Lumi's Batshit Insane Thread

jayrebb · Feb 4, 2017

Citation Nr: 0531165
Decision Date: 11/18/05 Archive Date: 11/30/05

DOCKET NO. 05-05 278 ) DATE
)
)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO)
in Reno, Nevada

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for Hepatitis C.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

D. M. Casula, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from July 1978 to May 1980.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) from a November 2004 RO rating decision which denied
service connection for Hepatitis C. Pursuant to an October
2005 motion and the Board's granting thereof, this case has
been advanced on the Board's docket under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107
(West 2002) and 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2005).

FINDING OF FACT

Hepatitis C is a result of receiving immunizations in service
by means of a multi-use jet gun injector.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

Hepatitis C was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131
(West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.303 (2005).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

A. Duty to Notify and Assist

The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) describes
VA's duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a
claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103,
5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and
3.326(a). In this case, in a letter dated in August 2004,
the veteran was notified of the duty to notify and assist
requirements of the VCAA. However, in light of the result
here (a full grant of the claim for service connection), the
Board finds that a detailed discussion of the VCAA is
unnecessary. Any potential failure of VA in fulfilling its
duties to notify and assist the veteran is essentially
harmless error.

B. Service Connection for Peripheral Neuropathy

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting
from injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active
service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

In this case, the veteran contends that he received
vaccinations in July 1978, upon entry into active duty, and
that these injections were given by a type of air injector
and were not sanitized between injections on recruits.

The pertinent evidence of record will be briefly summarized.
Service medical records show that the veteran received
several vaccinations and immunizations upon his entry into
service in July 1978. Service medical records show no high
risk activities other than on the veteran's entrance (and
separation) examinations it was noted that he had two tattoos
on his arms.

Post-service private treatment records show that Hepatitis C
was diagnosed in 2002, and that the veteran had elevated
liver function tests in the years prior to that.

In August 2004 the veteran submitted his responses to the
Risk Factors for Hepatitis C Questionnaire. He responded
"no" to intravenous drug use, intranasal cocaine use, high-
risk sexual activity, hemodialysis, sharing toothbrushes or
razor blades, having a blood transfusion, and having been a
healthcare worker. He indicated he had tattoos, but that he
did them himself with "indian ink" when he was 12 years old
and claimed he did not share any needles. He also claimed
that the only non-sterile needles he ever had were the air
injectors used in the Navy, and he also claimed that in the
Navy multi-dose bottles were used.

In a December 2004 letter, Dr. David Kohl, the veteran's
treating physician, opined that the veteran had Hepatitis C
"that likely was contracted when he received vaccinations
from multi-dose vials when he was in the Navy in [the] late
1970s". Dr. Kohl noted that the veteran reported he never
used intravenous drugs and had one tatoo that he had put on
his shoulder himself with a sewing needle.

In support of his claim the veteran has submitted several
documents pertaining to Hepatitis C, Hepatitis B, and the use
of multi-use jet injectors in service. In one document, a
June 2004 VBA fast letter, it was noted that the large
majority of Hepatitis C virus infections can be accounted for
by known modes of transmission, primarily transfusion of
blood products before 1992 and injection drug use. See VBA
Fast Letter 04-13 (June 29, 2004). The conclusion was that
despite the lack of any scientific evidence to document
transmission of the Hepatitis C virus with air gun
injections, it was "biologically plausible". The VBA fast
letter indicated that it is essential that the report upon
which the determination of service connection is made
included a full discussion of all modes of transmission, and
a rationale as to why the examiner believes the air gun was
the source of the veteran's Hepatitis C.

Received from the veteran in September 2005, along with a
waiver of initial review by the RO, was a September 2005
letter from a VA physician. (The record reflects that this
evidence was received beyond the 90 day period subsequent to
the RO's certification of the appeal to the Board. In
November 2005, however, the Board granted the veteran's
motion to have the Board accept new evidence and show good
cause as to why the evidence could not have been submitted
within the 90 day period. Therefore this evidence may be
considered by the Board herein.)

