Courts Quietly Confirm MMR Vaccine Causes Autism

It's of little significance whether it was a vaccine or another product, it's the principle that a company is willing to spread disease via their products. If McDonalds knowingly sells disease contaminated fries, I'm not going to trust their burgers or drinks either. In some countries people went to jail, in the US they didn't, hence no product from Bayer should be trusted ever again, the company should now be shut down. If you knew that a babysitter had deliberately poisoned one of the children they were employed to look after, it's safe to say you would never employ that babysitter. The same goes for Bayer, they have proven their true colors as a morally defunct corporation, these people cannot be trusted with our health or anything for that matter.

Pardon?

Rubinstein
People are in jail for what happened, would you seriously trust Bayer ever again after they knowingly sold HIV contaminated products? I can confirm that it wasn't a vaccine as I've read the original documents, but if they're willing to do it with one product then they'll do it with any product.

Phew! Thank you for confirming it wasn't a vaccine. I was panicking for a minute.
I feel so relieved now.
Pity you didn't do that when you posted the video though eh?

As far as I can tell, Bayer only make animal vaccines for the UK market and since the people are in jail who allowed this to happen, again, I feel quite relieved.

There's some confusion here, what you're talking about is an article by Robert F Kennedy Jr which discussed the Simsponwood Transcript, however what I posted is the Simpsonwood Transcript itself, which was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Let's use the WayBackMachine to show you

Here's the Robert F Kennedy Jr article which was retracted (ATS won't let me post the direct link)

1. Open the Way Back Machine web.archive.org...
2. Paste in the Link to Kennedy's article www.rollingstone.com...
3. Select a copy of it from 2006

Now here is the Simpsonwood Transcript which was obtained under Freedom of Information

www.safeminds.org...

Pardon?

Rubinstein
The official Simsponwood Transcript (PDF)

www.safeminds.org...

It's clear from this that there's a cover up, the evidence is all there.

No cover-up as surprise, surprise, yet more lies.

That transcript was part of an article written by Robert F Kennedy Jr (who as you will know is a fierce anti-vaxxer and an autism/vax believer) and published in Rolling Stone and Salon.
Not long after it was published, Salon noticed it had gross factual errors and edited the article to reflect this.
They retracted it soon after.
www.salon.com...

Rubinstein
It's of little significance whether it was a vaccine or another product, it's the principle that a company is willing to spread disease via their products. If McDonalds knowingly sells disease contaminated fries, I'm not going to trust their burgers or drinks either. In some countries people went to jail, in the US they didn't, hence no product from Bayer should be trusted ever again, the company should now be shut down. If you knew that a babysitter had deliberately poisoned one of the children they were employed to look after, it's safe to say you would never employ that babysitter. The same goes for Bayer, they have proven their true colors as a morally defunct corporation, these people cannot be trusted with our health or anything for that matter.

It is significant though.
I think it's very significant.
I think it signifies your attempts to use any means at all to discredit vaccines.

The additional fact that Bayer does not make any human vaccines in the UK seems to have been ignored too.

Rubinstein
There's some confusion here, what you're talking about is an article by Robert F Kennedy Jr which discussed the Simsponwood Transcript, however what I posted is the Simpsonwood Transcript itself, which was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Let's use the WayBackMachine to show you

Here's the Robert F Kennedy Jr article which was retracted (ATS won't let me post the direct link)

1. Open the Way Back Machine web.archive.org...
2. Paste in the Link to Kennedy's article www.rollingstone.com...
3. Select a copy of it from 2006


Now here is the Simpsonwood Transcript which was obtained under Freedom of Information

www.safeminds.org...

Yes, that's the one I'm referring too.
I'm also guessing that you haven't read the transcript in full but followed what the anti-vax sites have said about it based upon.........wait for it................
Kennedy's original article.

If you take time to read the transcript (as I have, a good while ago) there's absolutely no way you can come to a conclusion that they're trying to cover anything up or that thimerosal has anything to do with autism.
That meeting suggested that there should be more studies done on it (which have been performed and guess what, have showed no relationship. Consistently.)
The attendees were asked to rate a causal link from 1 to 6 (1 being weak, 6 being strong).
The mean result was 1.8. Only one person, Dr Weil, gave it more than a 1.
The meeting was a starting point for in-depth studying on the link and it's been proven several times now that no link exists.

