Vaccines cause breast cancer and testicle cancer, part 2

Measles

...

I think this is Testi cancer for euro, reverse google the img tho I'm not sure

Upl one more

...

This is avg pupil size, interesting it's also increase, I wonder if forehead size did too or other abnormalit like 3 finger birth

Tism graph

...

...

Moar

Homocide rate

Diabetes

Homocide

That's not homocide not sure what it is

So where is the proof that it is caused by vaccinations?

Sage goes in all fields
>inb4 jew positing as a response

Learning disabilities

Right, so something happned, we started drinking fluoride, swimming in chlorine, injecting mercury. Perhaps there was a catalyst

The best lead I have us they doubled the vaxx every 5 years, and kids now get 20-40 vaxx. I'd there was an adverse affect, it should now be noticeable by quadruple ng the vaxx (the side effects should quadruple)

Downs

Fertility rate drop

Downs
by mother age, the longer the mom has had vaccines the more likely to get baby downs (theory)(possible lead)

Parasitic disease

Neoplasms

Skeletal and muscle disease (paralyzed kids)

Endocrine disorders

Mental disorders

Nervous system diseases

Huntingtons

Parkinsons

Motor neurons disease

Multiple sclerosis

Cerebral palsy

Alzheimers

Nervous system diseases

Abortion and miscarriage up

...

Adhd

...

Hmmm... follows a trend in personal radio transmissions: brick phones, cell phones, smart phones, WiFi home networks, then adding devices to the nets...

Asd

This pic is liver cancer

...

Baby death or smth

And the crux

Breast cancer
testicle cancer
and vagina cancer

Notably missing are birth defects ts, imposwnce, and a few others
I'll be around later to answer any questions or debate.

Impotence *

Enjoy your aspergers!

Have you ever thought that this "correlation" might be due to increased intake of processed foods combined with better ability to diagnose these disorders? Because that seems the more likely cause of all of this.

what the fuck are spider web vaginas

its why they do hysterectomy's (vagina removal surgery)
pic related yes. more interesting ones to me are tobacco use (huge jump after 1900, same as vaccines) and irradation+pesticide foods, and any other dna mutagens ... but i think its clear diseases are on the rise not on the decline (some people claim the cancer rate is 100%)

>(some people claim the cancer rate is 100%)

The cancer rate will go up as people live longer and therefor give themselves more time to develop a cancer, or because detection gets better and better.

None of this proves vaccines caused anything. You have absolutely no controls. Find a significantly large population that does everything the same way the West, or whatever sample set these graphs pull from, does things minus the vaccines and then see if there's a difference. Good luck finding such a sample set first off, and secondly I'd bet you anything what you'd find is that even IF vaccines cause problems later in life, they allow so many more people to live to that later stage of life they are a net positive.

99 years ago the Spanish flu epidemic killed 50-100 million people, of all ages. Even if vaccines were proven to cause these problems, but not until people were in their 70s/80s, they'd still be a good idea.

Find a significantly large population that does everything the same way the West,

ahmish, same environment, same dna, same race. zero autism. zero birth defects

i checked the testicular cancer rates of france 1900... they were one case PER YEAR, now its hundreds of thousands.
>huge changes

one case PER YEAR per country*
(of testicle cancer in 1900)

basically this.

have you considered the possibility that the observed increase is simply the result of getting better at diagnosing it?

this only covers live births. could the observed increase in malformations simply be the result of improved medicine keeping deformed children (briefly) alive who might otherwise be stillborn?
also, those data are super old, and most of the jump happens in the 1910s, and vaccination didn't become available in NZ until 1926.
>immunisation.book.health.govt.nz/Appendices/Appendix 1 The history of immunisation in New Zealand

it's kidney disease you retard

>the longer the mom has had vaccines the more likely to get baby downs
no you moron, eggs aren't constantly produced the way sperm are; they're formed in early development and gradually mature over the course of the woman's life. the older SHE is, the older her EGGS are, and the more likely a nondisjunction event has occurred that can result in an aneuploidy. this pattern predates vaccination.

