Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Retired Vaccine Expert Speaks Out (Get this information out before the Internet gets Censored!)

page: 2
92
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Thanks soficrow,

One way or another they were going to find a way of taking Wakefield down, he's messed with very powerful people and their agendas. Though regardless of whether people think Wakefield is a fraud or not, it completely clear that if you inject mecury into your body, you better hope it gets to the kidneys before the brain. If it goes to the brain you better hope it goes to a part that you can do without. It's a game of Russian Roulette as mercury is a neurotoxin




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jameshawkings
 


Thanks JH.

...Most researchers have investments in the stuff they study - financial conflict of interest is nothing new. And I doubt Wakefield expected to profit by anything near the millions other researchers do. In fact, he probably invested as a "show of faith." ...Still, his co-authors didn't know, he got caught - and he blew it. Never mind the "questionable methodology."

You're right - it's a paradigm war. And the bad guys are winning.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by jameshawkings
 


Thanks JH.

...Most researchers have investments in the stuff they study - financial conflict of interest is nothing new. And I doubt Wakefield expected to profit by anything near the millions other researchers do. In fact, he probably invested as a "show of faith." ...Still, his co-authors didn't know, he got caught - and he blew it. Never mind the "questionable methodology."

You're right - it's a paradigm war. And the bad guys are winning.







Well said soficrow, so true!
edit on 19-1-2011 by jameshawkings because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
S&F. Thank you for a great thread. I recently that a baby and my ex and I have different views in vaccination. She thinks there is not way possible they would make anything that can hurt a baby. She, along with the doctor and her parents, thinks i am crazy. I can't get through to her.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by devildogUSMC
S&F. Thank you for a great thread. I recently that a baby and my ex and I have different views in vaccination. She thinks there is not way possible they would make anything that can hurt a baby. She, along with the doctor and her parents, thinks i am crazy. I can't get through to her.


Thanks devildogUSMC, I'm glad you like the thread! These situations can be so difficult, with most people it's tough to break through their conditioning, I find you have to chip away little by little, if you overdo it then their barriers will go up and they won't listen at all. Also she has to not think it's a competition about who is right and who is wrong, you almost have to let her think that she worked it out herself. Problem is that takes time and the Pharms want to get your baby stuffed full of their vaccines right away before you've had a chance to think about it or realize that your child was originally healthy.

Perhaps a white lie could come in handy to protect your baby's health e.g. "I had a severe vaccine reaction as a child and almost died, so our baby could well be the same"
edit on 19-1-2011 by jameshawkings because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I find this question in the interview and answer most interesting:

"Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and appear to be healthy.

A: The operative word is "appear." What about all the children who can't focus on their studies? What about the children who have tantrums from time to time? What about the children who are not quite in possession of all their mental faculties? I know there are many causes for these things, but vaccines are one cause. "

Autism for example has exploded. They say one of every hundred kids has autism. What about the increase of ADHD in kids. As for studies has anyone actually done any to see if these vaccines work or what health someone is in twenty years after? Apparently not. They tell us not to eat too much fish because of the mercury then want to now force folks to take vaccines and use light bulbs with mercury in em. Something sure aint right and I'm sure a big part of it is money. Always is. Schools now won't even let you in unless your kids are immunized to their standards.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by HoldTheBeans
 


HoldTheBeans,

That was my favourite question/answer too, as it always comes up in debates that I'm having. They say "I've had the vaccine and I'm still alive", it's always difficult to argue with people who take this non-scientific approach. Imagine if the vaccine-makers said "all 100 vaccines testers are still alive so this means it was a success".

Like you say we have to look at these things in far more detail and on a long term basis. The Pharms won't do this as they know it will be counter-productive for them, and even if they did they would fix the results. We need an independent body setup to take care of this and it really does need to be independent.

It's ridiculous that the FDA still exists as even the average man on the street knows that they are corrupt to the core



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
.Most researchers have investments in the stuff they study - financial conflict of interest is nothing new.


Source, please. Financial conflict of interest makes it VERY hard to get NIH, NSF, and DOD loans. I would love to see your source that shows "most" researchers have such conflicts.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I don't accept the idea that the whole industry exists to try and kill us. That is paranoid nonsense.



Blaine91555, you are right that the whole industry doesn't exist to try to kill us. It was originally started with the best intentions, now it exists because it makes billions. By giving us vaccines they weaken our immune systems and hence we buy more products from their companies. The people at the top are almost purely profit driven. www.youtube.com... (Bayer knowingly sold HIV contaminated vaccine to maximize profit)

Clearly parts of the industry are also abused by the likes of WHO, UNICEF, United Nations led by Rockefeller/Kissinger and Co e.g. injecting Africans with a Hepatitis B vaccine laced with HIV in an attempt to depopulate Africa www.originofaids.com... and of course the Swine Flu Vaccine Sterilization Program (POLYSORBATE 80) organichealthadviser.com...
edit on 19-1-2011 by jameshawkings because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by soficrow
.Most researchers have investments in the stuff they study - financial conflict of interest is nothing new.


Source, please. Financial conflict of interest makes it VERY hard to get NIH, NSF, and DOD loans. I would love to see your source that shows "most" researchers have such conflicts.


The fact that the NIH is in the process of revising conflict-of-interests guidelines and restrictions is proof enough. Until recently, researchers were not even required to declare conflicts of interest. ...a major scandal in some circles.

Financial Conflict of Interest


Since the existing rules were implemented in 1995, the complexity of interactions among government, research institutions and the private sector has continually increased. In response, HHS has proposed changes to the existing regulations to strengthen accountability and transparency of current financial conflict of interest rules at the government, institutional and investigator level.

NIH Guide Notice (07/21/2010) - Notice of Extension of Comment Period on the Proposed Rule to August 19, 2010.

Resources:
NIH Oversight of Extramural Financial Conflicts of Interest (08/01/2008) - (MS Word - 34 KB)

Observations from NIH's FY2006 Targeted Site Reviews (02/15/2007) - (MS Word - 53 KB)

NIH Review of Financial Conflict of Interest Policies of Grantee Institutions (07/18/2002)

Additional Financial Conflict of Interest Information (07/14/2010)
Financial Conflict of Interest Archive:
Archived material September 2002 – May 2009


Lots of info out there, not in my interest to do that research right now. Suffice to say the problem was sufficiently significant that our government HAD to take action. Or lose all credibility.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
*** ATTENTION ***

GET ON TOPIC AND STOP DISCUSSING ONE ANOTHER.

YOU WILL BE POST BANNED



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


The best source would probably be the definition of "blind trust". If you are in the "blind" about your investment portfolio, there will never be a "financial conflict of interest". And I suppose that banking laws in other countries make sure to perform due diligence in order to ensure that monies placed within their institution are wholly on the up and up. Ever hear the saying, scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. You should provide this thread with a link that proves that noone ever does that.

You can provide the link and source that proves its illegal. Provide the source and link that proves it never happens. Just because its illegal doesn't mean its not being done by any esteemed researcher in any field. Do you think everything in this world is referenced and cross-referenced just to provide people like you with your fake proof. It is and thats the public stance provided to you by the people who want your allegiance to the scam.

You're missing the crux of the thread with you're insistence of proof. Just to make you happy. Proof that you can believe in is not necessarily the truth. Reading and researching for yourself is not performed by other people, so you can freely take what is given to you by whomever. There are sides to this issue.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


So, you have no evidence that "most researchers" have financial conflicts? Is that what I'm supposed to draw from your post? All I see is a revision of guidelines, which happens all the time to accommodate changing technology, trends, and environments.

Why can't you just provide evidence of your claim, rather than dancing around the point?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dfens
 


So, your stance is that, "Well, we can't prove it's NOT happening, so it MUST be happening"? That's an awfully silly and illogical way to view the world.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by dfens
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


The best source would probably be the definition of "blind trust". If you are in the "blind" about your investment portfolio, there will never be a "financial conflict of interest". And I suppose that banking laws in other countries make sure to perform due diligence in order to ensure that monies placed within their institution are wholly on the up and up. Ever hear the saying, scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. You should provide this thread with a link that proves that noone ever does that.

You can provide the link and source that proves its illegal. Provide the source and link that proves it never happens. Just because its illegal doesn't mean its not being done by any esteemed researcher in any field. Do you think everything in this world is referenced and cross-referenced just to provide people like you with your fake proof. It is and thats the public stance provided to you by the people who want your allegiance to the scam.

You're missing the crux of the thread with you're insistence of proof. Just to make you happy. Proof that you can believe in is not necessarily the truth. Reading and researching for yourself is not performed by other people, so you can freely take what is given to you by whomever. There are sides to this issue.


Excellent post dfens, I completely agree and couldn't have explained it better. Cheque-book research is a big thing these days, fortunately there are those of us who can see through it We need to be able to research for ourselves like you say, rather than rely on people who have an unknown agenda

edit on 19-1-2011 by jameshawkings because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-1-2011 by jameshawkings because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Instead of attacking posters, try attacking the meat of a post.

Every scandalous situation in this world is denied until the bitter end. All one needs is a bit of opportunity in order to engage. Unless you start out at the top, the status quo rules. If you had a job in the medical 'industry', would you want to be caught talking bad about your company? If you're smart you know the answer. That goes for every company. Why is a man so scared about the repercussions?

Don't deny that higher-ups rule you. Its easy to say that it can't or shouldn't happen when we have so many regulations in place. How could it?

Explain all these class action lawsuits over medications. Explain the FDA's culpability. Explain the commercials that cite death and cancer as side effects. That should be more than enough proof.






top topics



 
92
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join