Este, Do we have to do a course in Conspiracy 101? You don't need a vast global conspiracy. You just need enough brainwashed sheep who follow the herd doing as they're told. Very few people actually need to know that it's all about the money. The people who do question by the sheep and fail to receive support from others who aren't willing to lose their lucrative positions for the sake of principle. The ranks of both sheep and heretics are made of honest, hard-working people who are doing what they think is best for their community and profession.
Your scoff at my request to hold the conspiracy theory belies your launch into one. Who has "questioned and try to buck the system are automatically ostracized"? I showed you literally thousands of studies that do question vaccine safety, granted some are by nutters in nutter journals but that is only a handful, the rest are by bona fide researchers. How else do you explain how the
IOM generated this monster report on...gasp...vaccine complications? You don't get to justify ignorance to outright lying by your go-to "experts" with "they're just doing what they think is right", because there is a mountain of scientific evidence which simply flies in the face of theirs and your claims. But science is hard isn't it?
Consider that many of these people uncovered the truth about cancer, heart disease, diabetes, AIDS and probably all other major diseases decades ago and when they reported to the various medical associations, it fell on deaf ears.
Oh really? Like who?
Forgive me for not going through all 3k but from a quick sampling, I found only favorable conclusions. Statistically, that implies that only favorable reports made it past the censors.
They are most certainly not favourable conclusions but simply, sane and rational presentations of vaccine adverse events and effects. Emotional weepy testimonials may do it for you but that ain't science.
In this Cochrane Library
publication the authors felt the need to add this warning:
Phrases such as the following are hardly glowing praise:
- "Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines",
- "reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin"
- "widespread manipulation of conclusions"
- "spurious notoriety of the studies"
You know, I'm actually on the fence about influenza vaccine effectiveness data, however, Thomas Jefferson is a bit skewed in his reviews on influenza vaccines as his group routinely dismiss excellent clinical and population epidemiological studies simply because they are not his Holy Grail, randomised-control trials (RCT). That said, most studies in his review are not funded by industry and negative conclusions are still published and there to read.
Nice one, Este. By definition, all ostracised scientist will be disreputable so it's impossible to name one who is both ostracised and reputable?
Not at all and I'll give you an example, Sammelweis (although his pariah status was more due to him being a dick than a medical heretic). Go ahead, name a single scientist who was ostracised simply for questioning vaccine safety. By the way, you quoted T. Jefferson, who questions vaccine safety all the time and how has he not been rubbished?
Of course I would have her NVICP claim. Everybody sends me a copy. Get real!
NVICP judgements are all online. Do you mean to tell me that you didn't even take a modicum of effort to check the veracity of her claim? Hmm, I seem to be more questioning than you, so much for me being a sheep.
Testimonials is all us common folk have. It's our way of trying to warn people not to trust the gods of medicine. Are doctors going to warn you that some people get incredibly ill after having this here vaccine and, although it's unlikely that this harmless vaccine could be the cause, you should at least consider the risk before blindly letting me violate your body's integrity? No, so get educated and make up your own mind based on facts, not trust and hype.
Dare I ask how you could possibly reconcile these two statements? I read studies and weigh the available evidence (and have the requisite formal education and experience to do so), you swoon at testimonials and you're telling me to get educated? Your statements typify the anti-vaxxer.
Perhaps I should find a list showing Wakefield's inability to collaborate with experts who have the skills and qualifications that he doesn't. It's always possible that he bought some textbooks on neurology, immunology and microbiology and was hoping to wing it!
You're dodging; Brian Deer isn't the only source for Wakefield's patent which you admitted was damning, blew it off because it's on Deer's website and you won't even find your own copy to compare? That's cheap and lazy and don't think it's going unnoticed. As for Wakefield's qualifications and collaborations, I'll make it simple; he has none and either rejects collaborators findings or finds those who will produce the results he wants. He developed his so-called measles vaccine by himself unless you want to count the layman whose child Wakefield injected with transfer factor without any approval. Watta guy.
And as for proof of Deer's reliability, listen to the documentary. You can do it during any lull in responding to us unscientific types.
That's not a documentary; it's a big testimonial. Deer has validated all of his claims about Wakefield with that pesky evidence you don't seem to be very fond of.
Este
?
?
