Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Katman]

Why read the study?

I suppose that shouldn't come as any surprise.

You don't even bother to watch videos that you yourself post - thinking they support your argument.

Remember the 'Can We Trust Science' fiasco?

[Katman]

That quote is from Bill Gates, so why not go to him for context?

There's no shortage of references at the end of the study which give context.

[Katman]

Dig deeper Katman, the study may not be what it seems...

I would recommend you look deeper into the reasoning behind Henry Kissinger's plan to reduce population growth in lesser developed countries.

[husaberg]

Then perhaps you should read the actual study rather than relying on biased critiques of it.

The study states that while one of the six accredited laboratories had equipment that wasn't able to measure amounts down to international standards, it was still able to detect the presence of something that shouldn't have been there.

Now just for a laugh, why don't you separate out your opinion, from what it actually says "in the study".
I am sure a lot of people would find it interesting to see you do that.

Why would you be more interested in my opinion of the study than the study itself?

No generally your opinion is misplaced and ill informed
WHat i wanted to know is the statement you made

The study states that while one of the six accredited laboratories had equipment that wasn't able to measure amounts down to international standards, it was still able to detect the presence of something that shouldn't have been there

What parts of that statement you made is your opinion rather than being an actual part of the study.
So where does the study state they are able to detect the presence of something they are neither accredited to test for or even have the correct methodology and equipment and training to test for it then.
its a pretty simple question so its rather odd that you cant actually answer it really unless you a bit reticent to admit its pretty much all your ill considered and paranoid opinion

[Katman]

What parts of that statement you made is your opinion rather than being an actual part of the study.

It's not my opinion - it's written in the study.

You could always read it and find out for yourself.

[Graystone]

There's no shortage of references at the end of the study which give context.

No shit, is one of them (by some miraculous coincidence) referring to bill gates saying the thing that he said?

https://youtu.be/E7NdrkKD8Vk

[Katman]

No shit, is one of them (by some miraculous coincidence) referring to bill gates saying the thing that he said?

It even gives a link to the video of the presentation he was giving when he said it.

[TheDemonLord]

Then perhaps you should read the actual study rather than relying on biased critiques of it.

The study states that while one of the six accredited laboratories had equipment that wasn't able to measure amounts down to international standards, it was still able to detect the presence of something that shouldn't have been there.

I did - remember the bit where I pointed out that there was no chain of evidence by the papers own admission - which means any results 'gathered' are useless anyway (since there can be no proof against contamination or tampering)

But furthermore - why do we have Standards? They are there for a reason. And to use ANY result from equipment that is not rated for that particular aspect is to show how utterly disingenuous and laughable this "Research" is.

However, it does fall rather neatly into a trend of those 2 fuckwits fabricating evidence to back an agenda....

[Katman]

But furthermore - why do we have Standards? They are there for a reason. And to use ANY result from equipment that is not rated for that particular aspect is to show how utterly disingenuous and laughable this "Research" is.

Dude, it was one laboratory out of six - and it (along with the others) still found the presence of HCG.

[Katman]

But furthermore - why do we have Standards?

To give the Autistic something to obsess over?

[husaberg]

However, it does fall rather neatly into a trend of those 2 fuckwits fabricating evidence to back an agenda....

Hadn't we pointed that out last time Stevo posted this same crap.
Was this just a katman ploy of gish galloping away on another tangent to again avoid the questions of so where is this credible data showing a link between vaccination and autism that he claims actually exists in scientific papers.

I'd suggest the trouble is you can't suggest a paper that provides a credible link between the two.

They've been posted previously in this thread.
Fuck off and re-read them.

Yeah Stevo that's the issue here rather than you not being able to provide a credible link that backs up your assertions of a link between autism and vaccination.
So now you claim to understand the question just where are the crediable papers providing proof of a link?
.

The credible links have been scientific studies.
Fuck off and re-read them.

[Graystone]

It even gives a link to the video of the presentation he was giving when he said it.

Goodness me, if only there was some way in which such a thing could also be found by simply typing the thing he said into some sort of search bar...

...then getting the actual context for why he said it. And if only that context could have been brought up for discussion 15 posts ago in #4015, that would be thing now wouldn't it!

[TheDemonLord]

To give the Autistic something to obsess over?

Funnily enough, no...

But nice try....

[TheDemonLord]

Dude, it was one laboratory out of six - and it (along with the others) still found the presence of HCG.

From samples that could have been tampered with or contaminated because there was no chain of evidence?

But furthermore - lets assume for the minute that the researchers are genuine (and not desperately trying to reach a a priori conclusion) - They know the standards (after all, it should be part of their methodology) so why include a measurement from a Lab that cannot be used?

Any honest scientist would simply disregard that result.

Now, a Dishonest scientist who was trying to stack the deck with as much 'evidence' as they can fabricate to justify their forgone conclusion....

[Katman]

Goodness me, if only there was some way in which such a thing could also be found by simply typing the thing he said into some sort of search bar...

...then getting the actual context for why he said it. And if only that context could have been brought up for discussion 15 posts ago in #4015, that would be thing now wouldn't it!

How are you going with the Henry Kissinger research?