>ahmish, same environment, same dna, same race. zero autism. zero birth defects
literally not true
>nslc.wustl.edu/courses/Bio3411/woolsey/Archives/2010/Lecture15/Francomano et al 2003.pdf

What the hell happened in 1990 to cause white birth rates to drop and black birth rate jump up so high?

A) how do you explain that in 1900 the testicular cancer rate was 1 per year per country, now with vaccines its tens of thousands

B) trying to cure birth defects, cancer, and testicular cancer, stop flaming me faggo

>1 per year per country
[citation needed]
still no response, I see, to the possibility that observed increase in diagnoses reflects improvement in diagnostic methods rather than a true increase in prevalence.

First, your current numbers are just plain wrong. The incidence of testicular cancer is something like 380 per 100,000 men. If you look at the entire country, it's not "tens of thousands", it's maybe 8,000, and that's diagnoses, not deaths.

Second, you have to consider that there's many ways of dying that we've fixed that aren't various cancers. The 1900 death rates for cardiovascular diseases, tuberculosis, pneumonia, and influenza are in total 11-fold higher than for malignant cancers. The only non-cancer cause of death that hasn't dropped to basically zero relative to its old values is cardiovascular diseases, and even that's dropped.

So, we have people that aren't dying of other preventable diseases. They have to die of SOMETHING. Either they die in an accident or heart disease or cancer is bound to get them.

> Find a significantly large population that does everything the same way the West,
youre not grasping what im saying, probably because this was just a graph dump

heres the quick facts:
Vaccines start in 1912
Rise in testicular cancer in every country that got vaccines
Rise of breast cancer from all time lows of breast cancer
1100% rise in autism
Birth defects in general rise
>Where would a sick flu ship go to restore? A human womb. its loving and grows-people as its primary function.
correlating: Zika babies mothers were vaccinated while pregnant due to a 2012 (or 2014?) law for anti mosquitos .:. result = birth defect
Vagina cancer and histerctomies rise large amount (spider web vaginas
New diseases of babies come out: adhd, chroms, aspergers, multiple sclerosis, cerebro paulsy
miscarriages shoot up 400% and abortions too.
Birth defects rise AND vagina cancer AND testie cancer rise
Birth defects + vagina cancer + testicle cancer == vaccines cause cancer of vagina and testies, because they are little ufos

You're quoting my post but you're not responding to my post at all. Did you mean to quote someone else?

Correlation != causation.

the CDC would never allow serious research into this. they'd ruin you if you tried.

it's quite disturbing, the campaign against anti-vax.

If the argument is that cancer rates have increased with vaccination rates, then I guess this is baby's first argument from statistics.

no
my theory is there may be a connection
- between increase in vagina cancer and testie cancer and breast cancer (reproductive organs)
- birth defect increase
- learning disability increase
- new diseases that were not around in 1900 esp for kids (chrons adhd aspergers als alzheimers) (testi cancer also)

and vaccine increase (to 99% of population from 20%) (and to 30 vaccines from 1)

Reproductive system....... also where the flu would go to heal ?

yea wrong post quoted xd

basically im just theorizing 40 vaccines is too fast, i very doubt we understand all the effects vaccines have, esp since they gave us mercury for 80 years... mercury was known toxic since 500bc [dartmouth tox mercury history]

really? you think that injecting large amounts of a neurotoxic heavy metal shortly after birth might have some kind unwanted side effect? well, clearly you're a new-age hippy niggerfaggot who knows nothing about science. unbelievable that there are so many uneducated people i have to share the world with.

Regardless of the fact that the developed world abandoned the use of thiomersal in childhood vaccines a decade ago, there's this:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15691220
>Because of the contribution to overall mercury exposure from breast milk and diet in later life, the removal of thiomersal from vaccines would produce no more than a 50% reduction of mercury exposure in infancy and

>vaccines are microscopic ufos
Are you telling me that I can high on ayys?

ayyyy lmao

Op, as anti-vaccines as I am, I'm not going to look at all the graphs. Try this:
>toxic load from all sources

>proof
nice try

What is effective harmful dose, lethal single dose and long term exposure effects

These small amounts aren't hurting you, they're in such small concentration and such small amounts that your body has no problem metabolizing them and getting rid of them

And its not elemental mercury you dumb shits, the properties of a chemical changes incredibly when they're bonded to other stuff

Itt: correlation is causation guys

Then ice cream sales cause more murders because ice cream sales correlates with murder year round

why was it abandoned?

even if it would "only" account for 50% of mercury exposure during infancy, isn't that a lot to administer all at once, especially at a crucial time in brain development?

it was abandoned because of a health scare about thimerosal even though there was no evidence of it causing any harm.

