introduced does not mean there is a connection.

No, but it certainly indicates a likely connection.

This comes from the simple fact that a human cell line originally derived from an aborted fetus decades ago is used to grow the viral stocks used to make some vaccines

We aren't talking a moral problem here, but rather a medical one. When using human tissue such as squalene or "aborted fetal tissue cell line" as adjuvants, it trains the body to attack it's own tissue as part of the side effect of the vaccine...

No, but it certainly indicates a likely connection.

No, it indicates a possible connection, not a likely one, and since that connection was exactly what the very biased researchers wanted to find (check out their website at soundchoice.org), they did not investigate at all any other possible causes, so none can be ranked as more or less likely than any other. In the same time period they studied, the use of artificial sweeteners, the number of cars on the road, and the number of people openly identifying as LGBT all increased as well, but it does not mean that any of the above are connected to each other. They found a correlation, they did not prove causation, or even begin to do so.

When using human tissue such as squalene or "aborted fetal tissue cell line" as adjuvants, it trains the body to attack it's own tissue as part of the side effect of the vaccine...

Please site your source for this. Not conjecture by this research team, but a study, even unrelated to autism, just any study that shows that vaccines derived from human cell lines train your body to attack it's own tissue. I can't believe this is true, as most vaccines are derived from viruses grown in human cell lines for maximum compatibility, and outside of AIDS (which I hope you aren't attributing to vaccines) we do not have a massive outbreak of autoimmune disorders occurring.

Please site your source for this. Not conjecture by this research team, but a study, even unrelated to autism, just any study that shows that vaccines derived from human cell lines train your body to attack it's own tissue.

Few long term studies are done, but here are two studies on rats, which of course have a very similar immune system:

http://ajp.amjpathol.org/article/S0002-9440(10)65077-8/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-065x.2001.1840117.x/abstract;jsessionid=3353940D4A59DD8B956F984199674776.f01t01

HERE is the big one: Study showing those gulf war veterans who recieved vaccines with squalene as adjuvants developed antibodies to squalene, which is a very important mechanism of bodily function

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014480002924299

Note in this case, the squalene does not need to be derived specifically from human cells, but the end function is the same, the body recognizes it's own squalene as the enemy and proceeds to attack itself.

"Gulf war syndrome" is the outcome.

Further reading on key points:

http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/squalene.html

Gulf War syndrome was from mandatory Cipro courses damaging mitochondria.

"Correlation does not equal causation."

I see this used constantly and it's just poor and lazy logic. It would be far more accurate to say, "Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation." In nearly all cases where there is causation, however, there will also be correlation.

It's not my logic that is lazy, it's your understanding of the phrase. Correlation never equals causation, as in, correlation can never be proof of causation. Correlation may or may not occur. When it does occur, it certainly can be used to justify further inquiry. But correlation alone can never prove that one event causes another. Even if there is correlation every single time, that simply means that there is a very likely link between the two events, but some other evidence has to be there to prove the link. That is what "Correlation does not equal causation" means.

It's not my logic that is lazy, it's your understanding of the phrase. Correlation never equals causation, as in, correlation can never be proof of causation.

If there is correlation, and there is causation, then of course it can. I never said that correlation alone is "proof" of causation, just that the phrase you used implies that correlation is never related to causation and is also used as a way to shut down discussion.

Again, it would be a lot more accurate to say correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

Let me frame it another way: what's the point of you using that phrase? What were you trying to prove when you typed it out?

Exactly what I said, that you can't use the correlation between the dates when the vaccines became more widely used and the dates when more autism cases were diagnosed as proof that the two are related. That is exactly what the linked study tried to do, but there are too many other possible explanations that they did not even attempt to eliminate. For them, the correlation was enough proof all by itself, because it provided the answer that even their mission statement plainly says they were after. That's just shitty science, if it's science at all.

Now let me frame this another way: Let's say there is this anti-gay, anti-television group out there. They could take this study as an outline and write almost the exact same study, showing a correlation between the rising percentage of the population that identifies as gay, and the rising number of tv's in households and the number of channels available, and it would all be mathematically true. But they did not investigate other, more likely causes, such as what I would believe to be the case, that the percentage of the population that is gay has grown at no where near the rate that the numbers would suggest, and that as society has changed over the years, more people have simply felt more comfortable letting people know that they were gay rather than hiding it for their whole lives as many would have in earlier generations. That's pretty much what this study did. They got some evidence for the conclusion they wanted and just stopped there so they wouldn't risk finding anything that debunked their conclusion.

Wow that was a really cool blog post you linked me to, thanks. Let me know when you find a critique that's published in a peer-reviewed journal. Lol.

Strange how that blog post is better sourced and explained than your paper, regardless of where it's published. I have had op eds published in several papers, it doesn't automatically make me the best source on what I was writing about.

But I'd be happy to find a study that refutes yours, after you find any independent study that confirms these findings. Have you ever even gone to soundchoice.org and seen the website of the people who funded and conducted this ball of crap? They are in no position to claim that this is an unbiased study in the least. It's like having an oil company write a paper on global warming, you'd have to be a moron to accept the results without having them independently confirmed.

