Obama Grants Immunity to CDC Whistleblower on Measles Vaccine Link to Autism

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
There are literally thousands of studies showing the success of vaccination. If you don't want to read them, ask a doctor. If you want to believe further, ask an anonymous source on the internet - which will provide many un-claimable "facts". Which are no facts, indeed.

And since these kinds of studies have been proven over, and over, and over again to be filled with lies, falsified and omitted/modified data, you trust them because...?

[citation needed]

a reply to: GetHyped

ALREADY POSTED! For example:

Vaccines Harmful, Ineffective: Mainstream Studies

New studies from Canada, the US, Japan and Hong Kong support Canada's 2009 finding that seasonal flu vaccination almost doubled the risk of infection with pandemic flu - and does NOT provide higher protection than no vaccine. This information is being suppressed in the mainstream media, and most published public reports spin the info to minimize the data's importance and protect Big Pharma.

We already knew:

* Flu vaccines prevent children from building their natural immunity to other flu viruses. By comparison, a natural infection induces cross-immunity. This means that regularly vaccinated kids are sitting ducks in a pandemic - because they haven't built up their immunity.

...and that's just going back 2 pages. Lots more out there, not just on this thread.

a reply to: soficrow

So certain strains of the flu vaccine not being as effective as we'd like = all vaccines are ineffective? Bollocks.

But that wasn't even the original claim:

And since these kinds of studies have been proven over, and over, and over again to be filled with lies, falsified and omitted/modified data, you trust them because...?

[citation needed]

Oh, and how many times does this CDC whistleblower nonsense need to be debunked?

a reply to: GetHyped

Ho hum. Let's start with stealth marketing.

...Bob Grant recently wrote a news story about a curious publication, The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine. It sounds like a respectable journal, but it isn't. ...

...The publication was invented to support Merck drugs and the AJBJM was entirely paid for by Merck ...It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular journal.

...There were six other faux journals. Who sponsored them? "Who besides Merck colluded in "unacceptable practice"?" And where's the financial information? How much does it cost to buy a leading science publisher's integrity?

Now enough. You said you'd stop.

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
Just because something IS possible does not mean it IS going to happen...a caterpillar can be a butterfly but doesn;t always become one...I was just pointing out the bizarre statement you made...my point is simply that just becasue you do not get vaccinated for the flu lets say doesn't mean you are putting yourself in any actual danger of getting the flu or ANY disease...Never had the flu vaccine, never had the flu...The quote of yours i put in my first statement is simply false to a large degree and thats all I'm really saying

whether or not your get " vaccinated " ( pretty hilarious term actually ) has no bearing on actually contracting something....so please Jodi Foster, lets not get carried away

reply to: Variable

Here's where your not looking at it right. Viruses need to reproduce to mutate. So some one not vaccinated who gets said virus could (will if given enough generations) allow it to mutate making the people who get vaccinated no longer immune. If everyone gets vaccinated by a working vaccine. The virus becomes extinct. It has no hosts to reproduce inside, so it can't mutate.



The pro-choice/anti vaxxers could and probubally will allow the mutation that makes the vaccine I took ineffective. Which means we will all have to be revaccinated against the new strain. Everyone vaccinated means no new strain.

a reply to: Entreri06

All the scary viruses are zoonosis - and jump from animals to people (and back again, for that matter). A virus mutating in human hosts might get more dangerous faster, but human hosts are not necessary. It will still mutate in animal hosts, and has the potential to develop human lethality like Ebola and bird flu did. By your logic, we'd have to vaccinate all the wild animals in the world too - or kill them all off - to protect ourselves.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Have you read this book or seen the vid?

Confessions of a Prescription Drug Pusher

……..For 15 years, Gwen was living an unintentional lie, working as a pharmaceutical sales rep for some of today’s largest pharmaceutical manufacturers, including Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Abbott Laboratories. But through a gradual course of tragic events, Gwen’s eyes were eventually opened to the unethical and tyrannical truth about pharmaceutical drugs.

Viral evolution is an important aspect of the epidemiology of viral diseases such as influenza (influenza virus), AIDS (HIV), and hepatitis (e.g. HCV). The rapidity of viral mutation also causes problems in the development of successful vaccines and antiviral drugs, as resistant mutations often appear within weeks or months after the beginning of the treatment.

a reply to: Entreri06

Viral Evolution

keeping on top of these would be like playing whack-a-mole.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: tanstaafl
And since these kinds of studies have been proven over, and over, and over again to be filled with lies, falsified and omitted/modified data, you trust them because...?

[citation needed]

I know you are being disingenuous, because this is pretty much common knowledge, but ok, I'll give you a few...

Remember, this is just a general 'can't trust scientific studies' claim in general, not just about vaccines...

Oh - and isn't it interesting that you are asking for proof of this kind of fraud - yet I'm sure you have more than once used a recent case of it in support of your ... belief (I'm talking about the recent case where the study supposedly linking the MMR vaccine to autism was supposedly declared to be a fraud)...

Anyway, so, how about this

or this

or this

or ... well, google is your friend.

You religious nuts (blind faith in science is a religion just as much as Christianity is) really crack me up...

a reply to: soficrow

So again, when pressed to substantiate your claims, you come up with nothing. Riiiight.

So yeah, I will stop engaging with you as you are clearly not capable of reasoned, evidence-based discussion.

6 pages in and counting for an unsubstantiated rumour...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: tanstaafl
And since these kinds of studies have been proven over, and over, and over again to be filled with lies, falsified and omitted/modified data, you trust them because...?

[citation needed]

I know you are being disingenuous, because this is pretty much common knowledge, but ok, I'll give you a few...

Remember, this is just a general 'can't trust scientific studies' claim in general, not just about vaccines...

Oh - and isn't it interesting that you are asking for proof of this kind of fraud - yet I'm sure you have more than once used a recent case of it in support of your ... belief (I'm talking about the recent case where the study supposedly linking the MMR vaccine to autism was supposedly declared to be a fraud)...

Anyway, so, how about this

Nothing to do with the topic. Most studies are a dead-end. That's how science works. Publication bias favouring positive data over negative data means that there is a big bias towards dead-end studies that were initially positive.

or this

What's this got to do with vaccination studies? You said, specifically:

And since these kinds of studies have been proven over, and over, and over again to be filled with lies, falsified and omitted/modified data, you trust them because...?

And again:

or this]

See above. What does this have to do with vaccination studies? The source says:

In poring over medical journals, he was struck by how many findings of all types were refuted by later findings.

So were these later findings also false? You can't have it both ways. But enough random articles, point me to a big selection of vaccine studies that have "have been proven over, and over, and over again to be filled with lies, falsified and omitted/modified data". Here's a list you can work methodically through with your excellent debunking skills:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Entreri06

All the scary viruses are zoonosis - and jump from animals to people (and back again, for that matter). A virus mutating in human hosts might get more dangerous faster, but human hosts are not necessary. It will still mutate in animal hosts, and has the potential to develop human lethality like Ebola and bird flu did. By your logic, we'd have to vaccinate all the wild animals in the world too - or kill them all off - to protect ourselves.

Can you name one virus eradicated that mutated in animals and came back? There are your examples started in animals and jumped to us. Life is a B so I'm sure it could happen and yes we could vaccinate the animals. :p or just use protection when dealing with carriers.... P

We have eliminated polio, small pox and had eliminated measles/mumps until Oprah decided Jenny McCarthy's was a doctor.

a reply to: GetHyped

...you are clearly not capable of reasoned, evidence-based discussion

As evidenced by my 16,000+ threads and posts? And near-spotless record?

True, I have little patience for trolls and lazy researcher-writers who try to intimidate unsuspecting member-posters and bully them into doing their work for them. Bad strategy. Ruins threads. Only seems to work. Doesn't do much but polarize and alienate.

a reply to: Entreri06

...We have eliminated polio, small pox and had eliminated measles/mumps

References? Links?

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Entreri06

...We have eliminated polio, small pox and had eliminated measles/mumps

References? Links?

www.noonesdiedofsmallpoxinageneration.com

a reply to: Entreri06

Let me rephrase. Do you have any credible scientific links that have not been refuted?

Thank you.

the insults for vaxxers is very substantiated.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: soficrow

The Thompson case is just a slice of this moldy cheese.
The more research I do the more convinced I am that vaccines are net negative for health.

You think if anyone really wanted to look hard at health outcomes, they could study the effects in animal studies. Nope quite the opposite. Proposing an animal study of vaccines will literally get you bounced from any mainstream University in the US.

The few studies that were published are real clear that damage is being done. (Monkeys) (Dogs) The damage is worse, the younger the target is. That basically makes the Hep B at birth a true crime against humanity.

Yes, and on the CDC site's FAQ, one question is "Why has there never been a long term study on vaccinated versus non-vaccinated? Answer: it would be unethical to withhold vaccines from people to do this study. BULL! For 25 years, the non-vaccinated have been petitioning FDA and CDC to use THEM as the non-vaccinated in a long term study since they are voluntarily already doing this - their petitions are met with silence.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: thebtheb

WHat would you accept as proof?


By the way, here's the measles incidence chart:

Quite a significant difference.

Here's the diphtheria chart:

Again, quite a difference.

Polio:

Fairly dramatic.

Those charts mean nothing to me. I've seen other charts that say otherwise. Who made them? Where do they come from? ACTUAL research is what matters. Mine to me, proves measles was far FAR down before the vaccine - a good 20 years before the vaccine.

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Entreri06

Let me rephrase. Do you have any credible scientific links that have not been refuted?

Thank you.

Not even a lol or a giggle. I really thought that was comedy gold lol! :p