It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anti-Vaxxer Bets Scientists $100,000 They Can’t Prove Measles Exists; Anti-Vaxxer Loses $100,000

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Just like in the article.



Predictably, Lanka took one look at the combined effort of thousands of scientists, decades of research and the reams of data compiled and declared none of it valid. He reportedly refused to pay Dr. Barden – who then took the biologist to court.

Unfortunately for our intrepid anti-vaxxer, a German judge reviewed the research and – like most rational people – decided that the existence of the measles was fairly obvious. The doctor had fulfilled all the requirements Lanka had demanded (which in this case was probably not that difficult). Lanka was ordered by law to pay out the $106,000 he had promised.


If only they would all make bets then it would be worthwhile.




posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

No one said vaccines don't work for their intended purpose. But yeah, I would like to see you go and expose yourself to Yellow Fever - not just you, but a ton of you. And I would also like to then see: who gets yellow fever anyway; I would also like to see a study of all of "you" against a ton of other people who don't get vaccines, over a 25 year period, comparing many different criteria. But that's never been done. If vaccines work or not has not really been the point of it for a lot of people who are demanding: more research, more safety, more information other than "Take your vaccine."



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aaamok88
a reply to: paradoxious

You've heard about Wikipedia editing issue right

Western government and industries are rewriting history


Yep.

And they rarely edit things to make themselves look worse than they really are.
edit on 16-3-2015 by paradoxious because: (no reason given)


That's also why my last link wasn't to Wikipedia, but rather to a government study which has been cited by many other studies, thus making falsifying any contrary claim difficult if not impossible.
edit on 16-3-2015 by paradoxious because: (no reason given)



new topics
 
14
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join