>isn't that a lot to administer all at once
one can of tuna has more mercury. Its not like its elemental mercury, its thimerosal which has none of the properties of mercury. Thimerosal is water soluble and its just excreted from the body easy

i distrust the research. you can tell me "there's no evidence" as much as you like, but how hard did they look, and are we getting the full picture?

>toddler eats a can of tuna
>no thats totally fine
>toddler gets a vaccine
>OMG THE MERCURY

Its fear mongering, there is no evidence
>how hard did they look
how about the fact I can confidently say there is NO peer reviewed, verifiable evidence that vaccines cause cancer, autism or any of this shit OP's talking about.

>are we getting the full picture
yes, getting scared over what picture you aren't seeing because you think it doesn't exist to you is mania

The FDA didn't cite any evidence when they banned thimerosal from a huge number of vaccines. After that a huge majority of vaccines were mercury free but the autism rates kept rising. This goes to show how mercery didn't cause any autism at all

>i distrust the research
Believing some research you like and not believing others you don't like without any reason, disposition or anything but your own political attributes is retarded.

You can't claim that all of NASA's photos are fake because you distrust them then show a bunch of photos that you think are true. Thats not how it works you have a huge confirmation bias

broadening the criteria for ASD while removing harmful components in vaccines would be the ideal getaway strategy.

the fact is they have every reason to lie about it. otherwise, i probably would take the research at face value

Just because you have autism doesn't mean vaccines caused it.

there's nothing political about it. taking into account the obvious and very large disincentive to reveal any harmful side effects is not "confirmation bias"

I think he has schizophrenia

Why don't psychologists ever publish their chi squared values? Why do these points have no error bars?

Rate of what? What country? How have diagnosis tools evolved?

4 data points over 63 years

When you respond in dept on why these graphs are statistically valid I will respond on the other graphs.

>also implying correlation is causation and the growth of these numbers is not just because of better diagnostics

>taking into account the obvious and very large disincentive to reveal any harmful side effects is not "confirmation bias"
There aren't any huge fucking side effects. If you were truly worried about side effects of vaccines you'd also be skeptical about untold side effects of fucking aspirin or any prescription, even your food. This is complete lunacy the amount of skepticism you have and none of your skepticism is founded in any simple reasoning or through put. You just developed this preconceived notion there was a mass conspiracy because someone told you that ice cream correlated with murder rates in mexico that means ice cream causes murder

>removing harmful components in vaccines would be the ideal getaway strategy.
there is no evidence thimerosal was harmful. Stop spewing nonsense.

>they have every reason to lie about it
No they don't, every reason against vaccines is the same as any drug, food or service.

>Why don't psychologists ever publish their chi squared values?
A) That's not a chi-squared test, user
B) It's probably in the text or the figure legend.

Holy fucking shit. Is Veeky Forums seriously his retarded?

Being trolled this hard.... Mind blowing. OP is an obvious joke, trying to point out the absurdity of anti-vax rhetoric. He wasn't even TRYING to troll, you faggots take it seriously.

Maybe vaccines don't cause autism, but visiting Veeky Forums does. Something in the water round here

> manic rambling

what do you care? it's no skin off your back if someone else thinks vaccines cause autism.

i know the OP is fucking around

They actively contribute to spreading false sciences and lies, harming the greater population through his retardation. He must be purged

If vaccines actually caused cancer would it even matter?
To me chance for cancer is better than chance for one of many diseases that vaccines stop

Nobody goes to the efforts OP did without being serious.

>new diseases that were not properly diagnosed in 1900
FTFY