$1000,000 vaccine challenge offered to Piers Morgan and to...

crazyewok
reply to post by beckybecky

 

Classic tactic of the crazy ignorant fool evade the question.


What are your qualifications?



Me? BSc (Hons) in Biosciences with Advanced modules in Microbiology and Immunology.

Plus a HND in Laboratory Technology and Biotechnology.

is that it? is that all? no wonder you so naive and simple minded and easily deceived by corporate interests.

you obviously have been living in a ivory tower surrounded by academia and have no idea how the real world works.

where are you qualifications in marketing,sales,public relations,statistics,politics

i think you need to read the flexnor report.

and you need to spend some time in a board room where you will see how strategies on how to a sell a dead horse is flogged to a gullible public.

you simple mindedness is astonishing.no wonder you are so gullible and easily tricked by a man in a fancy suit and a clipboard.naive and simple minded.

reply to post by beckybecky


See you deflect AGAIN!

What are you qulifications?

As for board rooms and marketing ? What the hell are you smoking or cant you read! My qualifications are direct with Vaccines! I never did managemnet I worked direct in the lab. I knew every stage of production I knew the results of clinical tests. Fancy men in suits have nothing to do with it. Hell most us lab rats thought them idiots anyway.



You will most likley deflect again.

Ignorance is predictabale

crazyewok
reply to post by beckybecky

 

See you deflect AGAIN!

What are you qulifications?

As for board rooms and marketing ? What the hell are you smoking or cant you read! My qualifications are direct with Vaccines! I never did managemnet I worked direct in the lab. I knew every stage of production I knew the results of clinical tests. Fancy men in suits have nothing to do with it. Hell most us lab rats thought them idiots anyway.




Ignorance is predictabale

edit on 23-10-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

look you might be a paragon of virtue but your managers are not.

you admit you have no idea of all the dirty tricks they use including bribery,corruption,research fraud.

you seem to be living in cloud cuckoo land peopled by idealistic robots as you claim to be.

sales,marketing,board rooms full of corruption and dirty tricks.they bribe and corrupt government officials,they lie ,they cheat,they steal,they kill.

reply to post by beckybecky


Again what is your education background you keep delfecting?

And yes Pharma company get up to some dirty tricks. Though reasearch fraud is rarer than you think as it pretty damed hard to do as there is so much quality control it hard to pass anything. I saw a whole departmet sacked once for not useingt the right sort of water to clean stuff with, that how annal that side is.

Fact although there are some vaccines of queationble worth like the Flu and HPV there are plenty more that DO work.

crazyewok
reply to post by beckybecky

 

Again what is your education background you keep delfecting?

And yes Pharma company get up to some dirty tricks. Though reasearch fraud is rarer than you think as it pretty damed hard to do as there is so much quality control it hard to pass anything. I saw a whole departmet sacked once for not useingt the right sort of water to clean stuff with, that how annal that side is.

Fact although there are some vaccines of queationble worth like the Flu and HPV there are plenty more that DO work.

why are so obsessed with my education background?

and why would you believe what i said anyway?


i mean i could easily lie could i not/

however i can say that my education background is much more diverse then your and is real world unlike the ivory towers you inhabit.where are you qualifications in marketing,sales,public relations,statistics,politics ? these are real world subjects.

you may have "good intentions" but the road to hell is paved with these.

a check on research papers found 80% to be fake,fraudulent,plagiarized ,or impossible to reproduce.

80%.

and guess what more news about your darling big pharma:-


www.nytimes.com...

The drug maker GlaxoSmithKline reported Wednesday that its third-quarter earnings were badly battered by slumping product sales in China, a country where it faces a continuing bribery investigation. Chinese investigators have said that Glaxo participated in a widespread bribery and corruption scheme in which the company used travel agencies to funnel illegal payments to doctors and government officials to bolster drug sales. Several pharmaceutical companies have been ensnared by the investigation...Last year, Glaxo paid a $3 billion fine in the United States after it admitted that it had improperly promoted its antidepressants and failed to report safety data about the diabetes drug Avandia.


enough said.

beckybecky

crazyewok
reply to post by beckybecky

 

Again what is your education background you keep delfecting?