(Isn't it nice that the nasty government let people have access to "damning" documents like this eh?)

Pardon?
It is significant though.
I think it's very significant.
I think it signifies your attempts to use any means at all to discredit vaccines.

The additional fact that Bayer does not make any human vaccines in the UK seems to have been ignored too.

If you still want to trust these people who have been shown to be morally defunct then that's up to you. It's important to understand that if a company is deliberately spreading disease via one product, there's a good chance they're doing the same with other products.

The reason I posted this video was not to directly discredit vaccines, but to discredit one of the major manufacturers. My point is that if someone belives in the theory of vaccination they should still be careful as to where they get their vaccines from. Also if a multinational company is corrupt in one country where they do business, they're also likely to be corrupt in other countries where they do business, the corruption generally flows down right from the top where the big decisions are made.

Rubinstein


If you still want to trust these people who have been shown to be morally defunct then that's up to you. It's important to understand that if a company is deliberately spreading disease via one product, there's a good chance they're doing the same with other products.

The reason I posted this video was not to directly discredit vaccines, but to discredit one of the major manufacturers. My point is that if someone belives in the theory of vaccination they should still be careful as to where they get their vaccines from. Also if a multinational company is corrupt in one country where they do business, they're also likely to be corrupt in other countries where they do business, the corruption generally flows down right from the top where the big decisions are made.

It's not a question of trusting the "people".
As I've said previously, I'll trust the science (why do I have to keep on repeating myself in this thread?).
Who discovered that the blood products were tainted by the way?
Oh, that's right, scientists, including the CDC.
The CDC who you've berated as being part of the conspiracy, reported early US cases to Bayer and then issued a warning about the products.
Please note the irony.

And yes, you did post the video as evidence against vaccines then back-tracked as soon as I pointed it out.

And once again, Bayer don't make the vaccines.
And learn what "theory" means, you're probably using it in the wrong context.

reply to post by CrastneyJPR

These three diseases were responsible for killing thousands, before the vacines were invented.

Mortality is somewhere like 1/250 ish in young children, so tens of thousands every year is more correct. Even if it did cause the odd case of autism we would still be better off vaccinating.

Studies show that in the industrialized world the more vaccines we use the worse the infant mortality rate, so we clearly need to keep the total number of vaccines as low as possible to improve the infant mortality rate.

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Antigod
reply to post by CrastneyJPR

 

These three diseases were responsible for killing thousands, before the vacines were invented.

Mortality is somewhere like 1/250 ish in young children, so tens of thousands every year is more correct. Even if it did cause the odd case of autism we would still be better off vaccinating.

Pardon?
It's not a question of trusting the "people".

It's important in life to learn who to trust, I'd be shocked if you'd trust a known murderer to babysit your child.

Pardon?
As I've said previously, I'll trust the science (why do I have to keep on repeating myself in this thread?).

Just because you trust the science doesn't mean you should get your nextdoor neighbor to mix together a vaccine for you. Just because you trust the science doesn't mean you should trust known criminals who profit from disease to make up a vaccine for you. It is dangerous to view this topic from a one-dimensional perspective.

Pardon?
Who discovered that the blood products were tainted by the way?
Oh, that's right, scientists, including the CDC.

The CDC only pointed out that some haemophiliacs were coming down with HIV, they didn't know/say why. If the CDC had been doing their job this product wouldn't have even been on the market, standards would be so high that this would never have been allowed to happen. As for the FDA they were complicit in the cover up

Pardon?
The CDC who you've berated as being part of the conspiracy, reported early US cases to Bayer and then issued a warning about the products.
Please note the irony.

The CDC are bad, these days just a tentacle of Big Pharma. However, in the 1980's they were not quite as bad/corrupt.

Pardon?
And yes, you did post the video as evidence against vaccines then back-tracked as soon as I pointed it out.

The video was posted to show how morally depraved the companies involved are. If WalMart knowingly sell poison apples, it is logical that we don't trust their oranges either, or their pears. You'll notice if you look back that I was talking about products not vaccines.

