Doctors ordered to stop giving flu jabs to children

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by pianopraze
But it is fruitless to devolve into this because it comes down to a base set of outlooks and core beliefs about government and the pharmaceutical industry which are drastically different.

As my signature says, I don't want to believe, I want to know, and in this case that means the truth, whichever side it's on. There are some valid arguments on both sides and that's why I'm not "picking a side" of core beliefs. I want to see the facts on each individual case.

Since this thread is about the flu shots for children, I tend to think in that example that the risks of getting the shot may outweigh the risks of not getting the shot. So I think they did the right thing in this case.

But I think it would be wrong to make this conclusion for all vaccinations. Maybe there are some risks with the polio vaccine, but polio ain't no picnic. So I have to ask, which is the greater risk? Polio, or the polio vaccine? For the people who chose to not get vaccinated and ended up with polio, it seems maybe polio was the greater risk?

edit on 18-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo

Very sound argument to which I concur. A shot by shot analysis with good long term studies and an honest and open approach to analyzing when toxic results surface both before mass distribution and afterwards when they start showing up in the masses of population than no study, no mater how well implemented, can truly foresee.

However. This is not what is happening. Fallacious tests with blatant lies and misrepresentation of data are revealed time and time again by the pharmaceutical industry. They are no longer ever held fiscally accountable for blatant lies and life threatening malpractice. After these poisons are released the lies are maintained even in the face of overwhelming evidence and no one is ever held liable and no effort is made to recall these poisons.

And all the while natural, wholesome foods are being supplanted with toxins and poisons with "more healthy" labels on the box. And the wholesome foods are not allowed to announce they do not contain the toxins or worse yet the wholesome foods are not being sold.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

But I think it would be wrong to make this conclusion for all vaccinations. Maybe there are some risks with the polio vaccine, but polio ain't no picnic. So I have to ask, which is the greater risk? Polio, or the polio vaccine? For the people who chose to not get vaccinated and ended up with polio, it seems maybe polio was the greater risk?

If you want to know the truth then you need to do your research. The fact is you have no idea whether the polio vaccine works period you are just repeating a cultural belief. The data shows that there is no evidence vaccines work period and that is for any vaccine. And that is data collected since the advent of vaccines. The evidence in fact shows the vaccines credited with eradicating certain diseases did no such thing, and in fact caused out breaks of the disease. So if you want the truth then look at the facts evidence and not just popular cultural rhetoric. I posted some links in my previous post check them out for starters.

I feel that as a medicinal chemist who has worked in making synthetic vaccines, that I should impart some of my knowledge to this post
Vaccines, as many of you are probably aware at this point in the thread, consist attenuated or dead cells and in some cases, synthetic systems which are designed to mimic certain phenotypic features of a virus. For example, the cervical cancer vaccine developed in Australia not so long ago is a mimic of the capsule that encases the cervical cancer virus. When you inject these into a patient, your body's immune system responds and gets rid of it. It is able to 'remember' this capsule, so that if an actual cervical cancer virus enters a host body, the immune system can quickly see that it has the same viral capsule and get rid of it before anything happens.

The other thing that does get put into vaccines are adjuvants. These are compounds that are toxic, yes, but not so much that they cause any damage. They are in there to promote the immune response of your body. If you didn't have adjuvants in there, the vaccine might go mostly unchecked and therefore not work. I can promise you that they are safe! If they were not, they would be instantly rejected during clinical phases of testing.

Occasionally there may be patients who exhibit a hyperimmune responses to a vaccine, for whatever reason. It is unfair to say though that all vaccines are bad. It is simply an allergic reaction to something in the formulation. If you were to go by that logic, then you might similarly say that all peanuts are lethal and should be banned simply because a few people react to them.

I have seen before on a previous thread that there are people who believe that vaccines do not in any way contribute to your body's ability to fight off pathogens. Statistics show that such a statement simply is not true. As has been mentioned, were it not for the small pox vaccine there would still be small pox. Polio is another disease that springs to mind. Vaccines expose your system to a pathogen, which by definition increases your ability to fight of that particular organism in the future, should you become infected.

I agree completely that Big Pharma can be rotten people, but that's the business, not the science.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

But I think it would be wrong to make this conclusion for all vaccinations. Maybe there are some risks with the polio vaccine, but polio ain't no picnic. So I have to ask, which is the greater risk? Polio, or the polio vaccine? For the people who chose to not get vaccinated and ended up with polio, it seems maybe polio was the greater risk?

If you want to know the truth then you need to do your research. The fact is you have no idea whether the polio vaccine works period you are just repeating a cultural belief. The data shows that there is no evidence vaccines work period and that is for any vaccine. And that is data collected since the advent of vaccines. The evidence in fact shows the vaccines credited with eradicating certain diseases did no such thing, and in fact caused out breaks of the disease. So if you want the truth then look at the facts evidence and not just popular cultural rhetoric. I posted some links in my previous post check them out for starters.

edit on 18-1-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

I would very much like to see where you are getting the idea that vaccines haven't done anything from? When was the last time you heard of a person with smallpox? And the only place where polio is still an issue is in parts of Africa and SE Asia - I don't think the vaccine is to blame for that.

Originally posted by pianopraze
Very sound argument to which I concur. A shot by shot analysis with good long term studies and an honest and open approach to analyzing when toxic results surface both before mass distribution and afterwards when they start showing up in the masses of population than no study, no mater how well implemented, can truly foresee.

Nice to see we may have some common ground in this respect. We have a vast experience base with most vaccines, so for the vaccines like the polio example I gave, they have been around a long time, right? So I'm not sure how relevant a study is for that unless they are changing a stabilizer or preservative in the shot?

However. This is not what is happening. Fallacious tests with blatant lies and misrepresentation of data are revealed time and time again by the pharmaceutical industry. They are no longer ever held fiscally accountable for blatant lies and life threatening malpractice. After these poisons are released the lies are maintained even in the face of overwhelming evidence and no one is ever held liable and no effort is made to recall these poisons.

I'm no fan of big pharma, I hate them in fact, because of their price gouging, trying to sell their medicines to people that don't really need them, etc. I think I've even seen a case where a study was submitted where the favorable results were included but they forgot to include some unfavorable results. So technically the data wasn't a lie, what they sent in was true but it was incomplete. Again we'd have to look at a specific case and charges to evaluate it properly, I don't like to over generalize and your claims are pretty general and broad.

But are you saying people shouldn't get vaccinated against, say, polio? Is the vaccine really worse than a polio outbreak would be? We've already had one outbreak which spread to 10 other countries.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine

I have seen before on a previous thread that there are people who believe that vaccines do not in any way contribute to your body's ability to fight off pathogens. Statistics show that such a statement simply is not true. As has been mentioned, were it not for the small pox vaccine there would still be small pox. Polio is another disease that springs to mind

BS! there is no evidence that vaccines eradicated small pox and polio! it is junk science!

www.heilkunst.com...

www.vernoncoleman.com...

www.naturalnews.com...

reply to post by DrMattMaddix


In exactly the same way, I wonder what it would be like for you if a child of yours were to die when a shot which costs sod all per treatment at cost, could have been given and wasnt.
I do not think you would appreciate that.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

I have seen before on a previous thread that there are people who believe that vaccines do not in any way contribute to your body's ability to fight off pathogens. Statistics show that such a statement simply is not true. As has been mentioned, were it not for the small pox vaccine there would still be small pox. Polio is another disease that springs to mind

BS! there is no evidence that vaccines eradicated small pox and polio! it is junk science!

www.heilkunst.com...

www.vernoncoleman.com...

www.naturalnews.com...

My question from my later post still remains. When was the last time you saw someone in the western world who contracted polio small pox or polio in the last decade or so?

As a side note, citing more alternative web pages while ignoring the fact that there is credible, scientific literature out there completely disproving your hypothesis is somewhat pig headed of you. It is quite obvious that small pox and polio vaccines have had an affect. If that isn't the case and my many years of science is wrong, then please offer another explanation as to how these disorders have been eradicated?

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

I have seen before on a previous thread that there are people who believe that vaccines do not in any way contribute to your body's ability to fight off pathogens. Statistics show that such a statement simply is not true. As has been mentioned, were it not for the small pox vaccine there would still be small pox. Polio is another disease that springs to mind

BS! there is no evidence that vaccines eradicated small pox and polio! it is junk science!

www.heilkunst.com...

www.vernoncoleman.com...

www.naturalnews.com...

Okay, I have skimmed these links. You are trying to say that an improved lifestyle and better surveillance is what caused the demise of the highly contagious and air born small pox virus? So we're meant to just ignore the fact that small pox had been mostly wiped out by mandatory vaccinations in Europe and America in the 1800's, where hygiene was a concept whose importance to health was only barely being recognised? Is it merely coincidence that it happened to disappear following mass vaccinations?

reply to post by hypervalentiodine

My question from my later post still remains. When was the last time you saw someone in the western world who contracted polio small pox or polio in the last decade or so?

As a side note, citing more alternative web pages while ignoring the fact that there is credible, scientific literature out there completely disproving your hypothesis is somewhat pig headed of you. It is quite obvious that small pox and polio vaccines have had an affect. If that isn't the case and my many years of science is wrong, then please offer another explanation as to how these disorders have been eradicated?

Your question is irrelevant it does not prove vaccination is the reason they have declined. The websites I have cited which you failed to read are by reputable doctors or citing thier references. The only thing that is quite obvious when examining the actual evidence which you have not done is that Small pox and polio vaccines alarmingly increased the rates of the disease when they were already in decline before vaccination. that fact is modern cleanliness and sewage disposal is largely responsible for eradicating those diseases and can be proven.

Perhaps you could show us some of the credible scientific literature and whether is actually uses real data or just repeats the damnable lies of medical pop culture that vaccines eradicated any disease instead of trying to label anything that challenges your "BELIEF" as not credible. It is not a matter of belief it is a matter of facts and evidence. And as one who has studied both sides of this issue I can say there is none for you belief!

reply to post by hypervalentiodine

Okay, I have skimmed these links. You are trying to say that an improved lifestyle and better surveillance is what caused the demise of the highly contagious and air born small pox virus? So we're meant to just ignore the fact that small pox had been mostly wiped out by mandatory vaccinations in Europe and America in the 1800's, where hygiene was a concept whose importance to health was only barely being recognised? Is it merely coincidence that it happened to disappear following mass vaccinations?

You have yet to prove vaccines wiped out anything! And the diseases had declined largely BEFORE vaccination not following them. I am not surprised you just skimmed them try reading them ... Sigh

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I'm falling asleep but before I do let me present a study on how effective the flue vaccine is:
Cochrane Library

Only 1 out of 100 show a real world result. Best case only 3 out of 97. Remember most of those studies were funded by the pharmaceutical companies selling the flu shots. 70,000 people were tested.

Even though nearly half the studies were funded by the vaccine industry itself, the study results show that in most circumstances, influenza vaccines are virtually worthless

Source

edit to add: so 99% of the people receive no benefit from the flue shot and there is a lot of harm as I pointed out in my OP.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

My question from my later post still remains. When was the last time you saw someone in the western world who contracted polio small pox or polio in the last decade or so?

As a side note, citing more alternative web pages while ignoring the fact that there is credible, scientific literature out there completely disproving your hypothesis is somewhat pig headed of you. It is quite obvious that small pox and polio vaccines have had an affect. If that isn't the case and my many years of science is wrong, then please offer another explanation as to how these disorders have been eradicated?

Your question is irrelevant it does not prove vaccination is the reason they have declined. The websites I have cited which you failed to read are by reputable doctors or citing thier references. The only thing that is quite obvious when examining the actual evidence which you have not done is that Small pox and polio vaccines alarmingly increased the rates of the disease when they were already in decline before vaccination. that fact is modern cleanliness and sewage disposal is largely responsible for eradicating those diseases and can be proven.

Perhaps you could show us some of the credible scientific literature and whether is actually uses real data or just repeats the damnable lies of medical pop culture that vaccines eradicated any disease instead of trying to label anything that challenges your "BELIEF" as not credible. It is not a matter of belief it is a matter of facts and evidence. And as one who has studied both sides of this issue I can say there is none for you belief!

If you wish to call science a belief, then by all means. By definition you are correct. I am telling you that your belief that vaccines do not work as a scientist who used to make and test vaccines. I can link you thousands of papers that show statistical evidence that vaccines work. The unfortunate thing for you though, is that you would have to pay to read them, whereas I have access through my university's library database. I would have to do a search for papers on polio or small pox, which I do not have time for as it is 2:30 am. Never-the-less, here is a link to a papers on one particular Staphylococcus aureus vaccine trial. Note, there are no current working vaccines against S. aureus. The paper I am linking you is really just to show that vaccines have an affect. When I have time, I will find more papers. As I say though, you will probably not be able to read the whole article.

www.sciencedirect.com... rch&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1610925307&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0c102d4385 95fd38113168ff6a6263e2&searchtype=a

I did a quick search and found some about the small pox vaccine:

www.nature.com...

www.jimmunol.org...

www.nature.com...

Heres a timeline of vaccines and food allergies. I know this thread is about getting sick but it is relevant. I have a link to the original article HERE

1800 - Peanuts were grown commercially in South Carolina and used for oil

1879 - First vaccine for cholera
1890 - First vaccine for tetanus
1896 - First vaccine for typhoid fever
1897 - First vaccine for bubonic plague

1901 - The first case report of food allergy (cows' milk allergy) was published by Hamburger in 1901. [Cow's milk has been used for vaccine culture media - bfg]

1917 - Cholera vaccine
1917 - Typhoid vaccine (parenteral)
1919 - Oil was substituted for the saline solution in vaccines

1920 - At Google books, the “Peanut Allergy Answer” book says 1920 was the first reference of a nut allergy.

1921 First vaccine for diphtheria
1926 First vaccine for pertussis (whooping cough)
1927 First vaccine for tuberculosis

1934 - Study of 508 residents of Clover, Virginia. 60% of the residents had allergies

1935 - Yellow Fever vaccine
1945 - First vaccine for influenza

1950 - When the first case of sesame allergy was reported in 1950, the allergen was considered anything but ordinary.

1952 First vaccine for polio
1955 Inactivated polio vaccine licensed

1960 Children received on average one or two vaccines
1961 Monovalent oral polio vaccine licensed.
1963 Trivalent oral polio vaccine licensed
1964 First vaccine for measles
1967 First vaccine for mumps
1968-69 Rubella vaccine licensed
1970 First vaccine for rubella
1970 Anthrax vaccine manufactured by the Michigan Department of Public Health.
1971 Measles, Mumps, Rubella vaccine licensed (MMR).
1974 First vaccine for chicken pox

1976 At Google books, the “Peanut Allergy Answer” book says that there was no research in the field of peanut allergy until 1976.

1977 First vaccine for pneumonia (Streptococcus pneumoniae)
1978 First vaccine for meningitis (Neisseria meningitidis)

1978 the CDC added the triple shot MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) to the growing baby immunization program.

1978 Fluzone, the current flu vaccine that is made by Aventis pasteur, was licensed.

1980 Children received 8-9 vaccines

1982 Hepatitis B vaccine becomes available.
1983 Pneumococcal vaccine, 23 valent

1983 First case of Brazil nut anaphylaxis in the UK

1986 Licensure of first recombinant vaccine (hepatitis B)

1988 - four people died of peanut allergy
1990 Children were routinely given 10 vaccinations

1990 Licensure of first polysaccharide conjugate vaccine (Haemophilus influenzae type b)

1991 Universal infant hepatitis B vaccination recommended for all infants
1991 Acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP) licensed for use in older children aged 15 months to six years old.
1993 Japanese encephalitis vaccine

1994 First known case of lupin allergy

1995 Varicella vaccine licensed
1995 Hepatitis A vaccine licensed.
1996 Acellular pertussis vaccine licensed for infants
1997 Sequential polio vaccination recommended

1997 1 in 250 young children had peanut allergy in the US
1997 6 deaths due to food anaphylaxis
1997 First known case of allergy to ingested pectin

1999 First rotavirus vaccine licensed.
1999 Combination vaccines

1999 Approximately 125 people die each year in the USA secondary to food-induced anaphylaxis

2000 Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (Prevnar) recommended for all young children.

2000 Children now receive 33 vaccines before they enter school – a huge increase.
2002 - 1 in 125 young children had peanut allergy in the US
2002 - From 1997 to 2002 - within five years of the introduction of Genetically Engineered soy peanut allergies doubled.

2003 First live attenuated influenza vaccine licensed (FluMist) for use in 5 to 49 year old persons.
2003 The CDC recommended that children 6 to 23 months of age receive an annual flu vaccination.
2003 First Adult Immunization Schedule introduced.

2003 First case of allergy to lingonberry

2004 Inactivated influenza vaccine recommended for all children 6 to 23 months of age.
2004 Pediarix,a vaccine that combines the DTaP, IPV, and Hep B vaccines, into one shot, is approved.
2005 Boostrix and Adacel, Tdap vaccines, are approved for teens.
2005 Menactra, a new meningococcal vaccine is approved for people between the ages of 11 to 55 years of age.
2006 RotaTeq is a new rotavirus vaccine from Merck.
2006 ProQuad is a new vaccine that combines the MMR and Varivax vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and chicken pox into a single shot.
2006 Gardasil, the first HPV vaccine is approved.
2007 A booster dose of Varivax, the chickenpox vaccine, is now recommended for all children.
2007 The recommended age for Flumist, the nasal spray flu vaccine, was lowered to two years.

2007 - The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released the first federal study focused on childhood food allergies -- with surprising results. The study, released last month, found that the number of children with food allergies is on the rise, with an 18 percent increase of reported cases over the past decade. In 2007, about 3 million children under age 18 reported food or digestive allergies during the previous 12-month period.

2008 Kinrix, a combination of DTaP and IPV that can be used for children between the ages of 4 and 6 is approved.
2008 Pentacel, a combination of DTaP, IPV and Hib is approved.
2008 Rotarix, a two dose rotavirus vaccine is approved.

2008 - One in every 17 children under the age of 3 has food allergy. It is estimated that more than 150 people die annually from anaphylaxis to food.

A generation ago, a child with an allergy was virtually unheard of.

I look at the time when oils/lipids were used in the vaccine. The vaccine injects some dead cells to stimulate a reaction from our immune system. With the oils and lipids attached to the cells the body treats these oils as foriegn and attacks them after the vaccine is given. This is just my theory probably bull but makes sense to me. I read that scientist have no clue what cause white blood cells to rush to an affected area. How can they possibly understand what happens with a vaccine? I thought their motto was "do no harm"?

also look at this

2002 - From 1997 to 2002 - within five years of the introduction of Genetically Engineered soy peanut allergies doubled

you can't deny something is wrong

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
I can link you thousands of papers that show statistical evidence that vaccines work. The unfortunate thing for you though, is that you would have to pay to read them, whereas I have access through my university's library database.

How do you refute the study FUNDED BY the pharmaceutical industry in 2007 that I just posted shows 99% of people in the real world scenario are not helped? And that there is a 700% increase in chance of miscarriage as shown in my OP?

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

Okay, I have skimmed these links. You are trying to say that an improved lifestyle and better surveillance is what caused the demise of the highly contagious and air born small pox virus? So we're meant to just ignore the fact that small pox had been mostly wiped out by mandatory vaccinations in Europe and America in the 1800's, where hygiene was a concept whose importance to health was only barely being recognised? Is it merely coincidence that it happened to disappear following mass vaccinations?

You have yet to prove vaccines wiped out anything! And the diseases had declined largely BEFORE vaccination not following them. I am not surprised you just skimmed them try reading them ... Sigh

edit on 18-1-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

You see, that depends entirely upon where and when in the world you are referring to. Small pox was the leading cause of death in Europe in the 18th century. From the 19th century onwards there were a number of varying vaccinations in different parts of the globe. So yes, if you are referring to the 1950's hemisphere vaccination effort, then your correlations are correct - incidences were decreasing prior. But that was because of all the other vaccination efforts that precedented that - not because of lifestyle changes. Besides that, even if the number of people with small pox (or any other disease) was decreasing before people were getting vaccinated for it, the fact still remains that the people that were vaccinated for it inherited an immunity, thereby preventing further or prolonged outbreaks.

Originally posted by pianopraze

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
I can link you thousands of papers that show statistical evidence that vaccines work. The unfortunate thing for you though, is that you would have to pay to read them, whereas I have access through my university's library database.

How do you refute the study FUNDED BY the pharmaceutical industry in 2007 that I just posted shows 99% of people in the real world scenario are not helped? And that there is a 700% increase in chance of miscarriage as shown in my OP?

Because every paper you get has a statement at the end saying who their research was funded by and where the research had taken place. The authors would get absolutely blasted if they were doing any sort of study to say 'hey, look how great this works' on a drug and were funded by the people who made said drugs. A lot of this stuff is done by people such as my self, who work in universities and perform studies for research purposes and to assist in the advancement of medical science.

All medical procedures have their risks. From my understanding the Polio and Small Pox vaccinations done more good than harm. There were adverse reactions, but on the whole the community benefited. It is hard to say if the disease would have been completely eradicated with a comprehensive vaccination program, or just gone dormant until we let down our guard. It is an interesting perspective that hawkiye brings to the debate about the nature of disease, there is still much we do not know about this world.

I do have concerns about the modern day flu vaccinations due to their quick turn around times and use of mercury. The concern with mercury is not in the short term, but the year on year accumulation in the body leading to increased risk of alzheimer's and other neurological disorders. It was good to hear from hypervalentiodine that work is ongoing to reduce these risks. The flu is a very dynamic virus and from the reports I have read so far there looks to be a bigger cost than benefit to the community from flu vaccinations. I am sceptical of any industry backed study due to the conflict of interest presented and how this has been abused in the past. My preference is for independent studies, but even these can come under pressure at times due to funding issues.

For a full picture to this issue and to act as the devils advocate for Mr Evil, messing around with vaccinations and putting all nasty stuff in them works out the immune system and gets rid of the weak members of society. Similar to the battle with the computer virus, bad code is identified and a counter defence is made. This helps makes the computer systems stronger in the long term and increases its immunity. If society is to continue to grow and make progress into outer space and beyond we are going into the unknown and could be confronted with anything. If we have tried our best to hack apart and kill each other, but survived and still here then we will have a better chance against unexpected risks and threats that the future may hold.

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine

Originally posted by pianopraze

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
I can link you thousands of papers that show statistical evidence that vaccines work. The unfortunate thing for you though, is that you would have to pay to read them, whereas I have access through my university's library database.

How do you refute the study FUNDED BY the pharmaceutical industry in 2007 that I just posted shows 99% of people in the real world scenario are not helped? And that there is a 700% increase in chance of miscarriage as shown in my OP?

Because every paper you get has a statement at the end saying who their research was funded by and where the research had taken place. The authors would get absolutely blasted if they were doing any sort of study to say 'hey, look how great this works' on a drug and were funded by the people who made said drugs. A lot of this stuff is done by people such as my self, who work in universities and perform studies for research purposes and to assist in the advancement of medical science.

edit on 18-1-2011 by hypervalentiodine because: (no reason given)

You totally ignored my question. These are the papers they are using, It was mostly funded by the companies selling vaccines.

Even these papers funded by the vaccine companies show it is not effective 99% or the time. And other papers show it is linked to a 700% increase.

How do you address this? Completely ignore it? That was your initial response.

Originally posted by pianopraze

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine

Originally posted by pianopraze

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
I can link you thousands of papers that show statistical evidence that vaccines work. The unfortunate thing for you though, is that you would have to pay to read them, whereas I have access through my university's library database.

How do you refute the study FUNDED BY the pharmaceutical industry in 2007 that I just posted shows 99% of people in the real world scenario are not helped? And that there is a 700% increase in chance of miscarriage as shown in my OP?

Because every paper you get has a statement at the end saying who their research was funded by and where the research had taken place. The authors would get absolutely blasted if they were doing any sort of study to say 'hey, look how great this works' on a drug and were funded by the people who made said drugs. A lot of this stuff is done by people such as my self, who work in universities and perform studies for research purposes and to assist in the advancement of medical science.

edit on 18-1-2011 by hypervalentiodine because: (no reason given)

You totally ignored my question. These are the papers they are using, It was mostly funded by the companies selling vaccines.

Even these papers funded by the vaccine companies show it is not effective 99% or the time. And other papers show it is linked to a 700% increase.

How do you address this? Completely ignore it? That was your initial response.

edit on 18-1-2011 by pianopraze because: grammar

edit on 18-1-2011 by pianopraze because: typo... must get some sleep lol

I apologise, I must be misreading your question. Who are 'they'? Studies undertaken by universities are normally funded by government grants. Essentially, if they think your research serves some sort of purpose (e.g. contributes to the pool of knowledge or has medical applications) they give you a bunch of money to buy the chemicals, etc. that you need and you go for it. All of the papers I linked were university based research groups. Most of them are when it comes to vaccines - so no hidden agenda.

Do you have a link to an actual paper that supports this 700% claim of yours? I couldn't find anything.