In the September 2005 letter, the VA physician noted that the
veteran was under her care and had been diagnosed with active
Hepatitis C since 2002, and that a review of his records
showed elevated liver function tests since 1987. It was
noted that the veteran denied a history of illicit drug use
or sexual promiscuity, and had never received any blood
transfusions. He had two small tattoos on his arms which he
administered himself as a child. It was also noted that the
veteran received immunizations by means of multi-use jet gun
injectors while in service. The VA physician indicated that
a review of the medical literature, including a report from
the CDC MMWR dated in June 1986, confirmed a high correlation
between this method of immunization and Hepatitis C infection
(the Board notes that this excerpt actually pertains to the
Hepatitis B virus). The VA physician also noted that a
review of a document from the Department of Defense -
Epidemiology Board dated in January 1998 strongly recommended
that multi-use jet gun injectors not be used because of the
risk of transmission of blood borne diseases. The VA
physician then opined that the veteran contracted Hepatitis C
"from the use of jet gun injector [sic] during his
vaccinations while in military service".

When all of the evidence is assembled, the Board must decide
whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative
equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event.
Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 55 (1990).

The Board notes that there are both private and VA medical
opinions of record which support the veteran's claim. The
Board also notes that there is no negative or contrary
evidence of record, other than the VBA Fast Letter 04-13
which concluded that there had been no case reports of the
Hepatitis C virus being transmitted by air gun transmission.
The conclusion in the VBA Fast Letter, however, as noted
above was that despite the lack of any scientific evidence to
document transmission of the Hepatitis C virus with air gun
injections, it was biologically plausible. Both the
veteran's private physician and the VA physician have
essentially excluded the usual risk factors as the etiology
of the veteran's Hepatitis C. Moreover, these opinions
contain information that is consistent with the evidence of
record, together with the reasoning for the opinion given.

Thus, given the positive medical evidence in support of the
veteran's claim and considering the entire evidence of
record, the Board will grant the claim. The Board finds that
the veteran's Hepatitis C was contracted in service as a
result of his receiving shots via a multi-use jet gun
injector, and therefore service connection for Hepatitis C is
warranted.

ORDER

Service connection for Hepatitis C is granted.

____________________________________________
H. N. SCHWARTZ
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Department of Veterans Affairs

hodj · Feb 4, 2017

Neuromancer said:
My line of reasoning is not a strawman. Let me outline it for you because you have gone full autism raving mad.

1.) Delayed schedule for vaccine is not a bad idea
2.) Parents cannot be trusted to actually follow it
3.) As a result we force it the way it is because we know it won't get done otherwise.
4.) This won't change any time soon because if you discuss the side effects of vaccines at all you are an anti-vaxxer

Find any issue with any of those points, reference them individually in your rebuttal, if there is one.

My issue is with point 1.

There is no reason to delay vaccines for children. Period. All those vaccines have been around for decades, the long term and short term health consequences are well known, the side effects are minor and effect only a minor fraction of the population. The entire premise is nonsense.

jayrebb said:
LMAO no I'd say you're done now, gov mouth piece.

So rigorous then why did everyone get hepatitis C from these devices that the FDA approved?

Yeah the jugs are so rigorous, man. Like totally rigorous. Just look at that trigger-action on the jug, thats gotta be accurate. Not to mention blood borne disease that was caused to millions of people from using these.

Not seeing any credible citations here at all, all I see is more fear mongering. Some device that was misused gave people Hep B. This is the dictionary definition of a non-sequitor fallacy.

hodj · Feb 4, 2017

jayrebb said:
Citation Nr: 0531165
Decision Date: 11/18/05 Archive Date: 11/30/05

DOCKET NO. 05-05 278 ) DATE
)
)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO)
in Reno, Nevada

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for Hepatitis C.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

D. M. Casula, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from July 1978 to May 1980.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) from a November 2004 RO rating decision which denied
service connection for Hepatitis C. Pursuant to an October
2005 motion and the Board's granting thereof, this case has
been advanced on the Board's docket under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107
(West 2002) and 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2005).

