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

Anti-vaxxers

Options
1…104105107109110…199

Comments

  • Options
    #3182
    TheRepentent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,083 ✭✭✭TheRepentent


    mamablue wrote: »
    Guys I'm done wasting my time with a bunch of gamer kids who don't have an opinion of their own (only some other dude's with a blog) and can't seem to post anything relevant like a study. I'm unsubscribing from this thread. I wish I could say it has been illuminating.
    :rolleyes:



    do us all a favour and go back into hibernation for another few years.


  • Options
    #3183
    Quandary
    Registered Users Posts: 5,293 ✭✭✭Quandary


    It doesn't matter what evidence you put in front of somebody who is as dug in as the hard core antivaxxer. Someone in my family is as hard core an antivaxxer as you wil find and nothing, no matter how massive or conclusive the study, no matter the calibre and reputation of the organisation conducting the study, will cause them to budge an inch.

    She also believes chemtrails are real, that evolution is an elaborate hoax perpetuated by the anti religion crowd and that the government are putting excessive amounts of fluoride in the water to deliberately poison us for some nefarious reason.

    I have wasted hours of my life "debating" with her and now I just ignore the lunacy and thank my lucky stars that most people are relatively sane.


  • Options
    #3184
    manufan16
    Registered Users Posts: 250 ✭✭manufan16


    mamablue wrote: »
    Oh another dude with a blog! How inventive!

    In the 5 minutes it took you to reply quoting my post , you obviously did not read any of the 75 points made that links multiple official studies:rolleyes:

    It's wasted on you. Maybe somebody else will find value in it.


  • Options
    #3185
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/surge-of-20pc-in-narcolepsy-cases-is-linked-to-swine-flu-jab-as-families-seek-damages-37825480.html


  • Options
    #3186
    bt25
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭bt25


    mzungu wrote: »
    The context was a link dump! It certainly appears that they were used as a means to bolster what Exley said, especially since his reputation has taken a hit of late. Ergo, the poster made an argument from authority. However, I realise this is a case of your interpretation vs mine and that won't really go anywhere, other than drag the thread off topic. So, I'll leave it there.

    I had a quick reread but again, the link dump (we may be discussing different posts as it seems to be a list of papers rather than links) isn't being used to say he is right or wrong which is the definition of the term, hence my initial response but yes, off topic.
    mzungu wrote: »
    I don't doubt consensus changes. Currently, it is as good as guide as any in making a decision. I also never said I made it a sole basis, but it makes for a pretty handy roadmap. I offered up a few examples of where Exley's methodology wasn't quite cutting the mustard. That wasn't an argument from authority on my part, just a rundown on what parts of his paper have raised questions. If the poster wished to challenge the consensus (always a good thing IMO, I am more than aware that it's not infallible) then at least the paper should pass the first few hurdles, and of course avoid backing it up with a link to TruthWiki.

    Yes, it changes and will continue to change. That is the point at the end of the day. The danger, however, is that repeatedly in this thread the "scientific consensus" is the only response that seems to be given by individuals as a response which is worrying. A consensus doesn't prove or disprove anything and seems to be the go-to argument generally online these days. At that point, critical thinking seems to be taking a back seat to actual debate which progresses understanding. Off topic to a point but unfortunately not as much as I wish it was when reading through this thread :(

    also, I did agree that the TruthWiki link wasn't great but to suggest that was the only item linked to go with their argument would be disingenuous. The majority of it was papers which were then dismissed for what seemed to be a double standard of ... well... standards. It's just concerning from a base level of discussion as it reminds me of a religious argument which is always fun/frustrating to read :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3187
    bt25
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭bt25


    Igotadose wrote: »
    O.K. here's an opinion: You're an anti-vaxx crank regurgitating nonsense you get on mammy blogs run by the U of Google types like yourself. Your beknighted offspring has some kind of genetic defect that impacts on it's ability to be vaccinated, so you're striving desperately to find reasons not to vaccinate. You've found the usual anti-vax suspects out there (Exley et al) and without anything vaguely resembling critical thinking, dump links to their papers and then object when their refutations are provided to you.