Pardon?
And once again, Bayer don't make the vaccines.

They do make vaccines, they make vaccines for animals (which go into the food chain), they are also currently working on a 'Cancer Vaccine' www.pharmafile.com... and a Malaria vaccine www.drugs.com...

I've spent a lot of time studying the Simpsonwood Transcript over the years, so I can make this a lot easier for those who simply don't have the time or inclination to study the full transcript. I have a collection of key points, without overloading you with information I'll paste a few of them here for those interested :-

The quote below shows that they already knew mercury exposure was damaging the brains of young babies.

Dr. Verstraeten, page 40-41 "we have found statistically significant relationships between the exposure and outcomes for these different exposures and outcomes. First, for two months of age, an unspecified developmental delay, which has its own specific ICD9 code. Exposure at three months of age, Tics. Exposure at six months of age, an attention deficit disorder. Exposure at one, three and six months of age, language and speech delays which are two separate ICD9 codes.

-----------------------

Dr Bernier below shows us how top secret this information and meeting was meant to be.

Dr. Bernier, page 113 "We have asked you to keep this information confidential. We do have a plan for discussing these data at the upcoming meeting of the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices on June 21 and June 22. At that time CDC plans to make a public release of this information, so I think it would serve all of our interests best if we could continue to consider these data. The ACIP work group will be considering also. If we could consider these data in a certain protected environment. So we are asking people who have a great job protecting this information up until now, to continue to do that until the time of the ACIP meeting. So to basically consider this embargoed information."

--------------------------

Dr Johnson got the opportunity of informed consent, unlike the majority of people in the world. If he didn't want his grandchild to receive a vaccine containing Mercury, then why should anyone else?

Dr. Johnson, page 198 "I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meantime I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines."

---------------------------

Dr Clements is saying that the outcome of this study could have been predicted i.e. Mercury causing neurological problems, so it would have been better not to do the study at all as it will prove the public right.

Dr. Clements, page 247- 249 "I am really concerned that we have taken off like a boat going down one arm of the mangrove swamp at high speed, when in fact there was not enough discussion really early on about which was the boat should go at all. And I really want to risk offending everyone in the room by saying that perhaps this study should not have been done at all, because the outcome of it could have, to some extent, been predicted, and we have all reached this point now where we are left hanging, even though I hear the majority of consultants say to the Board that they are not convinced there is a causality direct link between Thimerosal and various neurological outcomes."

Pardon?
Yes, that's the one I'm referring too.
I'm also guessing that you haven't read the transcript in full but followed what the anti-vax sites have said about it based upon.........wait for it................
Kennedy's original article.

If you take time to read the transcript (as I have, a good while ago) there's absolutely no way you can come to a conclusion that they're trying to cover anything up or that thimerosal has anything to do with autism.

I know this video is 2hrs but its very much ON TOPIC, it came up as a recommended video on youtube.
VERY INTERESTING...




The video talks about the spread of sv-40 by mistake due to the vaccine culture being monkey liver cells which carried multiple simian virus' one of which was sv-40.
It links the development of bioweapons with the death of kennedy.
It links credible sources. Im finding it pretty mind blowing.

PLEASE if you are researching vaccinations then you must see this presentation.

Just to say thank you for posting this, I've started it off and it looks fascinating. Looks like I'll be up late tonight

OneManArmy
I know this video is 2hrs but its very much ON TOPIC, it came up as a recommended video on youtube.
VERY INTERESTING...

edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmFri, 06 Dec 2013 18:22:40 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

The video talks about the spread of sv-40 by mistake due to the vaccine culture being monkey liver cells which carried multiple simian virus' one of which was sv-40.
It links the development of bioweapons with the death of kennedy.
It links credible sources. Im finding it pretty mind blowing.

PLEASE if you are researching vaccinations then you must see this presentation.

edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmFri, 06 Dec 2013 18:26:41 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

Rubinstein

It's important in life to learn who to trust, I'd be shocked if you'd trust a known murderer to babysit your child.

Pointless and irrelevant analogy.