And yes Pharma company get up to some dirty tricks. Though reasearch fraud is rarer than you think as it pretty damed hard to do as there is so much quality control it hard to pass anything. I saw a whole departmet sacked once for not useingt the right sort of water to clean stuff with, that how annal that side is.

Fact although there are some vaccines of queationble worth like the Flu and HPV there are plenty more that DO work.

why are so obsessed with my education background?

and why would you believe what i said anyway?


i mean i could easily lie could i not/

however i can say that my education background is much more diverse then your and is real world unlike the ivory towers you inhabit.where are you qualifications in marketing,sales,public relations,statistics,politics ? these are real world subjects.

you may have "good intentions" but the road to hell is paved with these.

a check on research papers found 80% to be fake,fraudulent,plagiarized ,or impossible to reproduce.

80%.

and guess what more news about your darling big pharma:-


www.nytimes.com...

The drug maker GlaxoSmithKline reported Wednesday that its third-quarter earnings were badly battered by slumping product sales in China, a country where it faces a continuing bribery investigation. Chinese investigators have said that Glaxo participated in a widespread bribery and corruption scheme in which the company used travel agencies to funnel illegal payments to doctors and government officials to bolster drug sales. Several pharmaceutical companies have been ensnared by the investigation...Last year, Glaxo paid a $3 billion fine in the United States after it admitted that it had improperly promoted its antidepressants and failed to report safety data about the diabetes drug Avandia.


enough said.

Two wrongs don't make a right though do they becky?
Fraud, lies and corruption are still the same irrespective of how many zeroes come after the dollar sign.

People have this bizarre belief that "natural medicine" is harmless.
It's far from it.
Remember. (using an anti-vax quote) "these are only the cases which are reported, the real numbers are FAR higher". This time however, I really do believe this is the case.

whatstheharm.net...

beckybecky
why are so obsessed with my education background?

and why would you believe what i said anyway?

i mean i could easily lie could i not/

however i can say that my education background is much more diverse then your and is real world unlike the ivory towers you inhabit.where are you qualifications in marketing,sales,public relations,statistics,politics ? these are real world subjects.

The point, as I understand it, is that one needs a strong background in science and/or medicine (in this case, especially immunology, microbiology, and laboratory scientific research) to be able fully understand scientific papers about vaccines and their side effects and to make reasonable judgments about what claims are supported by strong evidence.

Having a background in sales, marketing, public relations, or politics is completely irrelevant to the SCIENCE behind vaccines (which is the only part of the equation that ultimately matters). An understanding of statistics is fairly important if one wants to get into an academic argument about vaccines, but this thread is far from an academic argument.

beckybecky
a check on research papers found 80% to be fake,fraudulent,plagiarized ,or impossible to reproduce.

80%.

What is your source on this? Yes, there is some level of fraud and error in science, which is why reputable journals require extensive peer review and nothing in science is accepted as being true until it has been repeated, often multiple times. But I have never heard anything close to 80% and find that very, very difficult to even begin to believe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you didn't provide that evidence.

Ironically enough, probably the most famous case of scientific fraud in modern times is actually the paper by Andrew Wakefield that set off the whole 'vaccines and autism' debate in the first place. It has since been discredited countless times and yet, for some strange reason, remains one of the very few 'scientific' studies that anti-vaccine advocates will accept as correct and true.

reply to post by Microbiologist


Her source will be NATURALNEWS although I PROVED it's just a front to SELL product from there own shop
I also showed that they cut & paste text from official sources, well actually they only paste once they have EDITED the text to suit their own FALSE agenda.

They promote their natural products after MISLEADING people that they will be better than normal medicines yet have this at the bottom of the page.

these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, or cure any disease.

