Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Katman]

So why continue to pretend the data represents any sort of "issue" at all? Why pretend that it's anything other than a transparent piece of misdirection from a bunch of religious, anti-science fuckwits?

Do you have anything to provide as support for your claim that Dr. Antonietta Gatti and Stefano Montanari are 'religious, anti-science fuckwits'?

[Katman]

But you know all that, because you read the appraisal husaberg posted, dincha? The one you'd have found yourself with half a minute's check of your original piece of bullshit.

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?

[TheDemonLord]

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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski

[Katman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski

I'm well aware of who 'Orac' is.

You should look a little deeper into who David Gorski is.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm well aware of who 'Orac' is.

You should look a little deeper into who David Gorski is.

And so (according to you) - Who is David Gorski?

[Katman]

And so (according to you) - Who is David Gorski?

You could always look a little deeper than Wikipedia.

[TheDemonLord]

You could always look a little deeper than Wikipedia.

That wasn't the question - the question was who is he according to you?

[Katman]

That wasn't the question - the question was who is he according to you?

A pharmaceutical industry shill.

[TheDemonLord]

A pharmaceutical industry shill.

Except - you know - when he advocates for more openness when it comes to Clinical Trials...

[Woodman]

Do you have anything to provide as support for your claim that Dr. Antonietta Gatti and Stefano Montanari are 'religious, anti-science fuckwits'?

Was their conclusion about vaccinations the same as the author of the blog you posted?
Have you read the study in its entirety or just the blog?

[Katman]

Was their conclusion about vaccinations the same as the author of the blog you posted?
Have you read the study in its entirety or just the blog?

Yes, I read the study.

Did you?

[Woodman]

Because the "study" showed aluminium compounds as one of the "contaminants".

And it's only an "issue" if you're fuckwit enough to fail to understand that absolutely nothing is 100% "pure". In this case the "study" found that the vaccine with the highest level of "contaminants" was short by 0.0000000000000000000719%. Which is fucking amazingly pure.

But you know all that, because you read the appraisal husaberg posted, dincha? The one you'd have found yourself with half a minute's check of your original piece of bullshit. So why continue to pretend the data represents any sort of "issue" at all? Why pretend that it's anything other than a transparent piece of misdirection from a bunch of religious, anti-science fuckwits?

They can't get that diseases like autism are a thing, so they conclude with blinkers firmly attached that it must be from vaccinations.

[Woodman]

Yes, I read the study.

Did you?

What did the study conclude about vaccinations?

No I didn't read the study, but that's not relevant to my question, so please stop diverting.

[Katman]

No I didn't read the study, but that's not relevant to my question, so please stop diverting.

Go read it then and make up your own mind.

[Woodman]

Go read it then and make up your own mind.

You started this so why don't you just simply tell me as you obviously read the study*

* I don't actually think you did read it.