Thinking of getting vaccinated?

**TheDemonLord** · 8th February 2017, 12:52

Originally Posted by Woodman

* I don't actually think you have the capacity to understand it even if you did read it.

Fixed for yah.

**Woodman** · 8th February 2017, 12:53

The actual studies conclusion.

Conclusion
The analyses carried out show that in all samples checked
vaccines contain non biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign
bodies which are not declared by the Producers, against which
the body reacts in any case. This new investigation represents a
new quality control that can be adopted to assess the safety of a
vaccine. Our hypothesis is that this contamination is unintentional,
since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of
industrial processes (e.g. filtrations) used to produce vaccines, not
investigated and not detected by the Producers. If our hypothesis
is actually the case, a close inspection of the working places and
the full knowledge of the whole procedure of vaccine preparation
would probably allow to eliminate the problem.

Katmans blogs conclusion of the study.
This research doesn’t just show that vaccines are full of crud that top scientists can’t even define. It makes a mockery of health oversight agencies like the FDA and CDC and their lies that vaccines undergo adequate safety checks and risk assessment.

It doesn’t merely reveal that the long-term consequences of vaccinating cannot even be assessed. If anti-cancer vaccines like Gardasil and Cevarix contain cancer-causing aggregates of toxic metals, their use as a weapon against a cancer a girl has zero chance of getting before age 21 is not just useless. It is egregious abuse.

Now, every vaccine’s claims to saving lives must be weighed against its risks of causing cancer, neurodevelopmental disease, autoimmune disease and every other immune-mediated “mystery” disorder now epidemic and soaring.

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spot the bias

**Katman** · 8th February 2017, 13:19

Originally Posted by Woodman

Katmans blogs conclusion of the study.

I'm not overly interested in what the blog says.

It's the study itself that I believe is interesting.

**TheDemonLord** · 8th February 2017, 13:27

Originally Posted by Katman

I'm not overly interested in what the blog says.

It's the study itself that I believe is interesting.

And yet, you linked the blog and not the study.....

**Katman** · 8th February 2017, 13:28

Originally Posted by TheDemonLord

And yet, you linked the blog and not the study.....

And yet, the blog gave a link to the study.

**TheDemonLord** · 8th February 2017, 13:37

Originally Posted by Katman

And yet, the blog gave a link to the study.

Which you could have easily posted - but you didn't.

That, Speaks volumes.

**Katman** · 8th February 2017, 13:41

Originally Posted by TheDemonLord

That, Speaks volumes.

I think you're letting your autism get the better of you again.

**TheDemonLord** · 8th February 2017, 13:50

Originally Posted by Katman

I think you're letting your autism get the better of you again.

Uh Huh.

You really need to get new material.

**Woodman** · 8th February 2017, 14:27

Originally Posted by Katman

I'm not overly interested in what the blog says.

It's the study itself that I believe is interesting.

You say that now.

**Ocean1** · 8th February 2017, 15:13

Originally Posted by Katman

And in case you're wondering, I was well aware of the 'appraisal' that berkboy posted as it was linked in the comments section of the article that I read on FB.

But before you go putting one person's opinion forward as irrefutable proof that a scientific study can be completely disregarded, you should probably look a little deeper into who's opinion it is that you're presenting.

Or is a blog written by 'Orac' good enough for you?

No, what's good enough for me is a quick perusal of the data in both.

The "study" was patently misleading wrt the quantities involved. Even having not read the appraisal its lack of detail in that regard made it reek of deliberate misdirection.

The appraisal simply supplied the missing data, thereby confirming that the "study" was a stinking pile of bullshit. Whether it stank as a result of it's original author's bias or subsequent editing is completely irrelevant, I don't need to know who's bullshit it is in order to identify it as such, that's your party trick.