FINDING OF FACT

Hepatitis C is a result of receiving immunizations in service
by means of a multi-use jet gun injector.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

Hepatitis C was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131
(West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.303 (2005).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

A. Duty to Notify and Assist

The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) describes
VA's duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a
claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103,
5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and
3.326(a). In this case, in a letter dated in August 2004,
the veteran was notified of the duty to notify and assist
requirements of the VCAA. However, in light of the result
here (a full grant of the claim for service connection), the
Board finds that a detailed discussion of the VCAA is
unnecessary. Any potential failure of VA in fulfilling its
duties to notify and assist the veteran is essentially
harmless error.

B. Service Connection for Peripheral Neuropathy

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting
from injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active
service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

In this case, the veteran contends that he received
vaccinations in July 1978, upon entry into active duty, and
that these injections were given by a type of air injector
and were not sanitized between injections on recruits.

The pertinent evidence of record will be briefly summarized.
Service medical records show that the veteran received
several vaccinations and immunizations upon his entry into
service in July 1978. Service medical records show no high
risk activities other than on the veteran's entrance (and
separation) examinations it was noted that he had two tattoos
on his arms.

Post-service private treatment records show that Hepatitis C
was diagnosed in 2002, and that the veteran had elevated
liver function tests in the years prior to that.

In August 2004 the veteran submitted his responses to the
Risk Factors for Hepatitis C Questionnaire. He responded
"no" to intravenous drug use, intranasal cocaine use, high-
risk sexual activity, hemodialysis, sharing toothbrushes or
razor blades, having a blood transfusion, and having been a
healthcare worker. He indicated he had tattoos, but that he
did them himself with "indian ink" when he was 12 years old
and claimed he did not share any needles. He also claimed
that the only non-sterile needles he ever had were the air
injectors used in the Navy, and he also claimed that in the
Navy multi-dose bottles were used.

In a December 2004 letter, Dr. David Kohl, the veteran's
treating physician, opined that the veteran had Hepatitis C
"that likely was contracted when he received vaccinations
from multi-dose vials when he was in the Navy in [the] late
1970s". Dr. Kohl noted that the veteran reported he never
used intravenous drugs and had one tatoo that he had put on
his shoulder himself with a sewing needle.

In support of his claim the veteran has submitted several
documents pertaining to Hepatitis C, Hepatitis B, and the use
of multi-use jet injectors in service. In one document, a
June 2004 VBA fast letter, it was noted that the large
majority of Hepatitis C virus infections can be accounted for
by known modes of transmission, primarily transfusion of
blood products before 1992 and injection drug use. See VBA
Fast Letter 04-13 (June 29, 2004). The conclusion was that
despite the lack of any scientific evidence to document
transmission of the Hepatitis C virus with air gun
injections, it was "biologically plausible". The VBA fast
letter indicated that it is essential that the report upon
which the determination of service connection is made
included a full discussion of all modes of transmission, and
a rationale as to why the examiner believes the air gun was
the source of the veteran's Hepatitis C.

Received from the veteran in September 2005, along with a
waiver of initial review by the RO, was a September 2005
letter from a VA physician. (The record reflects that this
evidence was received beyond the 90 day period subsequent to
the RO's certification of the appeal to the Board. In
November 2005, however, the Board granted the veteran's
motion to have the Board accept new evidence and show good
cause as to why the evidence could not have been submitted
within the 90 day period. Therefore this evidence may be
considered by the Board herein.)