    And, you've yet to answer the question: Do you believe vaccines cause autism?

    But, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Off to "Age of Autism" with you.

    I am actually confused as to where this "opinion" comes from as though you could draw parallels to the views of the "mammy blogs" the poster doesn't seem to have said the majority of what you have said. At that point, you may have used the word "opinion" as a way to protect what was used as a common way to dismiss the poster rather than the content of the posts (common in religious or other charged topics) Honestly, when reading it just came across that the poster made you cranky and you lashed out with a few generic views of a straw-person (yes, I am "woke" to the straw community) instead of giving reasoned arguments. When you attack an idea you bring facts, when you attack an individual you just bring baggage. From the outside looking it is probably more obvious than from your position but worth you considering it for your own personal growth.

    I'm not saying that the poster is right or wrong, just that I think those of you who are insulting them as your response (you know who you are) are letting down the scientific endeavour you claim to champion. I suppose this is what internet forums end up being, I just pine for reasoned discourse and it seems to have been lacking here.

    Anyway, life beckons me on so I'll leave you to your .... this. toodles!


  • Options
    #3188
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    bt25 wrote: »


    Yes, it changes and will continue to change. That is the point at the end of the day. The danger, however, is that repeatedly in this thread the "scientific consensus" is the only response that seems to be given by individuals as a response which is worrying. A consensus doesn't prove or disprove anything and seems to be the go-to argument generally online these days. At that point, critical thinking seems to be taking a back seat to actual debate which progresses understanding. Off topic to a point but unfortunately not as much as I wish it was when reading through this thread :(

    What does prove it?

    What do you suggest?


  • Options
    #3189
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,459 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Amantine wrote: »
    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/surge-of-20pc-in-narcolepsy-cases-is-linked-to-swine-flu-jab-as-families-seek-damages-37825480.html

    What is so difficult about having to make your own argument? Why resort so keenly to dumping links. You've put zero effort in here and are surprised when people call you on this.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #3190
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    Surge of 20pc in narcolepsy cases is linked to swine flu jab as families seek damages

    The number of people presenting with symptoms of narcolepsy from the swine flu vaccine Pandemrix has soared by more than 20pc in the wake of an Irish Independent exposé.

    Support group Sound said they were dealing with around 100 families whose children had taken Pandemrix but more than 20 new families have contacted them in the past six months.

    Source:
    Amantine wrote: »
    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/surge-of-20pc-in-narcolepsy-cases-is-linked-to-swine-flu-jab-as-families-seek-damages-37825480.html


  • Options
    #3191
    Erik Shun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 534 ✭✭✭Erik Shun


    Isn't it wonderful to see all these people with only 20 or so posts in years old accounts becoming interested in antivax threads, it's a real shot in the arm


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3192
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,459 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Erik Shun wrote: »
    Isn't it wonderful to see all these people with only 20 or so posts in years old accounts becoming interested in antivax threads, it's a real shot in the arm

    Not to mention the link and text dumps.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #3193
    waxmoth
    Registered Users Posts: 70 ✭✭waxmoth


    Igotadose wrote: »
    Easy to find them debunked, though. Just takes a bit o' googling. Lyons-Weiler is an anti-vax crank, a new one to the mix, but a crank nevertheless

    https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/anti-vaccine-pseudoscientist-james-lyons-weiler-aluminum/#A_paper_by_James_Lyons-Weiler

    But, keep 'em coming. It's pretty easy to show these papers are junk. You can look at skepticalraptor.com yourself if you want to see analysis of these papers before dumping links everywhere. You won't find every one of them - no one can keep up with all the drivel coming out - but you'll find a lot of them and a lot about their authors.
    I think reliance on an anonymous blog as interpretation of peer reviewed research is questionable. In this case he completely ignores bioavailability, clearance rates and the reduced ability of infant renal function so his analysis is meaningless.