Edit - And before you claim my source is crap, find something in there that is factually wrong, like I did with your statements. Can you actually refute anything that is said in the blog post?

Roger that, reddit expert. Thanks for your insights.

Right, and you are a medical expert on autism after reading a wildly unscientific study.

Try it this way. I'll use your source to discredit itself. Have you actually read anything other than the summary? If you had read the entire thing, you would have found that even it's authors admit that they did not do any medical or scientific examination of either the vaccines or the patients diagnosed with autism. They got the claim of "fetal contaminants" solely from the published origins of the cell line used to develop the vaccine, without having actually found any themselves, and without comparing the contents of the vaccines to anything they could find in the patients. By its own admission, it is purely a mathematical study, showing a correlation in timing alone, between widespread use of the vaccines and a rise in autism diagnoses. I do not dispute this is the case. What I dispute, and what anyone with half a brain should dispute, is the conclusion drawn from this correlation, without exploring any other possible causes, and without giving any reason for discounting any other possible causes. That's just stupid.

Do you disagree with any of these facts? Or do you admit they are true, but you still think this study represents sound scientific research?

Have you considered starting your own blog? Your first post could be titled something like "Reddit Expert Eviscerates Peer-Reviewed Study, Makes Blog Post About It."

That's exactly what I expected from the kind of person who believes in this crap. Several opportunities, but no ability to argue in support of your position, because you are used to letting other people do your thinking for you.

At any rate, I can see you are either unwilling or unable to understand a reasonable and logical argument, so there is no point in continuing further. Have a nice life. You should start preparing now to explain to your children in the hospital why having them die of a very real and proven but preventable disease was preferable to an imagined chance of autism.

You said:

What I dispute, and what anyone with half a brain should dispute, is the conclusion drawn from this correlation, without exploring any other possible causes, and without giving any reason for discounting any other possible causes. That's just stupid.

Is it stupid? Maybe you're illiterate or did not read the study. They did rule out the most obvious 'other causes':

No relationship was found between paternal age or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) revisions and autistic disorder diagnosis.

And of course further study is warranted. You better escalate to your supervisor if you're interested in debating this issue, because I'm not interested in reading your blogs. Show me the peer-reviewed science or go somewhere else.

Is it stupid? Maybe you're illiterate or did not read the study. They did rule out the most obvious 'other causes'

Two? They put in one sentence that they didn't see any other correlation with just two other factors and you think that was a thorough enough investigation to warrant their conclusion? Also, you think the age of the parents and an updated list of autism symptoms in a diagnostic manual are the two biggest and most obvious alternative explanations? How about environmental factors like the increased use of pesticides and the increased appearance of prescription drugs from waste and landfills appearing in our water both happening in the study's time frame, the fact that the disease gained more exposure and more people were likely to seek a diagnosis in that time frame, research in to genetic factors from the parents that may not appear in either familiy individually but may cause a problem when those genes combine, or a million other things that I could think of that are more likely causes, but you think they've got it covered because they read a medical manual and checked out the parent's age. Right.

Show me the peer-reviewed science or go somewhere else.

Show me unbiased science and I'd be happy to. The people who did this study claim this, on their own website:

Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI) was founded to promote consumer awareness about the widespread use of electively aborted fetal material in drug discovery, development and commercialization.

You don't see the conflict of interest here? If they really wanted something they could use as a smoking gun, they would have funded an independent third party research lab to do this study, or at least verify their findings after they did their own. They did not. Because no independent researcher would come to the same conclusions given the same facts. There is not enough data there to come close to making the conclusion they draw, and that is just a simple fact.

Lol I'm not interested in answering your 20 irrelevant questions. I know how they train you guys. Go blog about it.

I don't believe I've stated anything off topic or irrelevant in this thread, but as I said before, I know you don't have the critical thinking skills to figure this out anyway, so just go have yourself a nice day.

sticking needles in your arm is good because some nut in a lab coat wants to control you. there are hundreds of other forms of preventative medicine.

LOL. Please tell me some of the hundreds of other, at least 99% effective methods of protection against the diseases covered by childhood vaccinations. Me, and the entire medical community, are waiting for your proven science.

how about not suppressing people's immune system with carcinagenic substances like fluoride.. or even worse.. sugar just for starters.

vaccinations solution is essentially to vaccinate the entire planet. this is never going to happen, the ideology of vaccination is foolish at best and it's logic is easy to refute.

human beings made it tens of thousands, if not millions of years without sticking needles in their fucking arms. i don't need a doctor to tell me that, but i can name the 100 reasons to NOT stick a needle in your arm if you like.

the best one being: if the guy at mcdonalds cant get ketchup on my cheeseburger right, why am i to trust a bunch of people handling vaccines that go straight into my bloodstream. you really think that nurse that makes 65k per year really has any idea what she's jamming into your veins? noooope.

you come to /r/conspiracy and you are that fucking naive? really?

here, take this blue pill. it will make your dick bigger and i swear it won't kill you.

i love how people think all vaccinations are made the same and are in some way equal to one another. in order to justify vaccination you need to justify every single individual vaccine on it's own.

and if you want people to stick needles in their arms, or their kids arms, maybe you should attempt to educate them on the "facts of vaccination"

the reason they don't do this...is because if they tried, people would quickly realize how full of shit vaccination companies are.

ever notice how the government also regulates tobacco, a product that creates more preventable disease than anything else you can think of? did you know in north america..cigarettes are far worse than say indonesia where they contain less of literally every harmful chemical?

Surprisingly, I agree with your first sentence. Then you go off the rails a bit.

vaccinations solution is essentially to vaccinate the entire planet. this is never going to happen, the ideology of vaccination is foolish at best and it's logic is easy to refute.

This statement is provably wrong. If it were true, than we would not have been able to eradicate smallpox, and we wouldn't be very close to doing the same to polio.

human beings made it tens of thousands, in not millions of years without sticking needles in their fucking arms.

God I hate it when I hear this argument. It's true, as a species we have survived for a very long time, but up until very very recently it was with a much shorter life expectancy, with much fewer humans in one place, and with a much more limited means of travel. So if something bad developed, it would likely just kill off one village, no one else would ever be exposed for it to spread, and it wouldn't even be all that unusual because everyone died before they were 40 anyway. Now there are more people in my state alone than there were on the entire planet ten or twenty thousand years ago, we are packed pretty close together, and someone can spread a disease worldwide in couple of days if they fly a lot, some people hit every continent in a week just doing business.

if the guy at mcdonalds cant get ketchup on my cheeseburger right, why am i to trust a bunch of people handling vaccines that go straight into my bloodstream.

So you equate the skill, knowledge, and expertise of everyone on earth, no matter what profession, to the guy who makes your burger. Tell me, what do you do for a living? Do you do it better than a McDonalds employee would? Do you think you are the one exception to your own rule? I can't beleive you had the nerve to mention someone else's flawed logic.

And for the record, nurses are very aware of what they are jamming in to your veins, what it might react with, and exactly how much they are giving you and why. Source: My mom is an RN.

i love how people think all vaccinations are made the same and are in some way equal to one another. in order to justify vaccination you need to justify every single individual vaccine on it's own.

I'm not trying to justify every vaccine, but the MMR vaccine has a very good track record and only some very shady and unscientific studies against it that people are treating like gospel for some reason.

nurses are very aware of what they are jamming in to your veins, what it might react with, and exactly how much they are giving you and why. Source: My mom is an RN, I used to study with her when she was first going to nursing school.

I doubt that. I bet most nurses couldn't tell you the actual ingredients in every vaccine without manually reading the label.

Source: I've asked nurses the ingredients in the mmr vaccine and they said they'd have to check.

Also, the MMR vaccine doesn't have a strong track record at all, where are you getting your information?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-17509/Why-Japan-banned-MMR-vaccine.html

Nurses have no idea what they are sticking in your veins, I know many licensed registered nurses and most of them don't know what's in their coffee.

There is no one on this planet that "hits every continent" in a week doing business, you realize you can't just freely fly all over the world right?

I don't equate everyone's skill and knowledge to the guy that makes my burger, the point is just because an organization creates a vaccine, doesn't mean every hand it goes through does their job on it's way to your arm. how many people handle those vaccines from the time they are produced until the time they enter your bloodstream?

10? 20? more? this is a cause for concern.

There are too many untrustworthy moving parts in this system (and the vast majority are in it for corporate profit).

I'm not trying to disprove the viability of any particular vaccine, but instead that the concept of vaccination itself is ridiculous.

Stick the viral agent in your arm you are trying to avoid to build up an immunity to it..

Kind of like...

If you actually came down with the illness...

And built up an immunity to it..

at least 99% effective methods of protection against the diseases covered by childhood vaccinations.

High rates of sanitation and cleanliness. A common myth is that vaccinations wiped out childhood diseases, but the statistics show that measles/mumps/polio etc. were already almost eradicated before vaccines even showed up. The cause is clear, higher sanitation and food/nutrition standards leads to stronger immune systems.

Example A:

http://i.imgur.com/eD61Ag5.jpg

Further statistics:

https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

Actually makes you sick to your stomach knowing that.

Right? If you want to convince people vaccines are bad, print this study out and ask them if they want to inject tissue from aborted fetuses into their child. It's FUCKING GROSS.

Mandatory aborted fetus injections in California now.

Reminds me of the circumcised infant penis skin that's put into high end beauty products.

What the fuck...

Yes. It's a million dollar industry (billion?).

I have heard something similar about Pepsi and coke as well. It's unimaginable how can people get involved to do something so terribly disgusting.

You know, I've heard something about that as well... I'm not sure if it's true, I don't have the source of the information. Does anyone know?

Yeah, I was frankly a little surprised and shocked when I came across that study.