Several articles have already been linked for you.
Do you need someone to make those into Youtubes or something?
Gardasil PSA
- Thread starter naturalbornhawk
- Start date
Several articles have already been linked for you.
Do you need someone to make those into Youtubes or something?
I love it when people decide that general expert consensus on an issue is wrong and that they have stumbled onto the truth because they looked at epidemiology studies they are not qualified to fully understand and a series of Youtube videos by Openyoureyestothetrutharoundyou69.
JFC
JFC
Oh you mean that fraudulent study that you could offer zero defense for when it was met with heavy criticism. I asked you what, like 3 times to offer a defense for it. I guess it doesn't surprise me that you still bring it up here despite its fatal flaws. That's how you operate.
Yet you'll notice nobody can offer any type of defense to the points that are being made in the video. Not one point is met with criticism. Everything is just false because it's on Youtube. Love the logic.
"Points" are being made in the Youtube video? And here I thought that somebody with no background or training in epidemiology, clinical trials, causation, statistics, and data collection was claiming something it true because some cray cray on Youtube said it was true ...
Anti-vaxxers are worse than the Loose Change people in that, at least the Loose Change people aren't going to cause another 9/11 event. Anti-vaxxers will get people killed.
Do you have a problem with anything that was said in the video or not? This is a discussion form. I'd suggest discussing the content, not where the video was posted and who brought it to the table. Those points really are completely irrelevant.
We've been thru this time after time after time. It gets old, and isn't really useful since you just pull up another one, every time.
The last one, posed as a "debate" between a pro-vaccine voice and an anti-vaxxer, was shown to be nothing more than another shill pretending to be a pro-vaccine "expert", and he was nothing of the sort.
Yet, here we are, again....
Was he ever advertised as an "expert"? They can't get any "experts" to debate because they all chicken out. Do I need to show you again what happens when someone who questions vaccine safety attempts to debate someone who actually is labeled as an expert?
Now back to the RFK video. Do you have anything in mind that you'd like to point out as fraudulent in that video?
- Sep 13, 2002
- 94,038
- 190,194
- 113
You're just butthurt over losing the whole Monsanto/glyphosate debate. You still think Monsanto is a great company, don't you Sal?
Believe it or not there are 'actual' scientists questioning the vaccine science or lack thereof as well.
It's not surprising that you don't seem to grasp the concept of why it was filed in a California court and with a jury consisting of people who aren't experts on the subject matter. Pretty much a jury filled with people like you. As for "Monsanto" I assume you mean Bayer Crop Science? The glyphosate debate has hardly been lost but only ill-educated rubes tend to think so. It will eventually get thrown out
The marketing firm of CdcMerck has assured us that Gardasil is every bit as safe as Vioxx was. If that doesn’t put your mind at ease then that’s on you.
Lol, you two were pretty quiet over on the other thread. I figured your hand sucked or you'd have said something. Nothing like it used to be. Those were the days eh boys?
Yeah, I just wanted to make sure everyone knew what I was talking about, but thanks.
Yes indeed. If we'd started a debate questioning Vioxx back in the day, do you suppose Joe et al would have contributed their 2 cents? I'm sure we'd be ridiculed and presented with the 'science' that indicates no health dangers there as well.The marketing firm of CdcMerck has assured us that Gardasil is every bit as safe as Vioxx was. If that doesn’t put your mind at ease then that’s on you.
No I don't believe he was. I'm pretty sure was advertised as a scientist, and pro vax.
I’m not sure why you think your lack of understanding of the scientific process is funny. I certainly don’t.
Your memory doesn’t seem to be very sharp. I’ll do you a favor and refresh it for you...Even in the face of mountains of actual scientific evidence in every thread, Your entire thought process in any debate on here can be summed up in two ways:
1) “this random person who pretends to know something about science asked a question that your answers can’t adequately explain due to my lack of understanding of science, so I win.”
2) “I can’t explain what seem to be increases in chronic diseases/autism thus GMOs/vaccines/glyphosate must be the blame because chemikillz and Monsanto and evil.”
By the way, I was the last person to post in the glyphosate thread. Using the logic you’ve used so many times here, I won.
Do you suppose we could possibly have someone step up and claim that this video is nothing but lies? Or heck, I'd be happy with someone stepping up and trying to pick out ONE thing they feel is a lie.Can you honestly think of a greater marketing scam in the last hundred years?
Eagerly awaiting the Merck v. Kennedy slander trial; should make for interesting television viewing.
C'mon HROT. Find 1 thing that RFK says about the science backing Gardasil that you know for a fact is misinformation, and cite it.
I completely agree with you. These cases in which one or two people are purported to have developed a cancer of some sort and the ONLY blame they can find is on a weed killer that is used by millions every day without adverse effects (when used properly, I might add), and oh, just happens to be owned by a company worth tens of billions of dollars.
I'm highly skeptical of these types of claims. And yes, you are correct: if you find the right jury of those who are unable or unwilling to review the actual science and medical information, you will get these outrageous civil awards.
It's atrocious in my opinion.
....and if the weed killer is that carcinogenic, it would seem to be child's play to identify a "high risk" group of people who have higher exposure (farmers, landscapers, etc) vs. a similar group with similar demographics (maybe organic farmers, etc) and show a significantly higher 'risk factor' for one over the other.
The reality is that processed meats, alcohol and many other environmental factors overwhelm any evidence of Roundup being the causative or correlative factor. Just saying something is "carcinogenic" is mostly meaningless unless you start talking about dose-effect levels.
If Roundup IS causing cancers at its current recommended concentrations, then you'd drop those by 1/2 or 1/10th to minimize the risks.
Exposures to fossil fuels vapors and products are probably far far worse than Roundup - I'd love to see the analysis for those vs. weed chemicals....
Yes. It's is referred to as "anecdotal" evidence. And most juries are stacked with people who do not understand what that means.
Yes, at least that which is publicly available.
In my opinion, there were many unanswered questions about cause and effect. As @Joes Place said, the vast majority of the evidence is anecdotal. There was no evidence to conclude their cancers were the direct result of proper usage of the weed killer.
Minnesota legislators discussed four resolutions last week requesting that the US Congress repeal the broad brush immunity for vaccine harm that the drug companies currently enjoy.
It’s nice to see the awakening.
Latest posts
-
-
Missouri State Transfer WR Raylen Sharpe Visiting Iowa on Tuesday- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
-
