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.

 

Why you can bleep off when you say I need to vaccinate my children...

page: 16
52
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: Pardon?

I think the bigger problem is why isn't the CDC doing a study comparing the morbidity and mortality of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.

I have no doubt unvaccinated folks would give up their private medical records for it to occur.


So ignoring the fact that you happily linked to a site who happily posted a link to a twice retracted study and tried to promote it as science...

Tell me, in your best science, why that would be a useful study and why it's a problem that it hasn't been done.
I'll wait.




posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

I personally don't know bout the retractions other than you saying so.

The problem with that study not being done is there are essentially two groups, one saying VACCINATE OR DIE, and one saying WE WANT TO CHOOSE. The reasons for choosing vary from VACCINES KILL YOU, CAUSE AUTISM, DON'T WORK, etc etc etc.

If double blind studies are unwilling to be done for the sake of the children, but SCIENCE wants to prove something to the other side using science, it's a great starting point. Simply compare the health status of the unvaccinated and vaccinated group. There should be nothing to worry about right? The unvaccinated group should either be equal or have a much higher instance of diseases(certainly preventable) and other health issues.

Vaccines are worth the trade off of potential injury for what they prevent according to the CDC, so just show a little faith in their own statements.

Why wouldn't you want to see a comparison done in a stringent scientific way?

At the very least it would shut the other side up.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: amazing

no. no, there have not been any CREDIBLE studies showing links between vaccines and autism. All of the studies that claimed as much have been thoroughly discredited.


Maybe. But I was reading this though this the other day.

avscientificsupportarsenal.wordpress.com...



It's amazing what you can find on a dedicated anti-vaccine site.
Who'd-a-thunk-it?


True. It's also amazing what you can find on a pro vaccine site. Lot's of insults, belittling, name calling and fear mongering. Also no interest in reading anything that disagrees with their pre conceived notions.

Not saying I'm anti vax but I think, as this thread demonstrates that we should be able to have a discussion without the "better than thou" attitudes.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: Pardon?

I personally don't know bout the retractions other than you saying so.

The problem with that study not being done is there are essentially two groups, one saying VACCINATE OR DIE, and one saying WE WANT TO CHOOSE. The reasons for choosing vary from VACCINES KILL YOU, CAUSE AUTISM, DON'T WORK, etc etc etc.

If double blind studies are unwilling to be done for the sake of the children, but SCIENCE wants to prove something to the other side using science, it's a great starting point. Simply compare the health status of the unvaccinated and vaccinated group. There should be nothing to worry about right? The unvaccinated group should either be equal or have a much higher instance of diseases(certainly preventable) and other health issues.

Vaccines are worth the trade off of potential injury for what they prevent according to the CDC, so just show a little faith in their own statements.

Why wouldn't you want to see a comparison done in a stringent scientific way?

At the very least it would shut the other side up.


Had you "done your research" instead of just regurgitating from an anti-vax site you may have actually discovered this fact that the poorly done study was retracted not just once but twice.
But anyway...

So you want the CDC to do a study to prove what the CDC already say?
So does that mean you'll believe them then but you don't believe them now or is it the other way around?

As for the choice thing I'm all for it but people should be given real and corroborative info and not deliberately misled (as you have knowingly or unknowingly done by sharing that non-study).

Oh, here's a nice vax vs unvaxxed study for you.

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

And another

www.tandfonline.com...


If you are interested in the science and genuinely want to learn more there are quite a few other studies comparing vax vs unvaxxed which stand up to scientific scrutiny.
And if you're not interested there's nothing I can do to change your belief.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: amazing

no. no, there have not been any CREDIBLE studies showing links between vaccines and autism. All of the studies that claimed as much have been thoroughly discredited.


Maybe. But I was reading this though this the other day.

avscientificsupportarsenal.wordpress.com...



It's amazing what you can find on a dedicated anti-vaccine site.
Who'd-a-thunk-it?


True. It's also amazing what you can find on a pro vaccine site. Lot's of insults, belittling, name calling and fear mongering. Also no interest in reading anything that disagrees with their pre conceived notions.

Not saying I'm anti vax but I think, as this thread demonstrates that we should be able to have a discussion without the "better than thou" attitudes.


"Also no interest in reading anything that disagrees with their pre conceived notions. "
I think you've been getting your anti and pro's mixed up.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Prior to a vaccine, diptheria infected over 200'000 and killed 15'000 people per year in the US. Post vaccination introduction it is virtually non existent in the US - only 2 cases were recorded in 2014. 

In the outbreak of '64-65 Rubella infected 12.5 million Americans, directly caused 11'000 miscarriages and killed 2'000 babies. In 2012 there were 9 reported rubella infections and there have been no outbreaks post vaccine introduction. Pre-1940 it was a very common cause of death in the UK. Post 1940 (when routine vaccination of children was introduced in the NHS) there have been a total of 40 recorded infections and only 1 death. That's in 77 years. 

Polio, one of the most dreaded childhood diseases of the early 20th century, has been virtually eradicated in the US. The last naturally occurring cases were among an unvaccinated Amish community in 1979. 

According to WHO, measles causes an average of 314 deaths per day worldwide, almost exclusively in areas without immunisation cover. In the US following a period of mass vaccination, the most reported infections in any year since 2000 was 668 with a total of 1 death in the last decade. That is down from about 500'000 infections and around 400-500 deaths annually in the US prior to 1968 when the vaccine was developed. Since vaccine introduction there has been an infection reduction of over 99% in the US and around 79% worldwide. 

The list goes on. 

People who think vaccines are poisons being pumped into us all in a conspiracy by big pharmacy need to take a look at the World pre-vaccine and at countries where they aren't offered. They need to see the devastating effect the conditions have on the victims.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: PaddyInf

You may want to look at the available charts that show the number of deaths per 100,000 for polio, measles etc and introduction of said vaccines. The numbers do not suggest that vaccines had anything to do with them. It is a common misconception that they did eradicate the diseases though.

If you expect me to find these charts or graphs on a CDC or gov site it is unlikely that they promote it, but the numbers are from the WHO and the introduction of utilization of the vaccines is historical.

vaxtruth.org...

The significant drop in Polio deaths was after the establishment redefined the disease. Change the indicators and you change the numbers.

vaxtruth.org...

Before you crap all over the charts, try to disprove those with numbers from the WHO or CDC.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

"Pro vaccine sites" like PubMed? Give me some of whatever you're smoking, I'm going to a party this weekend.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: amazing

no. no, there have not been any CREDIBLE studies showing links between vaccines and autism. All of the studies that claimed as much have been thoroughly discredited.


Maybe. But I was reading this though this the other day.

avscientificsupportarsenal.wordpress.com...



It's amazing what you can find on a dedicated anti-vaccine site.
Who'd-a-thunk-it?


True. It's also amazing what you can find on a pro vaccine site. Lot's of insults, belittling, name calling and fear mongering. Also no interest in reading anything that disagrees with their pre conceived notions.

Not saying I'm anti vax but I think, as this thread demonstrates that we should be able to have a discussion without the "better than thou" attitudes.


"Also no interest in reading anything that disagrees with their pre conceived notions. "
I think you've been getting your anti and pro's mixed up.



Well no. I mean you're clearly "pro vax" and have no interest in reading anything that disagrees with your pre concieved notions. You're also have no interest in an discussion and no interest in trying to convince me I'm wrong, without insults.

LOL



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: amazing

"Pro vaccine sites" like PubMed? Give me some of whatever you're smoking, I'm going to a party this weekend.


Another case in point. meaningful discussion is not possible with you. You'd rather hurl insults. Do you do this with everyone who has a differing opinion than you, or who asks questions about something you already know everything about, or who tries to talk to you about anything. Must be a really lonely life.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: amazing

"Pro vaccine sites" like PubMed? Give me some of whatever you're smoking, I'm going to a party this weekend.


Another case in point. meaningful discussion is not possible with you. You'd rather hurl insults.


If calling people out on their ignorant BS is "hurling insults" then you're in for a very tough road in life.


Do you do this with everyone who has a differing opinion than you, or who asks questions about something you already know everything about, or who tries to talk to you about anything. Must be a really lonely life.


"I like pineapple on my pizza" is a differing opinion. Stating an opinion that has long been debunked by numerous, rigorous scientific studies isn't just a "differing opinion", it's being willfully ignorant at best.



posted on Jun, 27 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Please show us the double blind safety studies done on Smallpox, Polio, or MMR.

Show us the safety studies between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

I'm willing to read them.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: PaddyInf

You may want to look at the available charts that show the number of deaths per 100,000 for polio, measles etc and introduction of said vaccines. The numbers do not suggest that vaccines had anything to do with them. It is a common misconception that they did eradicate the diseases though.


I did. All you need to do is Google vaccine effectiveness and there are dozens of charts that show a direct correlation between vaccine introduction and a drop in infection.


If you expect me to find these charts or graphs on a CDC or gov site it is unlikely that they promote it, but the numbers are from the WHO and the introduction of utilization of the vaccines is historical.

vaxtruth.org...

The significant drop in Polio deaths was after the establishment redefined the disease. Change the indicators and you change the numbers.

vaxtruth.org...

Before you crap all over the charts, try to disprove those with numbers from the WHO or CDC.



The numbers I gave above do cheap all over the charts. The charts you cite are from a distinct anti vaccine site. Do you have any non-biased sources?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: PaddyInf




Do you have any non-biased sources?


Like what ... Pharmaceutical Companies.

This is the major problem for any parent ... where is the truth?

The Pharmaceutical Companies pay to have almost all pro research done.

The anti crowd don't trust Big Pharma so they have come up with their own reports ... and

Big Pharma have been caught paying for easily discredited stories that allow them to look much better in the eyes of the 80% of the population that are asleep or oblivious to the debate and believe their Government!

P



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: m1kelowry
a reply to: GetHyped

Please show us the double blind safety studies done on Smallpox, Polio, or MMR.

Show us the safety studies between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

I'm willing to read them.


In one of my posts a little further up I've linked to a couple of vaxxed vs unvaxxed studies.
Have you read them?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: PaddyInf




Do you have any non-biased sources?


Like what ... Pharmaceutical Companies.

This is the major problem for any parent ... where is the truth?

The Pharmaceutical Companies pay to have almost all pro research done.

The anti crowd don't trust Big Pharma so they have come up with their own reports ... and

Big Pharma have been caught paying for easily discredited stories that allow them to look much better in the eyes of the 80% of the population that are asleep or oblivious to the debate and believe their Government!

P



This is the crux of the matter. Many on here are unwilling to accept that any source provided is non-biased. Ideas and opinions are pre-formed in the most part judging by the nature of the posts.

If I provide a source on the effectiveness of vaccines, no matter how reputable, some people will always cry that it was financed by 'big pharma'. It doesn't matter that the prevalence of many previously common and debilitating conditions are virtually non existent in vaccinated regions but still common in non vaccinated areas. It doesn't matter that the prevalence of these conditions dropped off dramatically within a few years of vaccine introduction despite virtually constant infection rates in the decades previously. It's all a big con to make a profit, kill babies and make us all autistic.

If individuals are unwilling to accept any sources that disagree with their predisposed thought process but are happy to accept those which agree no matter how spurious the source, you end up with an echo chamber. Nothing gets solved and we all just waste bandwidth.
edit on 28 6 2017 by PaddyInf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: amazing

no. no, there have not been any CREDIBLE studies showing links between vaccines and autism. All of the studies that claimed as much have been thoroughly discredited.