Rubinstein
because you trust the science doesn't mean you should get your nextdoor neighbor to mix together a vaccine for you. Just because you trust the science doesn't mean you should trust known criminals who profit from disease to make up a vaccine for you. It is dangerous to view this topic from a one-dimensional perspective.

However, if the vaccine is safe, what's the problem?
It certainly is dangerous to view the topic one-dimensionally. So why are you still doing it?

Rubinstein
The CDC only pointed out that some haemophiliacs were coming down with HIV, they didn't know/say why. If the CDC had been doing their job this product wouldn't have even been on the market, standards would be so high that this would never have been allowed to happen. As for the FDA they were complicit in the cover up

It's pretty obvious that you don't comprehend what the CDC's role is in medicine.

Rubinstein

The CDC are bad, these days just a tentacle of Big Pharma. However, in the 1980's they were not quite as bad/corrupt.

Proof the irony wasn't noted (but in fact duplicated).

Rubinstein
The video was posted to show how morally depraved the companies involved are. If WalMart knowingly sell poison apples, it is logical that we don't trust their oranges either, or their pears. You'll notice if you look back that I was talking about products not vaccines.

I looked back, you weren't.
And looking back again, your back-tracking is obvious.

Rubinstein

They do make vaccines, they make vaccines for animals (which go into the food chain), they are also currently working on a 'Cancer Vaccine' www.pharmafile.com... and a Malaria vaccine www.drugs.com...

edit on 6-12-2013 by Rubinstein because: (no reason given)

I told you they make vaccines for animals but not humans earlier.
The food-chain part will only apply if you're not a vegetarian though and then it won't even apply if you're not.
Learn how vaccines work from a physiological perspective first then drill down to a bio-molecular level and tell me again. Please.
Yes I know they are developing vaccines.
Lots of companies are developing them. Doesn't mean they'll reach the market though does it?

OneManArmy
I know this video is 2hrs but its very much ON TOPIC, it came up as a recommended video on youtube.
VERY INTERESTING...

edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmFri, 06 Dec 2013 18:22:40 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

The video talks about the spread of sv-40 by mistake due to the vaccine culture being monkey liver cells which carried multiple simian virus' one of which was sv-40.
It links the development of bioweapons with the death of kennedy.
It links credible sources. Im finding it pretty mind blowing.

PLEASE if you are researching vaccinations then you must see this presentation.

edit on 201312America/Chicago12pm12pmFri, 06 Dec 2013 18:26:41 -06001213 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

I'm sure I've gone over the SV40 incident.
Almost certain.
Just in case people have forgotten though. The SV40 was discovered in the polio virus in the early 1960's (that's 50 years ago for those who can't count or two generations).
It got past the checks at the time as there wasn't the ability.technology to actually check for this).
Up to now there have been absolutely NO cases of cancer which can be attributed to this (initially it was postulated that it would be extremely difficult for this virus to cause cancer in humans and, certainly so far, they've been proven correct).

"Dr" Tent is a chiropratic.
He's not a medical doctor. He's not a physician.
He's not an immunologist, he's not an epidemiologist, he's not a virologist, he's not a biochemist, he's not a pharmacist.
He's not a lot of things he should be if he 's giving talks and presentations about auto-immune disease.

Without going into all the aspects of what he's talking about (it's a long video which I've skipped through before but I'm happy to go through any of the points raised) there is very, little, if any at all , real evidence he presents on his powerpoint. Plenty of case reports (some of which look hand-written), plenty of conjecture, plenty of testimonies but bereft of real evidence.

As robust evidence against vaccines this lurks at the bottom of the pond.
Buried in the silt (hopefully).


Onemanarmy, you're correct about if anyone's "researching" vaccines they should view this as this is everything in one video that should be discarded at source.

What did you say your stance was on vaccines again?
Joke.

Rubinstein
Studies show that in the industrialized world the more vaccines we use the worse the infant mortality rate, so we clearly need to keep the total number of vaccines as low as possible to improve the infant mortality rate.

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Antigod
reply to post by CrastneyJPR

 

These three diseases were responsible for killing thousands, before the vacines were invented.