In the September 2005 letter, the VA physician noted that the
veteran was under her care and had been diagnosed with active
Hepatitis C since 2002, and that a review of his records
showed elevated liver function tests since 1987. It was
noted that the veteran denied a history of illicit drug use
or sexual promiscuity, and had never received any blood
transfusions. He had two small tattoos on his arms which he
administered himself as a child. It was also noted that the
veteran received immunizations by means of multi-use jet gun
injectors while in service. The VA physician indicated that
a review of the medical literature, including a report from
the CDC MMWR dated in June 1986, confirmed a high correlation
between this method of immunization and Hepatitis C infection
(the Board notes that this excerpt actually pertains to the
Hepatitis B virus). The VA physician also noted that a
review of a document from the Department of Defense -
Epidemiology Board dated in January 1998 strongly recommended
that multi-use jet gun injectors not be used because of the
risk of transmission of blood borne diseases. The VA
physician then opined that the veteran contracted Hepatitis C
"from the use of jet gun injector [sic] during his
vaccinations while in military service".

When all of the evidence is assembled, the Board must decide
whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative
equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event.
Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 55 (1990).

The Board notes that there are both private and VA medical
opinions of record which support the veteran's claim. The
Board also notes that there is no negative or contrary
evidence of record, other than the VBA Fast Letter 04-13
which concluded that there had been no case reports of the
Hepatitis C virus being transmitted by air gun transmission.
The conclusion in the VBA Fast Letter, however, as noted
above was that despite the lack of any scientific evidence to
document transmission of the Hepatitis C virus with air gun
injections, it was biologically plausible. Both the
veteran's private physician and the VA physician have
essentially excluded the usual risk factors as the etiology
of the veteran's Hepatitis C. Moreover, these opinions
contain information that is consistent with the evidence of
record, together with the reasoning for the opinion given.

Thus, given the positive medical evidence in support of the
veteran's claim and considering the entire evidence of
record, the Board will grant the claim. The Board finds that
the veteran's Hepatitis C was contracted in service as a
result of his receiving shots via a multi-use jet gun
injector, and therefore service connection for Hepatitis C is
warranted.

ORDER

Service connection for Hepatitis C is granted.

____________________________________________
H. N. SCHWARTZ
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Department of Veterans Affairs

You have a really hard time grasping what valid evidence that is actually relevant to the topic in question, don't you?

The VA pays out for all sorts of nonsense.

Again: Peer reviewed, academic citations that support your anti vaxx/delayed schedule position is what I'm asking for. Not red herrings from some VA shit about some injector gun that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

All you're doing here is admitting you've got nothing. This is the functional equivalent of Ken Ham asking "Were you there" when confronted with the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

jayrebb · Feb 4, 2017

jihodj said:
Not seeing any credible citations here at all, all I see is more fear mongering. Some device that was misused gave people Hep B. This is the dictionary definition of a non-sequitor fallacy.

Nice try big boy, you claimed there were no dangerous approvals of FDA medical devices, nor vaccine injury as a result of production changes and distribution. And that rigorous controls and process were in place to protect everyone.

You're fucking dead wrong.

(see how it easy it is to act like you?)

hodj · Feb 4, 2017

Delaying Vaccines Increases Risks—with No Added Benefits

Delaying Vaccines Increases Risks—with No Added Benefits
Some parents delay vaccines out of a misinformed belief that it’s safer, but that decision actually increases the risk of a seizure after vaccination and leaves children at risk for disease longer

Concerns about vaccine safety have led up to 40 percent of parents in the U.S. to delay or refuse some vaccines for their children in hopes of avoiding rare reactions. Barriers to health care access can also cause immunization delays. But delaying some vaccines, in addition to leaving children unprotected from disease longer, can actually increase the risk of fever-related seizures, according to a new study.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention annually updates its recommended childhood immunization schedule, the only schedule endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical organizations. Following the CDC guidelines means children may get as many as five vaccines at one visit. But some parents space out vaccines, leading to delays in shots such as the first measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) dose, recommended when a child is between 12 and 15 months old.