Maybe. But I was reading this though this the other day.

avscientificsupportarsenal.wordpress.com...



It's amazing what you can find on a dedicated anti-vaccine site.
Who'd-a-thunk-it?


True. It's also amazing what you can find on a pro vaccine site. Lot's of insults, belittling, name calling and fear mongering. Also no interest in reading anything that disagrees with their pre conceived notions.

Not saying I'm anti vax but I think, as this thread demonstrates that we should be able to have a discussion without the "better than thou" attitudes.


"Also no interest in reading anything that disagrees with their pre conceived notions. "
I think you've been getting your anti and pro's mixed up.



Well no. I mean you're clearly "pro vax" and have no interest in reading anything that disagrees with your pre concieved notions. You're also have no interest in an discussion and no interest in trying to convince me I'm wrong, without insults.

LOL


I'm not pro-vax, I'm anti anti-vax.
Anyone who understands science without a shadow of a doubt will be anti anti-vax.
I wouldn't tell anyone that they should vaccinate but I will happily show where they are misinformed should they choose not to

One of the main reasons I'm anti anti-vax is seeing the same tired old misinformation being peddled on their sites, it's like whack-a-mole.
I still read them though just in case something new does pop up but after over 18 years of looking that hasn't happened.
The studies they cite are either full of holes, badly designed, poorly controlled, based upon a pre-determined conclusion or just a flat-out lie of what the conclusion actually shows.

So, why do they do this?
Firstly, for the anti-vax royalty, like Wakefield, Tenpenny et al it's easy money.
Essentially they can say whatever they want without having to prove a thing and without any responsibility. The anti-vax after-dinner circuit is very lucrative.
Secondly, lawyers looking to make a quick buck by taking your "vaccine injury" through the courts. No win no fee? They still get paid either way.
Thirdly, natural health advocates and woo peddlers want to scare you from vaccines so you buy their stuff. End of.

Then there's all of the foot-soldiers who are so entrenched in their beliefs that absolutely nothing will change their minds.


I'm more than happy to change what I know based upon science.
If any of you wish to post some science demonstrating that unvaxxed is better than vaxxed please be my guest.
I will look at it properly and let you know not just what I think but why.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Charliezin82
1- Not sure what you're linking to - it's an earlier page in this same thread and I didn't see something obvious to my statement.


I linked my reply to another poster which was similar to yours but perhaps I misunderstood the cause of your statement, so I need clarification. You said ""Almost all vaccinated diseases were on a tremendous decline prior to the vaccine."" Assuming that's true, what do you think caused that decline?


2 -

This second link does a throughly good job bashing the studies and was just the first I found talking about the reasons the studies were dismissed. There is a clear bias, no doubt, but this is only because the vaccine industry refuse to do these studies with the many people that refuse vaccines regardless of any studies. There is no good reason to not do this study except they are afraid of the results.


Nothing to do with bias and everything to do with conducting proper research. If you analyze the Mawson's study you'll see why the paper was rejected: the sample did not reflect society at all. First of all the children were all home schooled only, which does not mirror the vast majority of kids. Second, only a small portion of the vaccinated were actually fully vaccinated. So we have a study with 261 unvaccinated home schooled children, 197 fully vaccinated and 208 partially vaccinated. The results for the vaccinated also included the partially one which is absolutely wrong and it gives results that cannot be accepted. This is just one of the various reasons why the paper was rejected due to severe limitations. Nothing to do with bias and very clear to see.


3 - This is a particular topic that perhaps needs a thread on its own. You are right in saying there is zero accountability for the companies, but there is also a 'causation in fact' ruling that has allowed petitioners to win awards even when disputed by doctors and without evidence. Both arise from the same reason: to settle quickly to minimize time and money spent litigating. If you read some of the compensations you'll see that many had no evidence at all. And you should also bear in mind that lawyers get paid a fee by the court, whether or not their clients are awarded compensation (which is why no lawyer would reject a claim, no matter how silly it may be).

