Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[husaberg]

Its not real hard looking intelligent when comparing yourself with yokel, but hey good on you.

I hear, Yokel and Katman often compare their hardness, and furballs.

[Katman]

I hear, Yokel and Katman often compare their hardness, and furballs.

Cool story bro.

[husaberg]

Cool story bro.

Yet entirely more believable than any of the 100 or so conspiracy theories you post per week.
There is a new vaccination against conspiracy theories. its called reality you should get yourself a large dose of it.

[FatMax]

Did you watch it? You don't think that's bad enough? Agenda much?

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk

Its right what so many people say about you

That is, you are a ______________________

Sent from my spunk encrusted duvet using Crap-I-Talk

[Katman]

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/dir...nd-debris-new-

[TheDemonLord]

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/dir...nd-debris-new-

And prey tell - what do you conclude from the Study?

[Katman]

And prey tell - what do you conclude from the Study?

That it's a study conducted by a couple of Italian scientists and published in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination.

[Drew]

I didn't read that anything on the list was actually at a toxic level.

But it is pretty average that they are inexplicably present at all.

Unsure how it pertains to the thread thus far.

[Woodman]

And prey tell - what do you conclude from the Study?

There is already a bias sensationalist conclusion at the end of the article.

[TheDemonLord]

That it's a study conducted by a couple of Italian scientists and published in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination.

So you read the first line then....

[Katman]

So you read the first line then....

How about you? What do you conclude from the study?

[Woodman]

How about you? What do you conclude from the study?

Maybe he will come to the same conclusion as the propaganda piece you are citing as cut and pasted below.

"The results of these investigations not only negate every assertion that vaccines are “safe and effective”, but they confirm that they are actually a clear and present danger"

Scaremongering at its finest.

[husaberg]

Some balance

Of course, many of the scary-sounding chemicals to which antivaccinationists point actually are in vaccines, but, as Paracelsus put it, the dose makes the poison, and the amount in vaccines is very much low enough not to pose a health threat. Also, formaldehyde is a product of normal metabolism present in the bloodstream of infants at a level much higher than what any vaccine contains

This is what MedCrave means by peer review. Look at its flowsheet, and you will see that it looks as though there is almost no way for your paper to be rejected, period. In fact, I laughed at the flowsheet, having never seen anything like it in any legitimate scientific journal. Not surprisingly, MedCrave is included on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers, basically a list of “pay to publish” open access journals who charge significant sums to authors to publish their work but whose editorial oversite and peer review are—shall we say?—lacking.

Right now, that misinformation takes the form of what looks on the surface like a real scientific paper. That’s what’s happening right now with a paper by Antonietta Gatti and Stefano Montanari in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination entitled New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination. It’s a paper I found through an article being circulated in antivaccine circles by the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI), n group an group made up mainly of antivaccine cranks, in an article entitled Dirty Vaccines: New Study Reveals Prevalence of Contaminants.

O.M.G.! 1,821 particles! Holy crap! That’s horrible! The antivaxers are right that vaccines are hopelessly contaminated!
No. They. Are. Not.
Look at it this way. This is what was found in 20 μl (that’s microliters) of liquid. That’s 0.00002 liters. That means, in a theoretical liter of the vaccine, the most that one would find is 91,050,000 (9.105 x 107) particles! Holy hell! That’s a lot. We should be scared, shouldn’t we? well, no. Let’s go back to our homeopathy knowledge and look at Avogadro’s number. One mole of particles = 6.023 x 1023. So divide 91,050,000 by Avogadro’s number, and you’ll get the molarity of a solution of 91,050,000 particle in a liter, as a 1 M solution would contain 6.023 x 1023 particles. So what’s the concentration:
1.512 x 10-16 M. that’s 0.15 femtomolar (fM) (or 150 altomolar), an incredibly low concentration. And that’s the highest amount the investigators found. In reality, what they actually found is that vaccines are incredibly pure!

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...contamination/

[TheDemonLord]

How about you? What do you conclude from the study?

I got several things.

In short - Using new and more sensitive equipment - particles that could not be detected using previous methods are able to be detected.

This suggests that in time this method should be implemented to improve the purity of vaccinations

Next - the level of contamination was absolutely minute - suggesting that Manufacturers have taken all reasonable care and precautions

Then the paper posits that the presence of these Nano-particles may have some health concerns, but no causal link is confirmed - thus more study is needed on that.

[Woodman]

And prey tell - what do you conclude from the Study?

That it's a study conducted by a couple of Italian scientists and published in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination.

Hang on let me get this straight here Katman.

Your conclusion of the study is that it is a study.