The new study, published in the May 19 Pediatrics, found that administering the MMR shot or the less frequently used MMRV one (which includes the varicella, or chickenpox, vaccine) later, between 16 and 23 months, doubles the child’s risk of developing a fever-caused, or febrile, seizure as a reaction to the vaccine. The risk of a febrile seizure following the MMR is approximately one case in 3,000 doses for children aged 12 to 15 months but one case in 1,500 doses for children aged 16 to 23 months “This study adds to the evidence that the best way to prevent disease and minimize side effects from vaccines is to vaccinate on the recommended schedule,” says Simon Hambidge, lead author of the study and the director of general pediatrics at Denver Health. Otherwise, he says, an undervaccinated child is left at risk of infectious disease for a longer period. “Delaying also makes for increased visits to the doctor’s office,” he says, “along with the time and hassle and risk of exposure to other infectious diseases in the doctor’s office.” Hambidge’s previous research found that pediatric office visits might increase the risk of gastrointestinal illness (symptoms then potentially misinterpreted as a vaccine reaction).

It's not clear why the MMR and MMRV vaccines increase febrile seizure risk in the older children, but it may be simply that they receive the vaccines when they are already more susceptible to the seizures. Hambidge says evidence shows the immune system may still be maturing during the second year of life, and febrile seizures caused by viruses naturally peak around 16 to 18 months. Vaccines administered during this interval may increase the risk of fever, and therefore febrile seizures, because the vaccines rev up the immune system to mount a better immune response. These seizures do not cause any long-term health effects. “Even though they’re scary for parents, these seizures are temporary events. They don’t recur and don’t cause epilepsy,” Hambidge says.

Why parents delay vaccines
Children receiving delayed vaccinations tend to fall into one of two groups: those whose parents intentionally delay vaccines and those whose families have difficulty getting vaccines on time. Anna Saporito, a family physician who works at the Institute for Family Health in New York City, sees more of the latter. “Many of my patients are working two jobs, are in the shelter system, are in abusive relationships, have psychiatric disorders or all of the above,” she says. “That can make their lives too chaotic to get their children in for vaccines.” But she is increasingly hearing from parents who are uneasy about vaccine safety, some of whom believe vaccines are unnecessary if they are breast-feeding, even though breast milk cannot adequately protect children against vaccine-preventable diseases.

Hambidge points out that misinformation on the Internet often frightens parents away from following the CDC schedule. A 2011 study found that parents who delayed or refused some vaccines were less likely to believe that vaccines are necessary to protect children’s health, that their child might get a disease while unvaccinated or that vaccines are safe. In a separate study, even among parents who did vaccinate on time, more than a quarter believed delaying would be safer than following the CDC schedule.

But these beliefs are not grounded in evidence, says Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “No vaccine can be put onto the schedule unless there is data showing it doesn’t interfere with the other vaccines’ [effectiveness] or safety,” he says. “When you choose to spread out the vaccines, you’re making something up that hasn’t been tested. You don’t know how well that schedule will work whereas the CDC schedule is well-tested.”

Delaying vaccines has other drawbacks, too, Saporito says. “You are increasing the amount of sticks your child must endure—and if you delay them enough, your child can develop a real fear and distrust of the doctor because as they get older they have more of a memory of the shots,” she says. “We also worry that your child will not get all the shots they need because it is hard logistically to come back so often.”

No benefit to waiting to vaccinate
No evidence to date reveals any benefits to delaying vaccines. A study in 2010 showed that children who received delayed vaccinations performed no better at ages seven to 10 on behavioral and cognitive assessments than children who received their vaccines on time. “There was not a single outcome for which the delayed group did better,” observes Michael Smith, the pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Louisville who led that study. He notes that delaying vaccines leaves children at risk for disease longer, and that many parents have little firsthand experience with those diseases. “In this context, any potential side effect—real or perceived—may be enough to convince a parent that it’s safe to defer vaccines,” he says. “However, that is not a safe choice, especially as vaccine-preventable diseases like measles are making a comeback.”