Have you seen some of the awards given? They beggar belief!


4 - There were 188 cases of Measles in the US last year, out of a population of 324,118,787 - roughly 1:1.7 Million Odds of getting sick - of which over 90% fully recover worldwide (there was 1 death due Measles in the last ten years in the US) Odds of being injured by the vaccine according to your own logic is nearly twice as likely than catching the disease. Dying from the vaccine is much more likely than dying from the disease. Obviously the debate could be made here whether or not the vaccine itself or the hygiene, nutrition and availability of medical services when needed are the cause for the improved US statistics.


I'm sorry but that's not how you can compare one with the other as my link showed statistics from all vaccines, not just MMR, showed all types of injuries (not just death) and from 1986. So you need to find how many cases of all preventable diseases from 1986 before you compare the two.

You also need to find all types of injury caused by the diseases, because when you search the compensation awards you'll see that they range from fybormalgia, to MS, to neuropathy, etc etc. Only then you can compare fairly the compensations figures with the diseases.




5 - www.fourteenstudies.org... - no question on this one and the biggest red flag of them all to me. Shockingly this is almost never discussed even by those opposed to vaccines.


You did not provide evidence for your fact. You said """ They are personally earning billions by forcing the public to purchase their product. This has been investigated by congress, but no one ever talks about it. """

So show me the billions you mentioned, show me the profit made by the CDC (or specific members of the CDC) because your link is not evidence of that (we can discuss the CBS article if you wish, as it's skewing real figures like the media usually does). And show me when it was investigated by congress and why.

Do you know that vaccines are actually not profitable business? I can show you recent analysis if you want (from good sources, not Natural News or newspapers).



edit on 28-6-2017 by Agartha because: Spelling...



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: PaddyInf




Do you have any non-biased sources?


Like what ... Pharmaceutical Companies.

This is the major problem for any parent ... where is the truth?

The Pharmaceutical Companies pay to have almost all pro research done.

The anti crowd don't trust Big Pharma so they have come up with their own reports ... and

Big Pharma have been caught paying for easily discredited stories that allow them to look much better in the eyes of the 80% of the population that are asleep or oblivious to the debate and believe their Government!

P



The Rotashield vaccine was withdrawn after post-marketing surveillance saw a small increase in intussusception.
www.cdc.gov...

Sort of dismisses your "argument" doesn't it?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   
TEN LIES Told by Those Who Say “Mercury in Vaccines is Safe”

Refuted by a Mother who Knows Better
REV. LISA K. SYKES



Lie # 1 “Thimerosal, 49.55% mercury by weight, is safe when used as a preservative in vaccines and other drugs.”

The Facts: The Eli Lilly Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Thimerosal acknowledges that exposure to Thimerosal in utero and in children can cause “mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe gross motor impairment.” The Sigma Aldrich MSDS lists abortion and fetal death as possible outcomes of in utero exposure.

Nonetheless, most seasonal and H1N1 flu shots for pregnant women and young children contain 25 micrograms of mercury in the form of Thimerosal. For this exposure to be safe, a child would need to weigh more than 550 pounds.

Thimerosal is a poison, neurotoxin, cancer-causer, and can interrupt the immune system and the normal development of an unborn baby or a child. Thimerosal is so toxic that putting it on your skin is illegal. However, the government not only allows but also defends its injection into the population, especially pregnant women and newborn children, as part of influenza vaccines currently recommended by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).


Lie #2 “Mercury was removed from all childhood vaccines in (pick any year between 1999 and the present).”

The Facts: After “realizing” the amount of mercury in the childhood vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC exceeded all national and global maximum safety limits, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the United States Public Health Service called for the immediate removal of Thimerosal from all vaccines on July 7, 1999.