    From the blog -
    So, a baby would receive about 4.2 mg of aluminum from vaccines while receiving 10 mg from breast milk, 40 mg from infant formula, or 120 mg from a soy-based formula. Now, I know some will claim that vaccines deliver aluminum in a way that eating or inhaling it don’t. These type of magical beliefs just don’t stand up to real science. All aluminum is the same, whether from vaccines or pure breast milk from an organically fed mom. I tires of these arguments from science deniers that try to claim that one molecule has some ridiculous difference than another. Once the aluminum gets into the bloodstream, the powerful human physiology deals with it efficiently. About 90% is bound to a protein called transferrin while the other 10% binds to citrate. Once the aluminum is bound, the majority is eliminated through the kidneys, while a small amount is eliminated through bile, and a very small amount is retained by the body, though eventually eliminated.
    Bioavailability from food is estimated at 0.1 – 0.3%, from intramuscular vaccines bioavailability is 100%.
    Transferrin actually allows aluminium to cross the blood brain barrier, retention half lives have been measured in years and body burden increases gradually so this statement is also incorrect.

    From a published review on aluminium toxicokinetics -
    Plasma Al half-lives (t1/2s) were summarized by Wilhelm et al.(1990). Elimination t1/2s of years were seen after termination of occupational Al exposure, based on urinary Al excretion (Ljunggren et al.1991). An estimated terminal t1/2 in one human being who received intravenous
    26 Al was 7 years (Priest et al.1995). This kinetic behaviour might result from retention of Al in a depot from which it is slowly eliminated. This depot is probably bone which stores ∂ 50% of the human Al body burden. Slow Al elimination coupled with continued exposure would be predicted to produce an increasing body burden with age. Brain, serum and bone Al have been reported to increase with age (Markesbery et al.1984; Zapatero et al. 1995; Greger & Sutherland 1997).There is more than one compartment of Al storage. The t1/2 of 26 Al in rat brain was 100 days following intravenous 26 Al transferrin dosing (Yokel et al. 2000). This is consistent with reports suggesting little decrease of brain Al in humans after renal transplantation and termination of the Al that had been given during renal failure. As noted above, injection of 26 Al increased bone 26 Al ∂ 100 times more than brain, yet steady-state bone Al concentration is, 100 times that of brain. This suggests Al clearance from bone is more rapid than from brain, which is reasonable considering bone turnover and lack of neurone turnover. The elimination t1/2 of Al from human brain is predicted to be very long. This is concluded from the t1/2 of Al in the tibia of rats, 38–173 days (Greger & Sutherland 1997), compared to 100 days in brain, above, and a human 26 Al t1/2 of 7 years, above, which is believed to be due to redistribution of Al out of bone.
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1600-0773.2001.880401.x


  • Options
    #3194
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,459 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    waxmoth wrote: »
    I think reliance on an anonymous blog as interpretation of peer reviewed research is questionable. In this case he completely ignores bioavailability, clearance rates and the reduced ability of infant renal function so his analysis is meaningless.

    People are citing Skeptical Raptor as he's spent a lot of time investigating anti-vaxxer cranks like Wakefield and Zimmerman. I don't see how that conclusion is meaningless as such things are incorporated into study design.
    waxmoth wrote: »
    From the blog - Bioavailability from food is estimated at 0.1 – 0.3%, from intramuscular vaccines bioavailability is 100%.
    Transferrin actually allows aluminium to cross the blood brain barrier, retention half lives have been measured in years and body burden increases gradually so this statement is also incorrect.