Mortality is somewhere like 1/250 ish in young children, so tens of thousands every year is more correct. Even if it did cause the odd case of autism we would still be better off vaccinating.

edit on 6-12-2013 by Rubinstein because: (no reason given)

Neil Z. Miller did not disclose his conflicts of interest at the time of publication.
I wonder why?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...#!po=6.25000
By your rules Ruby, this can be dismissed.

Pardon?
Pointless and irrelevant analogy.

Trust is completely relevant when we're talking about vaccines, did you test the vaccine yourself? Almost certainly not, did you make the vaccine? Do you know how high the standards were in the labs? Trust is completely relevant to this issue, we cannot assume that every vaccine is a textbook vaccine. Common sense tells us this, as does history.

Pardon?
However, if the vaccine is safe, what's the problem?

If a vaccine was safe then that would be fine, however we do not know if any vaccine is safe, it's impossible to know such a thing, a vaccine could potentially causes a Cancer 50 years later. The only 100% safe vaccine is the one which is never used.

Pardon?
It certainly is dangerous to view the topic one-dimensionally. So why are you still doing it?

You have to view from many angles:- science, trust, business/money, corporate or honest studies, presevatives, benefits v risk, scope of testing and history, conflicts of interest; as you'll see this is not a black and white topic, you'll have seen in my posts that I approach this topic from many angles, I encourage others to do so too.

Pardon?
It's pretty obvious that you don't comprehend what the CDC's role is in medicine.

You mean what their role is meant to be, unfortunately the CDC is derelict of its duties; it's currently a very important tentacle of the corporations.

Pardon?
I looked back, you weren't.
And looking back again, your back-tracking is obvious.

I'll give you a link to the post I made www.abovetopsecret.com...

As you'll see, here's what I said "Even if a person was to believe in the theory of vaccination, they should not be trusting products from companies like this "

I understand you probably didn't read that and jumped straight into the video, as I know you've been spending a lot of time writing and debating, but as you'll see I was talking about the companies, I said that people should not trust the products of companies like this i.e. a company that knowingly sells contaminated products. So regardless of what product it was, the point stands. To make this clear I've already debated this particular video on different forums about 20 times, so I was well aware that the use of the word vaccine in the video was incorrect. If you prefer to think that I was talking about vaccines, that's fine, but it still doesn't change the point that companies who knowingly sell contaminated products should not be trusted.

Pardon?
The food-chain part will only apply if you're not a vegetarian though and then it won't even apply if you're not.

You have got yourself into a muddle here, so first you said that this only applies if you're not a vegetarian i.e. it only applies if you're a meateater (that's the majority of people by the way). Then you go on to contractdict that by saying it won't apply if you're not a vegetarian i.e. a meateater. So you've said that it only applies if you're a meateater, but it won't apply if you're a meateater. Can you see what you've done there?

Pardon?
Learn how vaccines work from a physiological perspective first then drill down to a bio-molecular level and tell me again. Please.

All very basic stuff, as I say we need to move away from the one-dimensional perspective and add all the other angles, only then can we form a balanced viewpoint on vaccines.

Pardon?
Yes I know they are developing vaccines.
Lots of companies are developing them. Doesn't mean they'll reach the market though does it?

Be on guard, also remember that it's not just Bayer who've been caught with diseased vaccines, perhaps you remember the discussion about Merck's vaccines earlier in the thread.

At last there is something we agree on, yes Neil Z. Miller does have a clear conflict of interest, however, it's incredibly easy to get hold of the data and see for yourself. i.e National Vaccine Schedules and National Infant Mortality rates, I've checked it all on previous occasions and even wrote articles on it, everything he says holds true. I just wish someone else had worked on that study so as people wouldn't be put off by the conflict of interest and would be more likely to proceed to the data.

Pardon?
Neil Z. Miller did not disclose his conflicts of interest at the time of publication.
I wonder why?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...#!po=6.25000
By your rules Ruby, this can be dismissed.

Actually SV40 is the most likely cause of diverse group of blood cancers known as Non Hodgkin Lymphomas (NLH), it was pretty much non-existant before those contaminated vaccines went out.

Association between SV40 and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
we conclude that SV40 is significantly associated with some types of NHL and that lymphomas should be added to the types of human cancers associated with SV40.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

SV40 in human brain cancers and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
"During the last decade, independent studies using different molecular biology techniques have shown the presence of SV40 DNA, T-ag, or other viral markers in primary human brain cancers, and a systematic assessment of the data indicates that the virus is significantly associated with this group of human tumors. In addition, recent large independent studies showed that SV40 T-ag DNA is significantly associated with human non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL)"
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Pardon?
Up to now there have been absolutely NO cases of cancer which can be attributed to this (initially it was postulated that it would be extremely difficult for this virus to cause cancer in humans and, certainly so far, they've been proven correct).

Rubinstein
I've spent a lot of time studying the Simpsonwood Transcript over the years, so I can make this a lot easier for those who simply don't have the time or inclination to study the full transcript. I have a collection of key points, without overloading you with information I'll paste a few of them here for those interested :-

The quote below shows that they already knew mercury exposure was damaging the brains of young babies.

Dr. Verstraeten, page 40-41 "we have found statistically significant relationships between the exposure and outcomes for these different exposures and outcomes. First, for two months of age, an unspecified developmental delay, which has its own specific ICD9 code. Exposure at three months of age, Tics. Exposure at six months of age, an attention deficit disorder. Exposure at one, three and six months of age, language and speech delays which are two separate ICD9 codes.

No you haven't.
You're regurgitating this from a well known anti-vax site.
Any chance you can quote the whole of this section so you can get a real idea of what this actually means?
At that point they were presenting automated data.

RubinsteinDr Bernier below shows us how top secret this information and meeting was meant to be.

Dr. Bernier, page 113 "We have asked you to keep this information confidential. We do have a plan for discussing these data at the upcoming meeting of the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices on June 21 and June 22. At that time CDC plans to make a public release of this information, so I think it would serve all of our interests best if we could continue to consider these data. The ACIP work group will be considering also. If we could consider these data in a certain protected environment. So we are asking people who have a great job protecting this information up until now, to continue to do that until the time of the ACIP meeting. So to basically consider this embargoed information."

Your copy & paste exercise missed out this last part of the paragraph;
"That would help all of us to use the machinery that we have in place for considering these
data and for arriving at policy recommendations."
Which means that they need time to be able to inspect and analyse the data properly without any external influences.

Rubinstein
Dr Johnson got the opportunity of informed consent, unlike the majority of people in the world. If he didn't want his grandchild to receive a vaccine containing Mercury, then why should anyone else?

Dr. Johnson, page 198 "I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meantime I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines."

Your c&p missed this part out too just before the section you pasted;
"I deal with causality, it seems pretty clear to me that the data are not sufficient one way or the other. My gut feeling? It worries me enough. Forgive this personal comment but I got called out at eight o'clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by C-section."
So he's emotional, using your rules about being emotional Rubinstein....

Rubinstein
Clements is saying that the outcome of this study could have been predicted i.e. Mercury causing neurological problems, so it would have been better not to do the study at all as it will prove the public right.

Dr. Clements, page 247- 249 "I am really concerned that we have taken off like a boat going down one arm of the mangrove swamp at high speed, when in fact there was not enough discussion really early on about which was the boat should go at all. And I really want to risk offending everyone in the room by saying that perhaps this study should not have been done at all, because the outcome of it could have, to some extent, been predicted, and we have all reached this point now where we are left hanging, even though I hear the majority of consultants say to the Board that they are not convinced there is a causality direct link between Thimerosal and various neurological outcomes."

And once again you use this completely out of context. Do you think the people who are reading this post aren't capable of reading the report for themselves?
I mentioned cherry-picking quite early in this thread as I knew from experience that you and your ilk use that as standard practice and this is the example of the thread.
Here's the following point from Dr Brent:
"Mr. Chairman, I think that was eloquent statement. The question that I have with regard to perceiving this data with some type of reanalysis, is that because of the diverse use on vaccination, no matter what you come up with somebody on one side will accuse you of doing something to get a negative result. Then if you come up with a positive result using the same data, the person on the other side will say see, we were right, it is causal. So I really encourage the investigators to get other populations to study because of the fact that I do not think reanalysis of his data is going to be as helpful as we would hope. It would be helpful if it wasn't in this room, because we know of the integrity of the scientists and we know they are pursuing it for the truth, but other people out there don't have those feelings about anybody who is involved in these studies. That is my concern and that is why I think Dr. Clements comments are so to the point."

