Autism And Cancer Related To Human Fetal DNA In Vaccines.New Study In Journal Of Public Health

Theresa Deisher one of the authors of the paper has long been labeled as..er..a bit off. One review said her assertions are Thermonuclear stupid. Interesting note about her is she has labeled the current MMR vaccine as unsafe, BUT she developed her own vaccine, which she says will keep your children healthy.

Product X is bad buy product Y from me.


I am not saying the science is bad in this study, but I can say the science has been bad in previous studies she authored. As far as this study goes I will keep my eye on the thread and I am sure if I dig around I can find out more.

a reply to: Grimpachi

yeah I have been reading up on this, and I guess that is what this is about.. its about being against using aborted fetus' cell lines in vaccines.. which makes sense, since the science she was using didn't.

link

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
a reply to: Bedlam


Peer reviewed studies depend on other doctorsscientists that blindly believe in what the medical establishment is telling them..So you are most likely right this paper would not have survived a traditional peer reviewed journal..

Oh, please, not the "educated stupid" line on one side while you try to invoke science for proof on the other.

If these guys had a paper that would pass, they'd have tried it. It wouldn't, they didn't.

Ok blindly trust the medical establishment then.. I encourage you to take the flu shot every year. it does no harm and completely protects you from the flu.. Yeah right.Accepting anything that come from the vaccine makers,peer reviewed studies and the msm as gospel is in my opinion stupid.But by by all means continue taking them as gospel..Because they care about your well being and would never lie..

And you still have not told me what is wrong with the report..

svpow.com...


Good article on why we should not blindly trust a peer reviewed paper..

“The benefit of published work is that if they have passed the muster of peer review future researchers can have faith in the results”, writes a commenter at The Economist. Such statements are commonplace.

I couldn’t disagree more. Nothing is more fatal to the scientific endeavour than having “faith” in a previously published result — as the string of failed replications in oncology and in social psychology is showing. See also the trivial but crucial spreadsheet error in the economics paper that underlies many austerity policies.

Studies have shown that peer-reviewers on average spend about 2-3 hours in evaluating a paper that’s been sent their way. There is simply no way for even an expert to judge in that time whether a paper is correct: the best they can do is say “this looks legitimate, the authors seem to have gone about things the right way”.

Now that is a useful thing to be able to say, for sure. Peer review is important as a stamp of serious intent. But it’s a long way from a mark of reliability, and enormous damage is done by the widespread assumption that it means more than it does.

Remember: “has passed peer review” only really means “two experts have looked at this for a couple of hours, and didn’t see anything obviously wrong in it”.

vactruth.com...

Seven examples of pharma fraud..Yeah they would never lie to you ..Please give me a break

Reading the book zapped why cell phones shouldn't be your alarm clock..I found this relevant to the discussion..

So the Telecommunications Industry
Association set up a nonprofit
organization, Wireless Technology
Research (WTR), and commissioned a
twenty-eight-million-dollar study into
cell phone safety, tapping to lead it an
epidemiologist named George Carlo,
Ph.D., J.D., who was fresh off a project
with the FDA, investigating the safety of
silicone breast implants. In his book
Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the
Wireless Age, Carlo writes that his first
inkling that something might be amiss
with his new project was the claim the
industry was making in its PR push that
there were “thousands of studies”
proving cell phone safety—and Carlo
couldn’t find one.2
Sensitive to the possibility that he
might be seen as a shill for the industry,
he recruited a host of prominent
scientists to work with him and
established a peer review committee to
to
oversee their work. Since there were no
studies on cell phone safety, Carlo and
his colleagues had to develop novel
protocols for testing exposures on cells
and laboratory animals that were
equivalent to head exposure in people
using cell phones. Over the next few
years, what they found in their many
studies was DNA damage (broken
strands of DNA called micronuclei are
found in the blood and can lead to tumor
formation), impaired ability of cells to
repair themselves, leakage of the bloodbrain
barrier, and interference with
cardiac pacemakers, results later
confirmed by other studies both in the
United States and abroad. Needless to
say, the telecom industry quickly
distanced itself from its own research
and from Carlo, slashing funding and
stopping public dissemination of the findings.

So Carlo was never able to get that study published in a peer review journal due to his findings..Do you really think this doesn't happen within the vaccination industry? How many scientists are pressured to make sure the results of there research matches up with what the industry wants them to publish due to funding? Cell phones are safe ,vaccines safe .Yeah right and I have a bridge to sell you .