    From a published review on aluminium toxicokinetics -
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1600-0773.2001.880401.x

    Aluminium has nothing to do with this thread. Aluminium and Aluminium-based compounds are very different things.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #3195
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,035 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    waxmoth wrote: »
    I think reliance on an anonymous blog as interpretation of peer reviewed research is questionable. In this case he completely ignores bioavailability, clearance rates and the reduced ability of infant renal function so his analysis is meaningless.
    Anonymity is important when debating anti-vaxxers. They're violent.
    When retractions of bad papers are done, Skepticalraptor links to those as well. He's a medical-industry professional with years of experience

    "
    The old dinosaur has an undergraduate degree in Biology from a top US research university and a graduate degree in Biochemistry/Endocrinology from a major US research university. This was during the early Cretaceous, of course."


    Ancaipailldorcha's shredded your misunderstanding of aluminium the common element and it's use in compounds vaccines. Skeptical Raptor talks about this as well, try harder next time.


  • Options
    #3196
    VicMackey1
    Registered Users Posts: 253 ✭✭VicMackey1


    Erik Shun wrote: »
    Isn't it wonderful to see all these people with only 20 or so posts in years old accounts becoming interested in antivax threads, it's a real shot in the arm

    When one poster bows out, another is ready to take up the battle! The anti-vax tag team!


  • Options
    #3197
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    banie01 wrote: »
    So as the CDC receives some funding from industry it's findings are somehow tainted?

    Naive much? Just looky here - the new Trump-appointed head of the CDC is accused of research misconduct - shades of Wakefield?

    https://www.vox.com/2018/3/22/17150322/robert-redfield-cdc-director-trump

    You see, in the alternate universe of "HappyLand", big Corporates *never* *ever* influence government health agencies via grants, bursaries and directorships.

    Meanwhile, back in our universe...

    The following paper gives a good overall picture of how this process works, even citing BMJ research sponsored by the tobacco industry as late as 2003:

    https://thorax.bmj.com/content/68/12/1090

    Other examples include the general corporate groupthink around the removal of lead from petrol and paints and the CFCs from aerosol products.


  • Options
    #3198
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    Naive much? Just looky here - the new Trump-appointed head of the CDC is accused of research misconduct - shades of Wakefield?

    https://www.vox.com/2018/3/22/17150322/robert-redfield-cdc-director-trump

    You see, in the alternate universe of "HappyLand", big Corporates *never* *ever* influence government health agencies via grants, bursaries and directorships.

    Meanwhile, back in our universe...

    The following paper gives a good overall picture of how this process works, even citing BMJ research sponsored by the tobacco industry as late as 2003:

    https://thorax.bmj.com/content/68/12/1090

    Other examples include the general corporate groupthink around the removal of lead from petrol and paints and the CFCs from aerosol products.

    From the CDC link I provided can you show us which reports/studies represent faulty science and which information is incorrect? (I am genuinely open to this and would like to know)

    https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html


  • Options
    #3199
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    From the CDC link I provided can you ...
    Before you go down that rabbit hole, I'm trying to demonstrate why it's a false narrative to always assume that organisations like the CDC are whiter-than-white.

    I'm pro-vaccination by the way.


  • Options
    #3200
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,459 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    Before you go down that rabbit hole, I'm trying to demonstrate why it's a false narrative to always assume that organisations like the CDC are whiter-than-white.

    I'm pro-vaccination by the way.

    Nobody thinks any organisation is perfect. The problem is that an anti-vaxxer will just throw up a link saying that they took funding from a company or billionaire and imply that this invalidates all of their research. Wakefield, however owns a mansion in Texas and nobody bats an eyelid.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #3201
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,517 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    Naive much? Just looky here - the new Trump-appointed head of the CDC is accused of research misconduct - shades of Wakefield?
    DublinWriter wrote: »
    Before you go down that rabbit hole, I'm trying to demonstrate why it's a false narrative to always assume that organisations like the CDC are whiter-than-white.

    I'm pro-vaccination by the way.

    Where in my post did I do that?
    I asked why "big pharma" money automatically taints a study undertaken by the CDC?

    I then asked how to tell the difference between a study funded by CDC and one undertaken by a little guy.

