Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Katman]

Source?...

Check out some of Dr Judy Mikovits's work.

[Ocean1]

Hardly relevant if it's not a primary activity to make profit.

Lol, so Cancer Society NZ isn't a not for profit and a research company then?

No, it's succinctly relevant in describing a commercial entity though. Which is what I was doing.

And I didn't suggest Cancer NZ wasn't either a npo or a research company.

You really are having trouble with comprehension aincha?

[husaberg]

Ok, I'll spell out why it's a fucking retarded analogy.

The consequences of me missing a microscopic speck of oxidation on a steering head bearing amounts to zero.

Failure to detect a retro-virus in a vaccine could have consequences that affect millions.

Note They sceen for vaccine contaimanation.
Science rationally looks at the results of experiments and then makes logical conclusions based on the repeatable results without bias.
You on the other hand first select what you think the outcome should be, based predominantly on paranoia. Then you selectively interpret information. You do so by only acknowledging information that suits your desired outcome, while ignoring any and all facts that don’t suit your desired outcome.

Check out some of Dr Judy Mikovits's work.

lolololololol
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/...ted-and-jailed
WOW A NEW CONSPIRACY
http://retractionwatch.com/2016/02/1...ue-researcher/

[bogan]

Check out some of Dr Judy Mikovits's work.

The scientist who validated the process of contamination screening in vaccine batches by identifying contaminated vaccine? Just how is that relevant to the time-limited nature of pre-production vaccine trials?

[Katman]

lolololololol
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/...ted-and-jailed
WOW A NEW CONSPIRACY
http://retractionwatch.com/2016/02/1...ue-researcher/

How incredibly typical that instead of focusing on the findings of someone who spent 30 years with the Cancer Research Institude that you instead focus on a court case over the fact that she refused to hand over her research notes that expose the reason she was fired.

[husaberg]

How incredibly typical that instead of focusing on the findings of someone who spent 30 years with the Cancer Research Institude that you instead focus on a court case over the fact that she refused to hand over her research notes that expose the reason she was fired.

Really not only was she was laughed out of court
Read the second link.............
I read the findings, you clearly did not.

How about this one sounds similar to Andrew Wakefraud

After Mikovits and her research team's Science study appeared in October 2009, many other groups around the world reported that they could not find the mouse retrovirus, dubbed XMRV, in people who had CFS. Mikovits and colleagues subsequently participated in a multilab study that resulted in a September Science Express paper describing how none of the teams could reliably find XMRV in blinded samples from CFS patients. One lab Mikovits collaborated with in the 2009 Science report simultaneously retracted its contribution after discovering that a contaminant explained its XMRV findings.

[bogan]

How incredibly typical that instead of focusing on the findings of someone who spent 30 years with the Cancer Research Institude that you instead focus on a court case over the fact that she refused to hand over her research notes that expose the reason she was fired.

How incredibly typical you focus on the unprovable conspiracy aspect, instead of the rationally discussable science...

And how does that even work though? she had research notes exposing the reason she was fired, but instead of handing them over to show the corruption and exonerate herself, she chose to keep them and go to jail? To what end?

Sounds a lot more like the notes didn't show that at all, and she was going to jail anyway...

[Katman]

How incredibly typical you focus on the unprovable conspiracy aspect, instead of the rationally discussable science...

And how does that even work though? she had research notes exposing the reason she was fired, but instead of handing them over to show the corruption and exonerate herself, she chose to keep them and go to jail? To what end?

Sounds a lot more like the notes didn't show that at all, and she was going to jail anyway...

Did you study at the same School of Investigation as berkboy?

[bogan]

Did you study at the same School of Investigation as berkboy?

Did you? You exhibit the same irrational traits of focusing on conspiracy theories and personal attacks.

So I'll ask again, how does Judy Mikovits's work relate to the time-limited nature of the vaccine test/trials process?

[Katman]

Did you? You exhibit the same irrational traits of focusing on conspiracy theories and personal attacks.

So I'll ask again, how does Judy Mikovits's work relate to the time-limited nature of the vaccine test/trials process?

Why don't you actually look into Judy Mikovits's work instead of relying on a smear campaign from Kiwibiker's resident retarded cunt?

[husaberg]

Why don't you actually look into Judy Mikovits's work instead of relying on a smear campaign from Kiwibiker's resident retarded cunt?

Steve from Taupo.....

[bogan]

Why don't you actually look into Judy Mikovits's work instead of relying on a smear campaign from Kiwibiker's resident retarded cunt?

I have done, that is why my summary of her work differs from husabergs, and did not make any comment about her integrity as a scientist. I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude I am relying on husaberg's smear campaign. The work she did, is simply not relevant to the time-limited nature of vaccine test/trials, now is it?

[Katman]

The work she did, is simply not relevant to the time-limited nature of vaccine test/trials, now is it?

Are you trying out for berkboy's title?

I brought up Judy Mikovits's name in response to your question of whether I have found retroviruses in vaccines.

[bogan]

I brought up Judy Mikovits's name in response to your question of whether I have found retroviruses in vaccines.

So that's a no then. The reason I asked the question, was to categorise the likelihood of additional test trials you seem to be asking for, as fuck all benefit, like a microscope examination would be of steering head bearings for a wof.

[husaberg]

Are you trying out for berkboy's title?

I brought up Judy Mikovits's name in response to your question of whether I have found retroviruses in vaccines.

Do you have any proof that she found a mouse retrovirus in a vaccine.
Hint........

After Mikovits and her research team's Science study appeared in October 2009, many other groups around the world reported that they could not find the mouse retrovirus, dubbed XMRV, in people who had CFS. Mikovits and colleagues subsequently participated in a multilab study that resulted in a September Science Express paper describing how none of the teams could reliably find XMRV in blinded samples from CFS patients. One lab Mikovits collaborated with in the 2009 Science report simultaneously retracted its contribution after discovering that a contaminant explained its XMRV findings.

She alledged it was part of a conspiracy
this is what the court said

This case has a long backstory. Mikovits filed the original complaint in 2014. The lawsuit was scheduled for November, then taken off the calendar. According to the minutes, the court advised Mikovits to revise the complaint to comply with a rule that says complaints must be factual, plausible, and concise; however, according to the court, the second complaint that Mikovits submitted was a “largely a recycled version” of the first.
Defendants, including the Whittemore-Peterson Institute, filed a motion to dismiss the second complaint on January 5th, which states six reasons to dismiss, including:
that the statute of limitations has long since run with regard to each and every factual allegation underlying the causes of action, save one unrelated allegation regarding a bankruptcy proceeding; second, the Plaintiff fails to allege a conspiracy sufficient to subject the Whittemore Defendants, none of whom are State actors, to liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983