Like I said, this was a discussion around their current knowledge and a stepping stone to more studies and research which has since proven there thoughts.

Rubinstein

Trust is completely relevant when we're talking about vaccines, did you test the vaccine yourself? Almost certainly not, did you make the vaccine? Do you know how high the standards were in the labs? Trust is completely relevant to this issue, we cannot assume that every vaccine is a textbook vaccine. Common sense tells us this, as does history.

Do you test every single thing you ingest?
No?
Didn't think so.
As i said, completely irrelevant.

Rubinstein
If a vaccine was safe then that would be fine, however we do not know if any vaccine is safe, it's impossible to know such a thing, a vaccine could potentially causes a Cancer 50 years later. The only 100% safe vaccine is the one which is never used.

We do know that they're safe.
That's the whole crux of the thread.
It's up to you if you don't believe the science, that's your own personal issue.
I'll continue to know it though.
It certainly is dangerous to view the topic one-dimensionally. So why are you still doing it?

Rubinstein

You have to view from many angles:- science, trust, business/money, corporate or honest studies, presevatives, benefits v risk, scope of testing and history, conflicts of interest; as you'll see this is not a black and white topic, you'll have seen in my posts that I approach this topic from many angles, I encourage others to do so too.

No you haven't. You've viewed via a belief system. Not via evidence based science.
That's as 1D as you can get.

Rubinstein
You mean what their role is meant to be, unfortunately the CDC is derelict of its duties; it's currently a very important tentacle of the corporations.

Conspiratorial paranoia.
Not evidence.

Rubinstein

I'll give you a link to the post I made www.abovetopsecret.com...

As you'll see, here's what I said "Even if a person was to believe in the theory of vaccination, they should not be trusting products from companies like this "

I understand you probably didn't read that and jumped straight into the video, as I know you've been spending a lot of time writing and debating, but as you'll see I was talking about the companies, I said that people should not trust the products of companies like this i.e. a company that knowingly sells contaminated products. So regardless of what product it was, the point stands. To make this clear I've already debated this particular video on different forums about 20 times, so I was well aware that the use of the word vaccine in the video was incorrect. If you prefer to think that I was talking about vaccines, that's fine, but it still doesn't change the point that companies who knowingly sell contaminated products should not be trusted.

I read what you posted.
I also read the very evident title of the video.
The rest of your logical fallacies are moot as you didn't specify them earlier. Even more back-tracking now.
If I were you, I'd accept that you've been caught (again!) and move on.
Because you have.

Rubinstein
You have got yourself into a muddle here, so first you said that this only applies if you're not a vegetarian i.e. it only applies if you're a meateater (that's the majority of people by the way). Then you go on to contractdict that by saying it won't apply if you're not a vegetarian i.e. a meateater. So you've said that it only applies if you're a meateater, but it won't apply if you're a meateater. Can you see what you've done there?

Yes, I made a mistake. There was one too many nots in the sentence. Can you work out which one shouldn't have been there?
Focus on the important points and not the minutiae.

Rubinstein
All very basic stuff, as I say we need to move away from the one-dimensional perspective and add all the other angles, only then can we form a balanced viewpoint on vaccines.

I asked for you to do that as I know you can't.
Understanding the physiological and bio-molecular aspects of vaccines is pretty crucial if you wish to have an in-depth debate. Certainly the way you are talking you try to fool people that you comprehend this but this is very far removed from the truth isn't it?

Rubinstein
Be on guard, also remember that it's not just Bayer who've been caught with diseased vaccines, perhaps you remember the discussion about Merck's vaccines earlier in the thread.

Yes. Yes I do.
From that discussion it's evident I know the details far better than you do and I also understand that bio-technology has moved on exponentially in the last 50 tears.