By 2003, the vaccine manufacturers had begun to react to the 1999 call by lowering the mercury content in many of the Thimerosal-preserved early childhood vaccines. However, in April of 2002, the CDC began recommending that pregnant women and very young children get annual Thimerosal-preserved flu shots. The result was a ‘shell game’ which has caused widespread confusion in the public because of press reports declaring, “Since (select a year between 1999 and the present), mercury has been removed from all recommended vaccines for children except for some flu shots.”

Astoundingly, the total level of mercury exposure, if a child receives all the possible CDC-recommended vaccinations that are still Thimerosal preserved, from 6 months to 18 years of age, has actually increased. Significantly, if you put the amount of mercury added to the immunization schedule as a result of the CDC-recommended seasonal and (in 2009) H1N1 flu shots** on one side of a scale, and the amount of mercury that was subtracted from that schedule by reformulating early childhood vaccines without Thimerosal on the other side, the total amount of mercury added far outweighs the amount of mercury subtracted. In addition, today most tetanus shots and the multi-dose Sanofi Menomune® vaccine that are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still contain 25-micrograms-a-dose mercury.

Currently, the actions taken by the vaccine manufacturers, the FDA and the CDC have increased the possible maximum childhood exposure to mercury from vaccines to twice the level that triggered the 1999 call to remove mercury from all vaccines as soon as possible! Also, new vaccine formulations with 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5-mL dose are still being approved by the FDA for administration to pregnant women and children.

**Most doses of these flu vaccines are Thimerosal-preserved.


Lie #3 “Thimerosal is well-tested, having been used for 70 years with no problems.”

The Facts: Thimerosal has never undergone even one modern safety test. It was developed in 1927 and patented by Eli Lilly in 1928. It was first tested on small animals and killed a variety of mice, rabbits and chicks. After the animals died from exposure to Thimerosal, the decision was made to administer it to 22 patients suffering from bacterial meningitis during an epidemic in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1929.

Of the 22 persons given Thimerosal, all died, most within a day or two of administration. The doctor overseeing the trial, on stipend from Eli Lilly, declared that the patients had all died of meningitis and that Thimerosal was not observed to have caused any problem when administered to his patients. With that declaration, and a subsequent one by Eli Lilly staff that Thimerosal has a low order of toxicity for man, even though it killed small animals, Thimerosal was introduced into the drug supply. Yet, despite warnings in the published scientific literature that Thimerosal was toxic, and despite opposition to its use in every decade since, Thimerosal has remained in the drug supply.

The first protest on record against this highly toxic mercury compound was made in 1935 by the Pittman Moore Company which declared that, after testing, it found Thimerosal “was unsuitable as a preservative in serum intended for use in dogs…”

The FDA, passive with regard to safety testing, has never provided the results of appropriate toxicological tests on Thimerosal. Factually, the vaccine makers who use Thimerosal as a preservative are required by law to conduct and submit the results of such safety tests to the FDA before the FDA can legally approve a vaccine. Yet, the FDA has yet to produce even one of these vaccine maker’s toxicity studies, demonstrating Thimerosal safe for administration to humans, despite the fact that these documents have been sought in a court of law.


Lie #4 “No published peer-reviewed studies have shown any harm from Thimerosal.”

The Facts: The published scientific literature about Thimerosal can be divided into two distinct sets with opposite conclusions regarding its toxicity.

The first set is comprised of studies directly or indirectly supported by the pharmaceutical industry, showing that “there is no evidence of harm” from Thimerosal. These studies are the ones most often quoted by the Press. Most of these studies are statistical. In many cases, the data from which their conclusions are derived have been ‘lost’ or are unavailable or inconsistent. Significantly, the 2004 Institute of Medicine Vaccine Safety Review Committee, which defended Thimerosal, relied upon such statistical studies rather than the clinical evidence that the committee received.

Read more here - traceamounts.com...
edit on 28-6-2017 by Charliezin82 because: Cleaned up



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join