The IMPORTANT part underlined just in case beckybecky missed it!!!

Clink on the link it's at the bottom of the store page!!

Naturalnews Store

Strange thing is becky didn't reply to my post about it

Microbiologist

beckybecky
why are so obsessed with my education background?

and why would you believe what i said anyway?

i mean i could easily lie could i not/

however i can say that my education background is much more diverse then your and is real world unlike the ivory towers you inhabit.where are you qualifications in marketing,sales,public relations,statistics,politics ? these are real world subjects.

The point, as I understand it, is that one needs a strong background in science and/or medicine (in this case, especially immunology, microbiology, and laboratory scientific research) to be able fully understand scientific papers about vaccines and their side effects and to make reasonable judgments about what claims are supported by strong evidence.

Having a background in sales, marketing, public relations, or politics is completely irrelevant to the SCIENCE behind vaccines (which is the only part of the equation that ultimately matters). An understanding of statistics is fairly important if one wants to get into an academic argument about vaccines, but this thread is far from an academic argument.

beckybecky
a check on research papers found 80% to be fake,fraudulent,plagiarized ,or impossible to reproduce.

80%.

What is your source on this? Yes, there is some level of fraud and error in science, which is why reputable journals require extensive peer review and nothing in science is accepted as being true until it has been repeated, often multiple times. But I have never heard anything close to 80% and find that very, very difficult to even begin to believe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you didn't provide that evidence.

Ironically enough, probably the most famous case of scientific fraud in modern times is actually the paper by Andrew Wakefield that set off the whole 'vaccines and autism' debate in the first place. It has since been discredited countless times and yet, for some strange reason, remains one of the very few 'scientific' studies that anti-vaccine advocates will accept as correct and true.

you seem to be fairly cold blooded.do you have a family?

any relations..are you a robot?

or cuddle a bundle of greenbacks

well you can google the sources since you trust me but only big pharma mouthpieces.

some of sources are very recent as last 2 weeks.about fraud being found in most research.due to pressure to publish.and how hard it is to replicate the findings.

but here is just one.


what do you say to that?

www.wellsphere.com...

beckybecky

Microbiologist

beckybecky
why are so obsessed with my education background?

and why would you believe what i said anyway?

i mean i could easily lie could i not/

however i can say that my education background is much more diverse then your and is real world unlike the ivory towers you inhabit.where are you qualifications in marketing,sales,public relations,statistics,politics ? these are real world subjects.

The point, as I understand it, is that one needs a strong background in science and/or medicine (in this case, especially immunology, microbiology, and laboratory scientific research) to be able fully understand scientific papers about vaccines and their side effects and to make reasonable judgments about what claims are supported by strong evidence.

Having a background in sales, marketing, public relations, or politics is completely irrelevant to the SCIENCE behind vaccines (which is the only part of the equation that ultimately matters). An understanding of statistics is fairly important if one wants to get into an academic argument about vaccines, but this thread is far from an academic argument.

beckybecky
a check on research papers found 80% to be fake,fraudulent,plagiarized ,or impossible to reproduce.

80%.

What is your source on this? Yes, there is some level of fraud and error in science, which is why reputable journals require extensive peer review and nothing in science is accepted as being true until it has been repeated, often multiple times. But I have never heard anything close to 80% and find that very, very difficult to even begin to believe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you didn't provide that evidence.

Ironically enough, probably the most famous case of scientific fraud in modern times is actually the paper by Andrew Wakefield that set off the whole 'vaccines and autism' debate in the first place. It has since been discredited countless times and yet, for some strange reason, remains one of the very few 'scientific' studies that anti-vaccine advocates will accept as correct and true.

you seem to be fairly cold blooded.do you have a family?

any relations..are you a robot?

or cuddle a bundle of greenbacks

well you can google the sources since you trust me but only big pharma mouthpieces.

some of sources are very recent as last 2 weeks.about fraud being found in most research.due to pressure to publish.and how hard it is to replicate the findings.

but here is just one.


what do you say to that?

www.wellsphere.com...

edit on 24-10-2013 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

And there's no fraud in the "studies" championed by anti-vaxxers is there?

As mentioned above, the study which started it all off was fraudulent and unethical from start to finish and they've carried this on with some of the most ridiculous and scientifically dishonest "studies" I've ever had the misfortune to read.

And why do they do this?
It's pretty obvious isn't it?
They're all on the payroll of litigation lawyers and are on the anti-vax speaker circuit which I believe is VERY lucrative indeed.
Have you seen Andrew Wakefield's mansion in Texas (where else)? Not bad for a failed doctor eh?
briandeer.com...

Like I said, two wrongs don't make a right but if your whole argument rests upon corruption in pharma well you're going down the wrong creek.
Without a paddle.

Pardon?

beckybecky

Microbiologist

beckybecky
why are so obsessed with my education background?

and why would you believe what i said anyway?

i mean i could easily lie could i not/

however i can say that my education background is much more diverse then your and is real world unlike the ivory towers you inhabit.where are you qualifications in marketing,sales,public relations,statistics,politics ? these are real world subjects.

The point, as I understand it, is that one needs a strong background in science and/or medicine (in this case, especially immunology, microbiology, and laboratory scientific research) to be able fully understand scientific papers about vaccines and their side effects and to make reasonable judgments about what claims are supported by strong evidence.

Having a background in sales, marketing, public relations, or politics is completely irrelevant to the SCIENCE behind vaccines (which is the only part of the equation that ultimately matters). An understanding of statistics is fairly important if one wants to get into an academic argument about vaccines, but this thread is far from an academic argument.

beckybecky
a check on research papers found 80% to be fake,fraudulent,plagiarized ,or impossible to reproduce.

80%.

What is your source on this? Yes, there is some level of fraud and error in science, which is why reputable journals require extensive peer review and nothing in science is accepted as being true until it has been repeated, often multiple times. But I have never heard anything close to 80% and find that very, very difficult to even begin to believe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you didn't provide that evidence.

Ironically enough, probably the most famous case of scientific fraud in modern times is actually the paper by Andrew Wakefield that set off the whole 'vaccines and autism' debate in the first place. It has since been discredited countless times and yet, for some strange reason, remains one of the very few 'scientific' studies that anti-vaccine advocates will accept as correct and true.

you seem to be fairly cold blooded.do you have a family?

any relations..are you a robot?

or cuddle a bundle of greenbacks

well you can google the sources since you trust me but only big pharma mouthpieces.

some of sources are very recent as last 2 weeks.about fraud being found in most research.due to pressure to publish.and how hard it is to replicate the findings.

but here is just one.


what do you say to that?

www.wellsphere.com...

edit on 24-10-2013 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

And there's no fraud in the "studies" championed by anti-vaxxers is there?

As mentioned above, the study which started it all off was fraudulent and unethical from start to finish and they've carried this on with some of the most ridiculous and scientifically dishonest "studies" I've ever had the misfortune to read.

And why do they do this?
It's pretty obvious isn't it?
They're all on the payroll of litigation lawyers and are on the anti-vax speaker circuit which I believe is VERY lucrative indeed.
Have you seen Andrew Wakefield's mansion in Texas (where else)? Not bad for a failed doctor eh?
briandeer.com...

Like I said, two wrongs don't make a right but if your whole argument rests upon corruption in pharma well you're going down the wrong creek.
Without a paddle.

once again you are trying to hide corruption.vaxxers are protected by law passed by crooks in congress who were bribed by big pharma.

more proof from the dutch against vaccines.


you must be crying in your beer by now.every attempt by you is failing.the truth is against you.even your big pharma sponser must be having doubts about you.i know you will be kneeling before his picture above your bedroom wall.

A new Dutch study shows that flu vaccines prevent children from building their natural immunity, specifically to other flu viruses. By comparison, a natural infection induces cross-immunity. This means that regularly vaccinated kids are sitting ducks in a pandemic - because they haven't built up their immunity.


Annual vaccination against influenza hampers development of virus-specific CD8+ T cell immunity in children

Infection with seasonal influenza A viruses induces immunity to potentially pandemic influenza A viruses of other subtypes (heterosubtypic immunity). …annual influenza vaccination …hampers the development of virus-specific CD8+ T cell responses...


jvi.asm.org...

beckybecky
A new Dutch study shows that flu vaccines prevent children from building their natural immunity, specifically to other flu viruses. By comparison, a natural infection induces cross-immunity. This means that regularly vaccinated kids are sitting ducks in a pandemic - because they haven't built up their immunity.


Annual vaccination against influenza hampers development of virus-specific CD8+ T cell immunity in children

Infection with seasonal influenza A viruses induces immunity to potentially pandemic influenza A viruses of other subtypes (heterosubtypic immunity). …annual influenza vaccination …hampers the development of virus-specific CD8+ T cell responses...


jvi.asm.org...

It isn't a "new study," and your words here are not your own. You've lifted, without giving credit, directly from another member's 2011 ATS post. Considering that you recently demonstrated in another thread that you aren't even familiar with the basic mechanisms by which antibiotics work, nor with the details of the "alternative treatments" you promote, I have to wonder whether you've actually read the full journal article you linked to above. If you have, I'm surprised that you don't take issue with the authors' assertion that "annual influenza vaccination is effective against seasonal influenza" and their advisory that they "by no means [...] suggest halting annual vaccination of children, especially those at high risk for complications" since "a number of studies have demonstrated that annual vaccination reduces morbidity and mortality caused by seasonal influenza in children and is (cost-)effective."

Adding onto my previous post, it's interesting to note that the aforementioned Dutch study was published in the American Society for Microbiology's Journal of Virology, a leading journal in its field, and has since been cited by a number of other scholarly articles. It hasn't been "covered up." The authors don't seem to have been taken out by "Big Pharma" hitmen. Instead, it looks like further investigation is ongoing. Researchers around the world continue to study the safety and efficacy of vaccines, develop novel vaccines and routes of administration, and improve upon those that already exist. I'm not saying that coverups don't exist, all published research is valid, all scientists are moral, or anything else of the sort, so please don't put words in my mouth. I only want to bring up the fact that science and research can and do exist independently of "Big Pharma," "Big Government," etc.

Also, you'd be hard-pressed to find a legitimate expert in this field who truly thinks our current vaccines are perfect or without risk. Scientifically illiterate anti-vaccine activists latch onto studies that evaluate these risks or drawbacks and start screaming about how even experts admit that vaccines can harm you, that they don't work, or whatnot. Sometimes they simultaneously claim that all potentially unfavorable information about vaccines is being covered up. Oh, the cognitive dissonance! In the end, it comes down to the overall risk vs. benefit analysis. Even good old dihydrogen monoxide can be dangerous, but that doesn't mean we should avoid it.

I would be interested in hearing about the medical treatments and cures that are documented (a YouTube video or blog testimonial doesn't cut it here) not only to work but also to carry no risk of adverse effects.

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky

Microbiologist

beckybecky
why are so obsessed with my education background?

and why would you believe what i said anyway?

i mean i could easily lie could i not/

however i can say that my education background is much more diverse then your and is real world unlike the ivory towers you inhabit.where are you qualifications in marketing,sales,public relations,statistics,politics ? these are real world subjects.

The point, as I understand it, is that one needs a strong background in science and/or medicine (in this case, especially immunology, microbiology, and laboratory scientific research) to be able fully understand scientific papers about vaccines and their side effects and to make reasonable judgments about what claims are supported by strong evidence.

Having a background in sales, marketing, public relations, or politics is completely irrelevant to the SCIENCE behind vaccines (which is the only part of the equation that ultimately matters). An understanding of statistics is fairly important if one wants to get into an academic argument about vaccines, but this thread is far from an academic argument.

beckybecky
a check on research papers found 80% to be fake,fraudulent,plagiarized ,or impossible to reproduce.

80%.

What is your source on this? Yes, there is some level of fraud and error in science, which is why reputable journals require extensive peer review and nothing in science is accepted as being true until it has been repeated, often multiple times. But I have never heard anything close to 80% and find that very, very difficult to even begin to believe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you didn't provide that evidence.

Ironically enough, probably the most famous case of scientific fraud in modern times is actually the paper by Andrew Wakefield that set off the whole 'vaccines and autism' debate in the first place. It has since been discredited countless times and yet, for some strange reason, remains one of the very few 'scientific' studies that anti-vaccine advocates will accept as correct and true.

you seem to be fairly cold blooded.do you have a family?

any relations..are you a robot?

or cuddle a bundle of greenbacks

well you can google the sources since you trust me but only big pharma mouthpieces.

some of sources are very recent as last 2 weeks.about fraud being found in most research.due to pressure to publish.and how hard it is to replicate the findings.

but here is just one.


what do you say to that?

www.wellsphere.com...

edit on 24-10-2013 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

And there's no fraud in the "studies" championed by anti-vaxxers is there?

As mentioned above, the study which started it all off was fraudulent and unethical from start to finish and they've carried this on with some of the most ridiculous and scientifically dishonest "studies" I've ever had the misfortune to read.

And why do they do this?
It's pretty obvious isn't it?
They're all on the payroll of litigation lawyers and are on the anti-vax speaker circuit which I believe is VERY lucrative indeed.
Have you seen Andrew Wakefield's mansion in Texas (where else)? Not bad for a failed doctor eh?
briandeer.com...

Like I said, two wrongs don't make a right but if your whole argument rests upon corruption in pharma well you're going down the wrong creek.
Without a paddle.

once again you are trying to hide corruption.vaxxers are protected by law passed by crooks in congress who were bribed by big pharma.

more proof from the dutch against vaccines.


you must be crying in your beer by now.every attempt by you is failing.the truth is against you.even your big pharma sponser must be having doubts about you.i know you will be kneeling before his picture above your bedroom wall.

A new Dutch study shows that flu vaccines prevent children from building their natural immunity, specifically to other flu viruses. By comparison, a natural infection induces cross-immunity. This means that regularly vaccinated kids are sitting ducks in a pandemic - because they haven't built up their immunity.


Annual vaccination against influenza hampers development of virus-specific CD8+ T cell immunity in children

Infection with seasonal influenza A viruses induces immunity to potentially pandemic influenza A viruses of other subtypes (heterosubtypic immunity). …annual influenza vaccination …hampers the development of virus-specific CD8+ T cell responses...


jvi.asm.org...

How am I trying to hide corruption?
As well as agreeing with you about corruption in pharma I've pointed out that it's widespread in "natural health too.
I would suggest that since you've dodged this side that it is actually you who is trying to hide corruption.
The only poster who think my efforts are failing is you I'm afraid.
Everyone else can see you for the delusional troll that you are.

As for the study you posted I'm guessing you've not read the original text?
And if you have you certainly haven't understood it?
Did you read the part where they said they were comparing vaccinated children who had cystic fibrosis with unvaccinated children who had no disease?
Not exactly comparing apples with apples is it?
All that study says is that flu vaccines in cystic fibrosis should be managed better and the children monitored closely during specific pandemic conditions.
It doesn't mean that every child will develop this (as much as you lot would love this to happen....sick).

Highlighting a study like this just shows how desperate anti-vaxxers are as what little "evidence" they have erodes by the second.
That doesn't stop the likes of you regurgitating their nonsense though.
Monkey see, monkey do eh becky?

opopanax
Adding onto my previous post, it's interesting to note that the aforementioned Dutch study was published in the American Society for Microbiology's Journal of Virology, a leading journal in its field, and has since been cited by a number of other scholarly articles. It hasn't been "covered up." The authors don't seem to have been taken out by "Big Pharma" hitmen.

The study is in Dutch and very few people read Dutch so they it remained invisable.i mean do you read bulgarian?

Pardon?

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky

Microbiologist

beckybecky
why are so obsessed with my education background?

and why would you believe what i said anyway?

i mean i could easily lie could i not/

however i can say that my education background is much more diverse then your and is real world unlike the ivory towers you inhabit.where are you qualifications in marketing,sales,public relations,statistics,politics ? these are real world subjects.

The point, as I understand it, is that one needs a strong background in science and/or medicine (in this case, especially immunology, microbiology, and laboratory scientific research) to be able fully understand scientific papers about vaccines and their side effects and to make reasonable judgments about what claims are supported by strong evidence.

Having a background in sales, marketing, public relations, or politics is completely irrelevant to the SCIENCE behind vaccines (which is the only part of the equation that ultimately matters). An understanding of statistics is fairly important if one wants to get into an academic argument about vaccines, but this thread is far from an academic argument.

beckybecky
a check on research papers found 80% to be fake,fraudulent,plagiarized ,or impossible to reproduce.

80%.

What is your source on this? Yes, there is some level of fraud and error in science, which is why reputable journals require extensive peer review and nothing in science is accepted as being true until it has been repeated, often multiple times. But I have never heard anything close to 80% and find that very, very difficult to even begin to believe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you didn't provide that evidence.

Ironically enough, probably the most famous case of scientific fraud in modern times is actually the paper by Andrew Wakefield that set off the whole 'vaccines and autism' debate in the first place. It has since been discredited countless times and yet, for some strange reason, remains one of the very few 'scientific' studies that anti-vaccine advocates will accept as correct and true.

you seem to be fairly cold blooded.do you have a family?

any relations..are you a robot?

or cuddle a bundle of greenbacks

well you can google the sources since you trust me but only big pharma mouthpieces.

some of sources are very recent as last 2 weeks.about fraud being found in most research.due to pressure to publish.and how hard it is to replicate the findings.

but here is just one.


what do you say to that?

www.wellsphere.com...

edit on 24-10-2013 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

And there's no fraud in the "studies" championed by anti-vaxxers is there?

As mentioned above, the study which started it all off was fraudulent and unethical from start to finish and they've carried this on with some of the most ridiculous and scientifically dishonest "studies" I've ever had the misfortune to read.

And why do they do this?
It's pretty obvious isn't it?
They're all on the payroll of litigation lawyers and are on the anti-vax speaker circuit which I believe is VERY lucrative indeed.
Have you seen Andrew Wakefield's mansion in Texas (where else)? Not bad for a failed doctor eh?
briandeer.com...

Like I said, two wrongs don't make a right but if your whole argument rests upon corruption in pharma well you're going down the wrong creek.
Without a paddle.

once again you are trying to hide corruption.vaxxers are protected by law passed by crooks in congress who were bribed by big pharma.

more proof from the dutch against vaccines.


you must be crying in your beer by now.every attempt by you is failing.the truth is against you.even your big pharma sponser must be having doubts about you.i know you will be kneeling before his picture above your bedroom wall.

A new Dutch study shows that flu vaccines prevent children from building their natural immunity, specifically to other flu viruses. By comparison, a natural infection induces cross-immunity. This means that regularly vaccinated kids are sitting ducks in a pandemic - because they haven't built up their immunity.


Annual vaccination against influenza hampers development of virus-specific CD8+ T cell immunity in children

Infection with seasonal influenza A viruses induces immunity to potentially pandemic influenza A viruses of other subtypes (heterosubtypic immunity). …annual influenza vaccination …hampers the development of virus-specific CD8+ T cell responses...


jvi.asm.org...

How am I trying to hide corruption?
As well as agreeing with you about corruption in pharma I've pointed out that it's widespread in "natural health too.

you go on a about lawsuits a diversionary tactic by you but the fact is a law passed after big pharma bribed congress to make them immune from prosecution.

so vaccine makers cannot be sued.PERIOD.



here is the truth by by by VACTRUTH.


Who Says There is No Money in Making Vaccines? At Least $5.7 Billion Given to Vaccine Manufacturers in 2011 by US Gov’t -

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Vaccine manufacturers (and doctors!) are given complete immunity from any legal liability if your child is harmed by their vaccine(s). No other industry enjoys this level of protection from a product that could injure a child! [6] - See more at: vactruth.com...


vactruth.com...

no lawyers required to sue vaccine makers as they IMMUNE TO PROSECUTION because they bribed congress.



you can also see the contracts for billions.

it's a easy money making scam...mix some random chemical in a new vaccine.bribe a few peer reviewers.make billions...make anther vaccine next year.

and their latest scam is to vaccines mandatory so nobody can escape and their plan is to inject hundreds of vaccines into every person and make hundreds of billions from government contracts and also to make people ill so they have to buy allopathic "medicines" so relieve the symptoms of the vaccine injuries making even more money.

the crooks in congress have zero moral values and only want money and power.

it's all about money.

this pardon guy is their chief minister of propaganda.

beckybecky

opopanax
Adding onto my previous post, it's interesting to note that the aforementioned Dutch study was published in the American Society for Microbiology's Journal of Virology, a leading journal in its field, and has since been cited by a number of other scholarly articles. It hasn't been "covered up." The authors don't seem to have been taken out by "Big Pharma" hitmen.

The study is in Dutch and very few people read Dutch so they it remained invisable.i mean do you read bulgarian?

So am I to take it that you did not even visit the link you yourself posted? The study is in English. It was published in the American Society for Microbiology's Journal of Virology. The full text of the paper (in English) is available for free on the page you linked. It most certainly did not remain invisible, and even if it had, it would not have been because it "is in Dutch and very few people read Dutch."

If you're linking to and drawing conclusions from a study, you should probably at the very least have read and understood the abstract, but doing so would require a higher level of scientific literacy (specifically, in this case, pertaining to immunology) than I infer from your previous posts that you possess.

No, I don't read Bulgarian, but that is neither here nor there.

beckybecky

opopanax
Adding onto my previous post, it's interesting to note that the aforementioned Dutch study was published in the American Society for Microbiology's Journal of Virology, a leading journal in its field, and has since been cited by a number of other scholarly articles. It hasn't been "covered up." The authors don't seem to have been taken out by "Big Pharma" hitmen.

The study is in Dutch and very few people read Dutch so they it remained invisable.i mean do you read bulgarian?

ENGLISH is the universal language for science technology and others if you had made an effort you would have found it in English!!!

wmd_2008

beckybecky

opopanax
Adding onto my previous post, it's interesting to note that the aforementioned Dutch study was published in the American Society for Microbiology's Journal of Virology, a leading journal in its field, and has since been cited by a number of other scholarly articles. It hasn't been "covered up." The authors don't seem to have been taken out by "Big Pharma" hitmen.

The study is in Dutch and very few people read Dutch so they it remained invisable.i mean do you read bulgarian?

ENGLISH is the universal language for science technology and others if you had made an effort you would have found it in English!!!

Then why are papers published in Russian and and Japanese?

beckybecky
Then why are papers published in Russian and and Japanese?

Some are; most aren't.

English is generally considered to be the lingua franca of the scientific community. For example, roughly 80% of all the journals indexed in Scopus are published in English. The adoption of English as the universal language of science is due in part to historical political and economic factors which favored English over other potential candidate languages such as Chinese, French, German, Russian, or Spanish.

Source: Research Trends: The Language of (Future) Scientific Communication

It's amusing to note that the Netherlands (the source of the "new Dutch study" you previously referenced, which I see you're now avoiding commenting on) has an especially high ratio of English to local language journal articles.