    The source of funding and it's intent should always be a concern.
    One should not be able to buy good science.
    I'm quite happy to review any and all reports I can lay my hands on and sometimes!
    Shocking as it may seem, the minority report from peer review can be a position I agree with.

    However with regards to studies supported by the CDC and even our own EMA, I would have much more faith in the applied scientific rigour and ethical approach undertaken and it's approaching any study from a neutral bias and basis.
    Than I do with a study sponsored, supported or directed by an avowed "Anti" anything.
    Be they Vaxxer, Truther or astrological mathematician!
    A study undertaken from such a position, with the often specific aim of proving a negative is poor science!

    One does not approach a study or experiment with a set notion or conclusion.
    The lack of credible adherence to the scientific method displayed by many in the Anti-Vax camp along with their near constant belief that correlation and causation are the same thing makes reading the vast majority of Anti-Vax "science" quite frustrating.

    I've posted before about this, but couple that with misrepresentation and misunderstanding of scientific data and reports along with outright lies and appeals to emotion rather than empirical fact.
    Dealing with AntiVaxxers does become very frustrating.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3202
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    banie01 wrote: »

    The source of funding and it's intent should always be a concern.
    One should not be able to buy good science.
    I'm quite happy to review any and all reports I can lay my hands on and sometimes!



    A study undertaken from such a position, with the often specific aim of proving a negative is poor science!

    One does not approach a study or experiment with a set notion or conclusion.

    I've posted before about this, but couple that with misrepresentation and misunderstanding of scientific data and reports along with outright lies and appeals to emotion rather than empirical fact.

    I completely agree! I am happy that we can find a common ground and appreciate an actual discourse. Thank you.
    I guess the next step is to figure out who has what to gain by skewing the studies.

    What do the pro-vaxxers have to gain?
    What do the anti-vaxxers have to gain?

    It's the answers to those questions that will tell us which way the science could be biased .

    By the way I don't like the term anti-vaxxers. Me personally, I am not against all vaccines and do use them in certain circumstances.


  • Options
    #3203
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Amantine wrote: »
    Me personally, I am not against all vaccines and do use them in certain circumstances.

    Which circumstances?

    Also vaccines are you against? (and why?)

    thanks


  • Options
    #3204
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,517 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Amantine wrote: »
    I guess the next step is to figure out who has what to gain by skewing the studies.

    What studies have been skewed?
    Being aware of potential bias and mitigating it would by it's very nature eliminate inherent bias.
    That is why ethical and scientifically responsible studies are subject to robust review and control.

    Please, provide examples of these skewed studies.


  • Options
    #3205
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,517 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Which circumstances?

    Also vaccines are you against? (and why?)

    thanks

    Ah now Dohnjoe, surely ya know this is a stalking horse ;)


  • Options
    #3206
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Aluminium has nothing to do with this thread. Aluminium and Aluminium-based compounds are very different things.
    It's a wee bit like comparing Fluorine and Fluorine compounds.

    Aluminium is the stuff in cooking foil.
    Aluminium Oxide is a compound, very inert.
    Impure crystals of it are used as Rubies, Sapphires and Emeralds.

    Calcium Fluoride is very inert.

    Fluoride Oxide not so much :eek:
    Adding it to the aluminium compound TriMethylAluminium would be interesting.


  • Options
    #3207
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,459 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Amantine wrote: »
    I completely agree! I am happy that we can find a common ground and appreciate an actual discourse. Thank you.
    I guess the next step is to figure out who has what to gain by skewing the studies.

    What do the pro-vaxxers have to gain?
    What do the anti-vaxxers have to gain?

    It's the answers to those questions that will tell us which way the science could be biased .

    By the way I don't like the term anti-vaxxers. Me personally, I am not against all vaccines and do use them in certain circumstances.

    I've seen this a fair few times now. It's usually some pretense at moderation but assuming it isn't I'd be quite interested to know who is skewing what studies. In your own words of course.

    As to what I have to gain, nothing personally. I don't want to see people getting needlessly ill, suffering and dying simply because a few middle class idiots want to feel special and a few upper class ones fancy some easy money.

    Vaccines are one of the greatest innovations this species has ever produced. The more you learn about them the more amazing they seem. And we're about to lose the colossal benefits to satisfy people contribute less than nothing to society.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #3208
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Amantine wrote: »
    I completely agree! I am happy that we can find a common ground and appreciate an actual discourse. Thank you.
    I guess the next step is to figure out who has what to gain by skewing the studies.

    What do the pro-vaxxers have to gain?
    What do the anti-vaxxers have to gain?

    It's the answers to those questions that will tell us which way the science could be biased .

    By the way I don't like the term anti-vaxxers. Me personally, I am not against all vaccines and do use them in certain circumstances.

    The first thing is to look at the methodologies, data and then the conclusions made by the authors of the paper If they are appropriate then it doesn't matter who funded it.

    Exely's data was suspect and his conclusions not appropriate. That's why his funding by an anti-vax group is being highlighted.


  • Options
    #3209
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Half a million UK children didn't get the measles jab, and globally 169 million children not vaccinated between 2010 and 2017.. shocking stuff

    https://www.bbc.com/news/health-48039524

    When certain posters think the attitude toward anti-vaxxers is harsh here, this is why. Unvaccinated children are dying and causing other children to contract measles, putting other lives at risk, in many cases due to sheer ignorance


  • Options
    #3210
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    Pharmaceutical Giant GlaxoSmithKline “Accidentally” Released 45 Liters of Concentrated Live Polio Virus in the Environment

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/pharmaceutical-giant-glaxosmithkline-accidentally-released-45-liters-of-concentrated-live-polio-virus-in-the-environment/5405801

    GlaxoSmithKline fined over trials on the babies of Argentinian poor

    "GLAXOSMITHKLINE, Britain's biggest drug firm, has been fined by an Argentine court over clinical trials of a pneumonia vaccine which was tested on thousands of babies from poor families."

    The firm failed to get proper consent from the children’s parents before injecting Synflorix, one of its bestselling vaccines"

    https://www.independent.ie/business/world/glaxosmithkline-fined-over-trials-on-the-babies-of-argentinian-poor-26810081.html

    GlaxoSmithKline fined $490m by China for bribery


    "The record penalty follows allegations the drug giant paid out bribes to doctors and hospitals in order to have their products promoted."

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-29274822

    Exclusive: GSK faces new corruption allegations, this time in Romania

    The company is already probing alleged bribery in Poland, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq.

    "The latest allegations say GSK paid Romanian doctors hundreds, and in one cases thousands, of euros between 2009 and 2012 for prescribing its medicines"


    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gsk-romania-corruption-exclusive-idUSKCN0Q32A920150729

    GlaxoSmithKline faces bribery claims in Syria

    "It also accuses the company of bribing officials at Syria's Ministry of Health to obtain vaccines for illegal resale."

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-28748558

    But of course that would never happen in Ireland! ...except when it does and all the document disappear...

    "The order that ran the Bessborough mother and baby home has claimed it was instructed in 2013 to destroy “all documents” it held in relation to vaccine trials carried out on children."


    https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/bessborough-order-claims-it-was-told-destroy-vaccine-files-in-2013-370082.html

    Now take a wild guess as to which company we're talking about here...

    Special investigation - Vaccine trials on children worse than first thought

    "Indeed, recent revelations have shown that, far from carrying out just four vaccine trials on children in care here, Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) sponsored trials in Ireland now span almost half a century — involving dozens of institutions and thousands of children."

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/special-investigation--vaccine-trials-on-children-worse-than-first-thought-300247.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3211
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,459 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    If you care so little that you can't even be bothered to type an original argument then there's no point reading any of that crap.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement