Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[flyingcrocodile46]

The actual Scientific method is ruthless peer review and testing hypothesis. If a paper can't pass the first hurtle, it is discarded as replaced by stronger documents until always edging closer to the truth.

Defending your choice to support a vaccine that was exempted from the very processes that you now demand must be satisfied in order to question your choice, has got to be the ultimate in irony, not to mention stupidity and lack of integrity. Well done yuo

[husaberg]

Defending your choice to support a vaccine that was exempted from the very processes that you now demand must be satisfied in order to question your choice, has got to be the ultimate in irony, not to mention stupidity and lack of integrity. Well done yuo

your posts are like shooting phish in a barrell.

The meme includes this heading: “Things NOT being offered to take the Covid jab.” Then it lists: “Peer reviewed clinical studies proving its safety and efficacy” and “Liability when something goes wrong.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/sc...emes-claim/The New England Journal of Medicine — a peer-reviewed publication — has published studies finding that the vaccines from Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech and Johnson & Johnson are effective and safe. The NEJM is the oldest continuously published general medical journal in the world and is among the most frequently cited journals.
(See SciCheck’s articles on each of the vaccines: “A Guide to Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine,” “A Guide to Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 Vaccine” and “A Guide to Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 Vaccine.”)


Note the requirements a of conflict of interest, financial interest declaration and manipulation of figures.
Those familiar with why Andrew Wakefeild was struck off his papers retracted his research debunked are well aware of Andrew wakefeilds clear motivation.
Not that an antivaxer will ever admit it.

Almost immediately afterward, epidemiological studies were conducted and published, refuting the posited link between MMR vaccination and autism.The logic that the MMR vaccine may trigger autism was also questioned because a temporal link between the two is almost predestined: both events, by design (MMR vaccine) or definition (autism), occur in early childhood.

The next episode in the saga was a short retraction of the interpretation of the original data by 10 of the 12 co-authors of the paper. According to the retraction, “no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient”.This was accompanied by an admission by the Lancet that Wakefield et al. had failed to disclose financial interests (e.g., Wakefield had been funded by lawyers who had been engaged by parents in lawsuits against vaccine-producing companies). However, the Lancet exonerated Wakefield and his colleagues from charges of ethical violations and scientific misconduct.
The Lancet completely retracted the Wakefield et al. paper in February 2010, admitting that several elements in the paper were incorrect, contrary to the findings of the earlier investigation.Wakefield et al.were held guilty of ethical violations (they had conducted invasive investigations on the children without obtaining the necessary ethical clearances) and scientific misrepresentation (they reported that their sampling was consecutive when, in fact, it was selective). This retraction was published as a small, anonymous paragraph in the journal, on behalf of the editors.


The final episode in the saga is the revelation that Wakefield et al. were guilty of deliberate fraud (they picked and chose data that suited their case; they falsified facts). The British Medical Journal has published a series of articles on the exposure of the fraud, which appears to have taken place for financial gain. It is a matter of concern that the exposé was a result of journalistic investigation, rather than academic vigilance followed by the institution of corrective measures. Readers may be interested to learn that the journalist on the Wakefield case, Brian Deer, had earlier reported on the false implication of thiomersal (in vaccines) in the etiology of autism. However, Deer had not played an investigative role in that report

but no antivaxer will ever admit "antivaxer Jesus" ever did anything wrong.

Really?


You're criticising Andrew Wakefield because he wanted to develop a 'safer' vaccine?

They predict that if the current rate of increase continues, by 2030 we'll be at 1 in 2 diagnosed with autism.

Really?


You're criticising Andrew Wakefield because he wanted to develop a 'safer' vaccine?

Well a few points spring to mind.


Andrew Wakefield isn't anti-vaccine. He has concerns over the safety of one particular vaccine.


There might be a whole lot more to Brian Deer's 'investigation' than we're aware of. http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/k...the-fraud.html


John Walker-Smith (a co-author of Andrew Wakefield's paper) won his High Court appeal to be reinstated after the GMC struck him off.


Andrew Wakefield's paper is by no means the only controversy surrounding the MMR vaccine.

Nah, that's just Brian Deer's hatchet job.

[flyingcrocodile46]

your posts are like shooting phish in a barrell.

Citing reviews that were carried out years after the vaccine rollouts is hardly "shooting" More like 'Oozing' and has zero bearing on the point made. But don't let that take away from the comforting reassurance of your patting yourself on the back as the seepage occurred.

[husaberg]

Citing reviews that were carried out years after the vaccine rollouts is hardly "shooting" More like 'Oozing' and has zero bearing on the point made. But don't let that take away from the comforting reassurance of your patting yourself on the back as the seepage occurred.

So are you now suggesting the the vaccines were not peer reviewed?. You used the words exempted as that was the point you attempted to make .but as you have now admitted you know they clearly were indeed peer reviewed You instead try to gish gallop towards another shift of the goal posts , notice how this peer review stuff differs from the total crap you like to repost over and over again. That clearly isn't....
Tell us about Andrew wakefeild go on ,or are you too gutless same as taupo public toilet Karen to admit he was proven to be a fraud.

[pritch]

RFK Jr has been appearing before a Congressional committee. AOC asked him if he was aware that United Healthcare, the biggest health insurer in the US and the one that lost a CEO a while back, was under investigation by the FBI for massive insurance fraud. RFK Jr was not aware. He is head of the relevant government department. He is supposed to be know what is happening in his department.

[Katman]

RFK Jr has been appearing before a Congressional committee. AOC asked him if he was aware that United Healthcare, the biggest health insurer in the US and the one that lost a CEO a while back, was under investigation by the FBI for massive insurance fraud. RFK Jr was not aware. He is head of the relevant government department. He is supposed to be know what is happening in his department.

I've just watched the same interaction that you presumably watched.

Did you notice how she gave him no adequate opportunity to respond?

[husaberg]

I've just watched the same interaction that you presumably watched.

Did you notice how she gave him no adequate opportunity to respond?

Time for him to google the answer or ask someone who isn't suffering from extreme brain fog brought about by parasitic brain worms and decades of heroin drug use and extreme gulibilty to conspiacy theories?

[pritch]

I've just watched the same interaction that you presumably watched.

Did you notice how she gave him no adequate opportunity to respond?

That's not the one I saw. In that he responded in the negative. He said he did not know.

[Katman]

That's not the one I saw.

You saw the same one I saw.

He said he didn't know but he wasn't surprised.

[sugilite:Me]

I was not surprised he didn't know.

[Katman]

I was not surprised he didn't know.

It was announced in the last 24 hours.

Congressional hearings tend to be little more than political point scoring exercises.

Much like yours and pritch's contributions here.

[husaberg]

That's not the one I saw. In that he responded in the negative. He said he did not know.

I've just watched the same interaction that you presumably watched.

Did you notice how she gave him no adequate opportunity to respond?

He clearly said he wasn't aware, he had all the time in the world.
its an investigation into a healthcare provider ie part of his portfolio.

The United States secretary of health and human services is the head of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and serves as the principal advisor to the president of the United States on all health matters. The secretary is a member of the United States Cabinet.

He didn't even know if it was billion or million. What a crock of shit you talk.
You just defend your religious idol antivax Jesus at all costs.