LOL...your "questions" have been answered multiple times across multiple threads. You simply dismiss the source. You're a one-trick pony.
That's a cop out and a lie and I'm not letting it happen here. Dismiss the source? You mean the argument that the health institutions say so - that's why? Of course that's not going to work here if those sources
aren't trusted. With the recent findings of the proof that HHS hasn't been fulfilling their
crucial obligations with regard to ensuring vaccine safety (among a barrage of other things), there's damn good reason for the distrust.
So, we're going to get to the bottom of this right here and now. I'm going to post my questions, again, in hopes of getting them answered. The old
lie saying they've already been answered
will not do. A couple of these were attempted and clearly failed.
I've been told many times here how dumb I am, so I'm going to need a good, clear, reasonable analysis of these questions.
Here are the unanswered questions that have been on my mind lately:
1) This one, unlike the others, is not related to safety specifically, but is central to this debate as a whole. It's going to require some reading:
https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/2018/6/7/herd-immunity-a-dishonest-marketing-gimmick
Don't come back and talk about JB and how he's not a good source of information. That's not going to fly here. If that's true, then we have some smart people here who should be able to slam dunk him on this point. I want to see some good solid
reasoning why this article is wrong. The question here is, in light of the information in this article, explain how herd immunity is actually being observed among today's US populations for these vaccine preventable diseases.
2) How is possible that it's OK that medical institutions cite oral aluminum dosing studies to determine safe pediatric dosing levels for intramuscular injection of aluminum adjuvant, in light of the recent science that says that intramuscular injected aluminum can be taken up by macrophages and then easily be taken to the brain? Joe says there is a small difference between oral and intramuscular, and TH says there is absolutely no difference. I think I'll listen to the scientist that has over 40 peer-reviewed studies on the subject (who indicates there's a major difference). Here, again, is a recent study that was done that indicates just how terrible the Mitkus study is (the study frequently cited as backing for proof that aluminum adjuvant is safe):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17300950
3) Why can't they use the Vaccine Safety Datalink to look at vaccination rates in autistic patients
before autism diagnosis, since they did for a very similar study (below) looking at vaccine rates in children
after an autism diagnosis?
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2676070
4) Why is it a good idea to give a newborn the hep B vaccine on day one of life in cases where the mother tests negative for hep B (most cases),
especially given the recent work done by Dr Yao....:
http://vaccinesafetycommission.com/...s-of-mice-transiently-in-early-adulthood..pdf
....that comes to this conclusion?:
"This work reveals for the first time that early HBV vaccination induces impairments in behavior and hippocampal neurogenesis. This work provides innovative data
supporting the long suspected potential association of HBV with certain neuropsychiatric disorders such as autism and multiple sclerosis (Gallagher and Goodman, 2010; Stubgen, 2012)."
5) HHS is the mothership in charge of the oversight of vaccine safety. Congress agreed to indemnify vaccine manufacturers AS LONG AS HHS would take the following steps to ensure vaccines are as safe as possible:
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?...-title42-section300aa-27&num=0&edition=prelim
Not one bit of this crucial work has been done since the
31 years this act was put into place, and Congress didn't even report that it wasn't being done. What a devastating admission (for both ends), and this information had to be discovered forcefully through a lawsuit, no less. The question here I believe must be - with such a cataclysmic admission, how is it we can trust or take seriously this system we've created for vaccine safety oversight if this is the way they're going to conduct business? Del and RFK wanted to see the what exactly HHS was using to satisfy congress because they knew any science they were using was complete bunk. Well, it turns out there was absolutely nothing. Nothing.
6) 1 vaccine and 1 ingredient has been "thoroughly" studied for it's connection to autism (albeit very poorly, as we've learned in previous debates).
Now, if this chart is not correct,
thoroughly argue against it, complete with the studies. If this chart is correct, then thoroughly explain how we can know for sure there is no vaccine - autism connection? Tarheel attempted to explain how aluminum could be assured to be safe through mmr studies, but through all his db responses and questions his argument ended up sounding a lot like the guy below. I'd recommend someone else give it a shot
Now, if these questions get thoroughly and reasonably answered, then I'll stop hounding you guys with them. If not then you're going to continue to hear about them.