A measles outbreak currently underway in Ohio, for example, is now the largest state outbreak since 1996, keeping the U.S. on track for the worst measles year in nearly two decades. Universities in Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois and Virginia have had recent mumps outbreaks, and pertussis, or whooping cough, has been increasing for several years. Although national vaccination rates for school-aged children are high—typically above 95 percent for most vaccines—rates for younger children are considerably lower, and they are particularly susceptible to diseases such as Haemophilus influenzae type b and measles. “Ten years ago if you chose to delay vaccines, it wasn’t as big a deal as it is now, but that is a more dangerous choice now,” Offit says. “We’re seeing far more cases of measles, mumps, pertussis and bacterial meningitis. If you walk out of that office now unvaccinated, you are walking into a more dangerous world.”

hodj · Feb 4, 2017

jayrebb said:
Nice try big boy, you claimed there were no dangerous approvals of FDA medical devices, nor vaccine injury as a result of production changes and distribution. And that rigorous controls and process were in place to protect everyone.

Wrong. Now you're strawmanning on top of non sequitoring.

You're a box of fallacies and no evidence. Just like every pseudo science spewing moron ever.

hodj · Feb 4, 2017

When you're able to provide the citation requested, let me know

jayrebb .

Kiroy · Feb 4, 2017

One thing is for certain.

hodj 's copy pasta game is much better than

jayrebb 's. I mean look at the formatting differences!

Impressive hodj, impressive.

Ridas · Feb 4, 2017

Shiiiiiiiiiiiet Hodj.

ffa1e089b8328988dde39800fc003bca6a6d488d32e64900b2f7791d70b967e4.jpg

hodj · Feb 4, 2017

Kiroy said:
One thing is for certain. hodj 's copy pasta game is much better than jayrebb 's. I mean look at the formatting differences!

Impressive hodj, impressive.

Thank you sir.

jayrebb · Feb 4, 2017

jihodj said:
Wrong. Now you're strawmanning on top of non sequitoring.

You're a box of fallacies and no evidence. Just like every pseudo science spewing moron ever.

You're a poisonous tree, all fruit is tainted. You are the pro-vaccine nut that I suspected and this proved it.

Its a vaccine injury with a ruling that the device caused the vaccine injury, with a vaccine related device. I'm just getting warmed up and getting into the jihodj art-of-war, I'll be back later with more of your requested citations.

Wintermute · Feb 4, 2017

jihodj said:
There is no reason to delay vaccines for children. Period. All those vaccines have been around for decades, the long term and short term health consequences are well known, the side effects are minor and effect only a minor fraction of the population. The entire premise is nonsense.

The long term and short term are well known. They can cause death, brain damage, fevers, etc etc

Look at the Hep B vaccine. It is very rigidly given to a baby at birth. No matter what. The reasoning (from the 80's) is that it can be passed at birth from the mother. If it was passed they already have it before the vaccine. Why are we pushing this so fast despite all mothers by now having the vaccine. Less than 1% of the US even gets Hep B, it's a statistical non issue. Yet here we are pushing it on to babies at birth because you need to because you are told to.

The problem with "knowing" the side effects is that people like you have zero room for conflicting information. Vaccine injuries are HIGHLY under reported or shrugged off as "we will never know what actually cause that". You can have a baby that is perfect in every way, toss a vaccine at it, spikes a fever and then dies. It will be chalked up to a myriad of reasons because there isn't a direct correlation you can point to on a chart. Baby was fine before, baby is dead now. Only thing that was done was vaccine. If only we knew what happened.

You don't know shit about the topic you are just too worried that your opinion will change or that anti-vaxxers will win. By not discussing it you only give mongoloids like jayrebb ammunition. You are the problem just as much as him.

jayrebb · Feb 4, 2017

jayrebb said:
I'm taking a break from this as i don't have time to look at those links you posted at the moment, and its becoming circular without me being able to do that.

Or as you say "moving goalposts".

Right. Take a Valium pal.

jayrebb · Feb 4, 2017

Neuromancer said:
The long term and short term are well known. They can cause death, brain damage, fevers, etc etc

Look at the Hep B vaccine. It is very rigidly given to a baby at birth.

Fuck that Hep B soft shit @Neuromancer, drop the HPV vaccine injuries on this dude for me as I don't have time right now.

Maiming adult women by the thousand.

hodj · Feb 4, 2017

jayrebb said:
You're a poisonous tree, all fruit is tainted. You are the pro-vaccine nut that I suspected and this proved it.

Its a vaccine injury with a ruling that the device caused the vaccine injury, with a vaccine related device. I'm just getting warmed up and getting into the jihodj art-of-war, I'll be back later with more of your requested citations.

Its a completely irrelevant aside from the 1960s that you've brought up solely because you have literally no actual evidence to support your point of view, so you're desperately throwing anything at the wall hoping it will stick and distract and it is failing because I don't fall for that shit.

Peer reviewed, academic citations demonstrating that delayed vaccination schedules are beneficial. That's what you've been asked for. That is what you continue to fail to deliver.

Put up or shut up, moron.

hodj · Feb 4, 2017

Neuromancer said:
The long term and short term are well known. They can cause death, brain damage, fevers, etc etc

Look at the Hep B vaccine. It is very rigidly given to a baby at birth. No matter what. The reasoning (from the 80's) is that it can be passed at birth from the mother. If it was passed they already have it before the vaccine. Why are we pushing this so fast despite all mothers by now having the vaccine. Less than 1% of the US even gets Hep B, it's a statistical non issue. Yet here we are pushing it on to babies at birth because you need to because you are told to.

The problem with "knowing" the side effects is that people like you have zero room for conflicting information. Vaccine injuries are HIGHLY under reported or shrugged off as "we will never know what actually cause that". You can have a baby that is perfect in every way, toss a vaccine at it, spikes a fever and then dies. It will be chalked up to a myriad of reasons because there isn't a direct correlation you can point to on a chart. Baby was fine before, baby is dead now. Only thing that was done was vaccine. If only we knew what happened.

You don't know shit about the topic you are just too worried that your opinion will change or that anti-vaxxers will win. By not discussing it you only give mongoloids like jayrebb ammunition. You are the problem just as much as him.

The reason you are given hep b vaccine as a child is the same reason I had to take one before I went to Poland: You can contract Hep B from food and water sources, even in relatively safe countries, through contamination of food and water sources.

And two Hep B vaccines 12 months apart confer lifetime immunity to the disease, fyi.

jayrebb · Feb 4, 2017

jihodj said:
Its a completely irrelevant aside from the 1960s that you've brought up solely because you have literally no actual evidence to support your point of view, so you're desperately throwing anything at the wall hoping it will stick and distract and it is failing because I don't fall for that shit.

Peer reviewed, academic citations demonstrating that delayed vaccination schedules are beneficial. That's what you've been asked for. That is what you continue to fail to deliver.

Put up or shut up, moron.

You brought up the 18th century and 19th century medicine, moron.

1960 is very relevant according to your own rules.

Who's moving the goalpost now, fathead? -- to prove the FDA can approve dangerous devices and dangerous vaccines.

hodj · Feb 4, 2017

And yes, many nations in the world still have latent Hep B in their water supplies. I was literally told not to drink the water in Poland due to this fact, nor to eat any vegetables that were unwashed and uncooked while I was there, despite having the vaccine.

Wintermute · Feb 4, 2017

jihodj said:
And two Hep B vaccines 12 months apart confer lifetime immunity to the disease, fyi.

Only for 95% of people according to the CDC but yeah who cares about facts.

If a baby born to a vaccinated mother needs one within a few hours of birth because they might eat and drink some outside tainted food then you are dumber than I thought.

jayrebb · Feb 4, 2017

You just spammed for 2 pages with absolutely nothing to do with delayed vaccination except 18th and 19th century study that children below the age of 5 died a lot.

You're batshit crazy and can't even follow your own protocols you are then trying to apply to me.

You're certifiably insane.

Search

Lumi's Batshit Insane Thread

jayrebb

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

jayrebb

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

Kiroy

Marine Biologist

Ridas

Pay to play forum

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

jayrebb

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

Wintermute

jayrebb

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

jayrebb

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

jayrebb

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

Wintermute

jayrebb

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider