Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Robert F Kennedy explains vaccines and the autism coverup

13»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    cahill31 wrote: »
    But it is what they say, its in plain English.
    It doesn't say mercury is good for you. It says they found an interesting correlation.
    cahill31 wrote: »
    Also, no I'm not going to comment on the science of the paper because I came across something more interesting.

    "[SIZE=-1]Dr. Thompson reports being a former employee of Merck; Dr. Marcy, receiving consulting fees from Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and MedImmune; Dr. Jackson, receiving grant support from Wyeth, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis, lecture fees from Sanofi Pasteur, and consulting fees from Wyeth and Abbott and serving as a consultant to the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Dr. Lieu, serving as a consultant to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; Dr. Black, receiving consulting fees from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Merck and grant support from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis, Merck, and Novartis; and Dr. Davis receiving consulting fees from Merck and grant support from Merck and GlaxoSmithKline.[/SIZE]"

    Vaccine manufacturers supported the study! ROFL. Conflicts of interest spring to mind?

    Wow that was sneaky of them, hiding that information in the paper.
    No one would think of looking there.

    Do you have anything other than your own bias that any data was falsified?
    Or you just dismissing it because you don't agree with its findings?
    Cause that wouldn't be a particular honest way to do that.

    And since that paper doesn't pass your standards.
    How about these?
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/3/577
    We could find no convincing evidence that early exposure to thimerosal had any deleterious effect on neurologic or psychological outcome when given according to an accelerated schedule. This is reassuring for developing countries that receive DTP vaccines according to the Expanded Program of Immunization schedule and where multidose vials that contain the thimerosal preservative are often the only option. In the face of the current evidence from this study and the growing literature, the dangers posed by contaminated multidose vaccine vials far outweigh any potential risk posed by thimerosal.

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/3/604
    The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an increase in the incidence of autism. Our ecological data do not support correlation between thimerosal-containing vaccines and the incidence of autism. Our data cannot, of course, exclude the possibility that thimerosal at doses larger than used in Denmark may lead to neurodevelopmental damage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31 Quacksalber


    I think there is enough opinion on here without me adding another one. Read it for yourself


Advertisement