Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Katman]

Please point me to the best one, that being peer reviewed with smoking gun type evidence, rather than just a "suggestion".

I'm not here to do your homework for you.

[husaberg]

Please point me to the best one, that being peer reviewed with smoking gun type evidence, rather than just a "suggestion".

What I find hilarious is that for years, Karen has insinuated and made direct statements on this and likely other platforms. That we can't trust big orgs like the CDC and all the scientists because they are corrupt. Yet, RFK is having to fire people and is clearly not able to get any scientists to say what he orders them to, so he has to get administrators or himself to issue the not factual releases.
All this demonstrates is
1. How gullible Karen is. as he so desperately wants to hear what he believes,even if it's clearly not backed by evidence.
2, that he was completely wrong and has shown this himself through his post, as the scientists refuse to sign off on unscientific misinformation.
3, karen is an epic hypocrite, constantly claiming one source is wrong because it doesn't say what he wants it to while using the exact same source himself if it appears to suit him.
4 , Karen is so far up himself he can't even see is own narcissistic hypocritical actions are showing him to be a complete cretin.

[pritch]

Please point me to the best one, that being peer reviewed with smoking gun type evidence, rather than just a "suggestion".

It would probably be helpful if the author had not already been struck off. Although that will make it difficult.

[flyingcrocodile46]

All the many senate hearings have proven that Fauci and the CDC were full of liars who misled the people.
The firing of those proven liars should result in an increase in credibility rather than decrease. But morons obviously see it differently

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/autism.html

[husaberg]

I've provided plenty of links to studies that suggest many vaccines aren't as safe and effective as they'd like you to believe.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge them is not my problem.

Please point me to the best one, that being peer reviewed with smoking gun type evidence, rather than just a "suggestion".

I'm not here to do your homework for you.

Yet another example when you are asked what you only minutes before claimed to have evidence of, Yet you cant supply any...

Just Like the time you claimed farmers send 100kg plus rodeo calves to the works when the works don't accept cattle this size.
Or that time you claimed there were numerous alternatives to 1080 on the vast inaccessible areas of NZ, yet you couldn't name a single one.
Or that time you claimed some animals were poisoned on their own property by 1080, when by the owner's own admission, they had wandered into a DOC area.
Or that time you posted an engine (the Geet)that was a well-known fraud, that was supposed to run on coffee or water and you refused to admit it was a made-up piece of shit. You even called him a modern-day Nikola Tesla when in truth, he said he got the technology from an angel named Mrs Cunningham. Yet He invented nothing other than reusing a new way to scam the money of idiots.
Or that time you claimed there were no gas chambers at in German concentration camps, when even the two convicted fraudsters you quoted as being proof there were none, admitted freely themselves that it was obvious there were gas chambers.
Or that time you kept claiming ad nauseam, the WTC buildings fell at free-fall speed, when they clearly did not
Or that time you claimed they collapsed into their own footprints when they clearly did not.
Or that time when you quoted state trooper Lyle Szupink as saying something, he clearly did not, about United Airlines Flight 93.
Or that time you claimed over and over that an engine was found to be a distance away from the crash site when it was in fact, found less than a third of that distance.
Or that time you kept claiming passports, which were never found intact after a high-speed impact like 911, when in fact they commonly are.
Or that time you claimed the UFA investigation was independent, full or transparent, when it was clearly none of these three.
Or those times you repeatedly make and pass on false claims about vaccines and vaccine safety, often implying you know more than genuine medical experts, when you have no medical training at all.
Or that time you claimed it was uncommon for bikes to have footpegs mounted to the swingarm when tens, if not 100's of millions of bikes were made in over 120 models with this exact setup.
Or that time you made all these claims about turbo cancer when it doesn't actually exist outside the imagination of a tiny group of of tiny pecker conspiracy idiots

[husaberg]

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/autism.html

A Stuff article?

Well that's settled then.

All the many senate hearings have proven that Fauci and the CDC were full of liars who misled the people.
The firing of those proven liars should result in an increase in credibility rather than decrease. But morons obviously see it differently

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/autism.html

So lets get this straight karen and the brain fried crock
Believe a former disbarred lawyer with zero medical experience other then his on drug addiction, over overwhelming scientific and medial opinion.

His own words of RFK jr.
RFK Jr. says he personally directed CDC's new guidance on vaccines and autism
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told The New York Times in an interview that he personally directed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to update its website to contradict its longtime guidance that vaccines don’t cause autism..

Karen and brainfriedCroc you are gullible.....

[sugilite:Me]

Chortle.

Sadly with Trump having appointed RFK Jr at its head the CDC is just another circus.

and the more than 600 CDC staff fired so far, mostly from the preventative side of the department, what could possibly go wrong?

I'm not here to do your homework for you.

You could have saved some typing by just saying No. Clearly you are not here to do your homework - as evidenced by an abject failure to find any peer reviewed evidence to back any of what you have been peddling these last 12 years.

What I find hilarious is that for years, Karen has insinuated and made direct statements on this and likely other platforms. That we can't trust big orgs like the CDC and all the scientists because they are corrupt. Yet, RFK is having to fire people and is clearly not able to get any scientists to say what he orders them to, so he has to get administrators or himself to issue the not factual releases.
All this demonstrates is
1. How gullible Karen is. as he so desperately wants to hear what he believes,even if it's clearly not backed by evidence.
2, that he was completely wrong and has shown this himself through his post, as the scientists refuse to sign off on unscientific misinformation.
3, karen is an epic hypocrite, constantly claiming one source is wrong because it doesn't say what he wants it to while using the exact same source himself if it appears to suit him.
4 , Karen is so far up himself he can't even see is own narcissistic hypocritical actions are showing him to be a complete cretin.

13th year lucky for him and croc? Won't hold my breath.

It would probably be helpful if the author had not already been struck off. Although that will make it difficult.

The sample size of that study was just 12 children - coincidentally the same number of years that this thread has been running with no concrete proof

[husaberg]

and the more than 600 CDC staff fired so far, mostly from the preventative side of the department, what could possibly go wrong?


You could have saved some typing by just saying No. Clearly you are not here to do your homework - as evidenced by an abject failure to find any peer reviewed evidence to back any of what you have been peddling these last 12 years.



13th year lucky for him and croc? Won't hold my breath.


The sample size of that study was just 12 children - coincidentally the same number of years that this thread has been running with no concrete proof

11 of the 12 childrens partents that were hand selected by wakefraud on the basis there parents were already blaming the vaccine.

A British solicitor who was working on a lawsuit against the vaccine maker paid Dr. Andrew Wakefield, lead author of the Lancet study, hundreds of thousands of pounds (more than $600,000 in US currency) to develop the study.


The Lancet report triggered a decline in MMR vaccine uptake in many countries and a widespread belief that the vaccine causes autism, though numerous subsequent studies have found otherwise. The article was retracted by the Lancet in February 2010. Wakefield was censured by Britain's General Medical Council in January 2010 and was later stripped of his British medical license.


On the basis of 12 cases in children, the Lancet paper proposed a new syndrome of enterocolitis and regressive autism and suggested it was precipitated by the MMR vaccine.


The patients for the study were recruited through campaigners against the MMR vaccine, and "the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation."
Three of 9 children who were reported in the paper to have regressive autism were not diagnosed with autism at all, and only 1 of the 9 clearly had regressive autism.
Contrary to Wakefield's claim that all 12 children were normal before they received the MMR vaccine, 5 of them had preexisting developmental problems.
Some of the children were said to have had their first signs of developmental problems within days after vaccination, but the records showed that the first signs didn't appear until months later.
In nine cases, Wakefield changed "unremarkable colonic histopathology results" to "nonspecific colitis."
Wakefield's paper said the parents of eight children blamed the MMR vaccine for the problems, but 11 families actually told hospital officials they blamed the vaccine. Three of the families said symptoms began months after the vaccination, so these three were left out "to create the appearance of a 14-day temporal link."


In an accompanying editorial, BMJ Editor Fiona Godlee and colleagues write that Wakefield's study was previously known to be "fatally flawed," but that Deer's investigation makes clear that it was an "elaborate fraud." Deer determined that none of the 12 cases described in the 1998 report "was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration."