Dementia cases worldwide will triple by 2050, says WHO

[pixelsmith]

i suppose you think fluoride is good for teeth too..

 

[Angel of Ioren]

sure, i have lots to offer Gene. do you? you chimed in with nothing to offer.
start here,

National Vaccine Information Center Archives

Well done - with references from such recent articles as:

Berg JM. 1958. Neurological complications of pertussis immunization. British Medical Journal 2:24-27.

Byers RK, Moll PC. 1948. Encephalopathies following prophylactic pertussis vaccination. Pediatrics 1: 437-457.

Dick, GWA. 1967. Reactions to the pertussis component of quadruple and triple vaccines. International Symposium on Combined Vaccines, Marburg. Symposia Series in Immunobiological Standardization 7: 21-28. Basel and New York: Karger.

Kahn E, Cohen LH. 1934. Organic drivenness: A brain-stem syndrome and an experience. New England Journal of Medicine 210: 748-756.

Preblud SR. 1985. Some current issues relating to rubella vaccine. Journal of the American Medical Association 254: 253-256.

and the kicker, it references the most infamous article on this topic:

Ekbom A, Wakefield AJ, Zack M, Adami HO. 1994. The role of perinatal measles infection in the serology of Crohn’s disease: a population-based epidemiological study. Lancet 334: 508-510.


For folks that don't know this, that article was retracted by the Lancet as most of the data was fraudulent.

 

[boomerang]

I've always wondered why we are told to avoid heavy metals like the plague on the one hand, and then told not to worry about them in our teeth and vaccines. But, almost any substance can be handled by the body at low enough concentrations and certain formulations. Dental fillings are still in my gray box, and I don't see the need for flouridation of water supplies whatsoever.

Anyone here as old and decrepit as myself will recall the bad old days before a vaccine for polio. Parents lived in a state of constant fear that their children would contact this dread disease, and some did. Many died from whooping cough. Pretty serious stuff.

 

[pixelsmith]

Gates Foundation Pledges $10 Billion For Vaccines : Shots - Health Blog : NPR
Bill Gates, Monsanto, and eugenics: How one of the world's wealthiest men is actively promoting a corporate takeover of global agriculture

It is well known that Bill Gates is the eugenicist son of a eugenicist and he is funding vaccine research and implementation.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates told a recent TED conference, an organization which is sponsored by one of the largest toxic waste polluters on the planet, that vaccines need to be used to reduce world population figures in order to solve global warming and lower CO2 emissions.

Here are Bill Gates' verbatim words:
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

Bill at TED
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Here we see just how much of a dumb bass he really is.

He also advocates pouring more money into the global warming scam by way of the United Nations, as well as a “CO2 tax” and cap and trade, while making it clear that the developed world would have to reduce its living standards by cutting back on essential services that generate CO2.

Bill Gates Admits Vaccines Are Used for Human Depopulation - TED Speech - Topix

 

[Angel of Ioren]

So this is how you always skirt the issue? You find a proponent of something and call them a eugenicist. You do the same thing when it comes to climate science. No facts, so might as well change the subject!
Also, fun with words! Let's take quotes out of context.

No comment on the fact that your evidence about the vaccines is outdated? You just change the subject. Pixel, if you're going to participate in a conversation, at least do so fairly.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

You should watch the actual video here:

Pixel, you may even learn something about controlling CO2 emissions, and how current CO2 emissions have adverse affects on the world.

Your comments clearly point to the fact that you do not approach this topic scientifically - you approach it politically. Just because the science doesn't jive with your political stance does not mean it's wrong. Until you realize this, you'll always be confused about the science. Look at some non-politicized sources and then maybe you'll understand things more clearly.

 

[trainedobserver]

The Internet has dementia and it may be catching. The overabundance of irrefutable contrary claims it produces is absolute proof.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

The Internet has dementia and it may be catching. The overabundance of irrefutable contrary claims it produces is absolute proof.

It's called "The BackFire Effect."

 

[pixelsmith]

i did watch the whole video, if you did, you would see what an idiot he is.

 

[pixelsmith]

So this is how you always skirt the issue? You find a proponent of something and call them a eugenicist. You do the same thing when it comes to climate science. No facts, so might as well change the subject!
Also, fun with words! Let's take quotes out of context.

No comment on the fact that your evidence about the vaccines is outdated? You just change the subject. Pixel, if you're going to participate in a conversation, at least do so fairly.

not skirting the issue, just providing more background on who is funding eugenics programs. please realize i am not saying ALL vaccines are bad. I am very happy to stay on the subject of vaccines but they are a small part of the bigger picture.

 

[pixelsmith]

hmmm..

BAXTER LABS FILES PATENT ON H1N1 (SWINE FLU) IN AUGUST 2008-1 YEAR AHEAD OF THE OUTBREAK!


We are told that Swine Flu (so-called - the H1N1 virus) which is composed of 2 swine, one avian and one human virus is naturally-occuring. Yet here we have the company that shipped human flu vaccine contaminated with bird flu to 18 countries filing a patent on H1N1 almost a full year before the outbreak started! And, may I add, the outbreak began very close to Baxter's lab in Mexico City - the same lab that has been experimenting with flu vaccines!

No Compulsory Vaccination: BAXTER LABS FILES PATENT ON H1N1 (SWINE FLU) IN AUGUST 2008-1 YEAR AHEAD OF THE OUTBREAK!

 

[pixelsmith]

before you cry bullshit on the last post: Baxter H1N1 Vaccine Patent Application

 

[pixelsmith]

Problem - Reaction - $olution works very effectively.

Baxter scientists who patented the H1N1 “swine flu” vaccine in August 2007 have shares in Baxter and so stand to profit directly from “recommending” H1N1 flu jab to WHO in conflict of interest « Case About Bird Flu

 

[pixelsmith]

Angelo said

Pixel, you may even learn something about controlling CO2 emissions, and how current CO2 emissions have adverse affects on the world.

why have you not controlled your own emissions by holding your breath for 20 minutes? seriously, why be a hypocrite? CO2 is good. It is almost as low as it has ever been in this planets history. if it gets much lower plant life will suffer and possibly die. 200 ppm and plants stress out. that is why greenhouses pump up the CO2 to 1200-1400 ppm. today the CO2 levels on this planet are around 380 ppm. It would be awesome if we could get that up to around 700 ppm in order to grow more crops to feed starving populations.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

You've shifted the topic again. We went from talking about vaccines and autism to climate change. Our initial discussion went from dementia to how you think vaccines cause autism. I just want to be clear about this point: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM. That's what I'm trying to say - What causes autism? We can't be sure, but that does not change the fact that it's quite clear that there is no causal relationship between vaccines and autism.

And about your "more CO2 is good for the planet" argument; there are people that actually understand the topic that can explain it better than I can as to why you are so misguided. It's below and the original link is here (CO2 is plant food).

However, before I go, like Rick said above, "The Internet has dementia and it may be catching. The overabundance of irrefutable contrary claims it produces is absolute proof." I almost feel foolish arguing these points with you because you really don't care what I think, or what experts think, unless they are your experts, so ultimately, it's a waste of time. You keep on thinking what ever you want to think, because no amount of valid points will be able to change your mind about something, no matter how wrong you are. This is a public forum and you can argue a point however you want (within forum rules of course), but most people see that that the tactics you use don't do you any favours.

An argument, made by those who deny man made Global Warming, is that the Carbon Dioxide that is being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. Their argument is based on the logic that, if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.​

However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an older, wiser saying that goes, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, taking four is not likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick.​

It is possible to help increase the growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions, inside of greenhouses. It is based on this that 'skeptics' make their claims. However, such claims are simplistic. They fail to take into account that once you increase one substance that plants need, you automatically increase their requirements for other substances. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will have an increase in deserts and other arid lands which would reduce the are available for crops. ​

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone. They get their bulk from more solid substances like water and organic matter. This organic matter comes from decomposing plants and animals or from man made fertilizers. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth?​

What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general? The following points make it clear.​

1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? Rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2).​

On the other hand, as predicted by Global Warming, we are receiving intense storms with increased rain throughout of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately, when rain falls down very quickly, it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it builds up above the soil then starts flowing to the lowest level. It then quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean carrying off large amounts of soil and fertilizer.​

2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to be constantly producing artificial fertilizers from natural gas which will eventually start running out. By increasing the need for such fertilizer you will shorten the supply of natural gas creating competition between the heating of our homes and the growing of our food. This will drive the prices of both up.​

3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.​

4. The worse problem, by far, is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. However, soil conditions will not necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.​

5. When plants do benefit from increased Carbon Dioxide, it is only in enclosed areas, strictly isolated from insects. However, when the growth of Soybeans is boosted out in the open, it creates major changes in its chemistry that makes it more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows.​

 

[pixelsmith]

I shifted the topic?

Pixel, you may even learn something about controlling CO2 emissions, and how current CO2 emissions have adverse affects on the world.

 

[pixelsmith]

so do you want to discuss CO2 or vaccines?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Please look at post 63 where you say:

Here we see just how much of a dumb bass he really is.

He also advocates pouring more money into the global warming scam by way of the United Nations, as well as a “CO2 tax” and cap and trade, while making it clear that the developed world would have to reduce its living standards by cutting back on essential services that generate CO2.​

I made my comment in post 65.

But that's cool - everyone reading this thread will see that.

 

[pixelsmith]

my apologies for being fragmented Angelo. i am trying to work and play on internet at the same time.

 

[pixelsmith]

I forgot what this thread was about.