No, I'm not the one with the problem here, trust me. You can't provide so you lose.
Several articles have already been linked for you.
Do you need someone to make those into Youtubes or something?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, I'm not the one with the problem here, trust me. You can't provide so you lose.
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.I posted a Danish study that went on for 15+ years comparing vaccinated vs. later vaccinated; it was a prospective, randomized study, and it actually showed a slight PROTECTIVE effect of vaccines vs. autism. Everything was centered around "no effect". It was just published, and looked at data from the 1990s thru 2015.
Mmr, mmr, mmr. Sigh....I've seen that study; > 500,000 subjects were studied, one of the largest (if not the largest) prospective study on the topic.
A. Hviid et al (2019)
Just an aside, these big-ass studies are one benefit from government run healthcare -- your data are always accessible for research.
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.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
Yet you'll notice nobody can offer any type of defense to the points that are being made in the video.
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."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.
Oh you mean that fraudulent study
Why don't you pick something out of the RFK vid that you feel is fraudulent?No. I'm referring to the fraudulent Youtube videos.
Why don't you pick something out of the RFK vid that you feel is fraudulent?
Why don't you pick something out of the RFK vid that you feel is fraudulent?
Item? How about Monsanto.Tell me another item where both you and RFK agree.
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?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.
Because they are run by actual scientists?Well, clearly people aren't going to get these truths from the CDC or other regulatory authorities. If these "authorities" can't come forward with the truth, then why should people listen to them?
You're just butthurt over losing the whole Monsanto/glyphosate debate. You still think Monsanto is a great company, don't you Sal?Cant you just ignore him? He’s a hazard to society along with others that think like him. You cannot convince a person who isn’t all there. Give it up.
Believe it or not there are 'actual' scientists questioning the vaccine science or lack thereof as well.Because they are run by actual scientists?
Dude sounded like a tracheotomy patient.Even if I believed Robert Kennedy, I could only listen to him speak for about a minute before turning it off.
You're just butthurt over losing the whole Monsanto/glyphosate debate. You still think Monsanto is a great company, don't you Sal?
You're just butthurt over losing the whole Monsanto/glyphosate debate. You still think Monsanto is a great company, don't you Sal?
Yes. That was the point of that Youtube video.Was he ever advertised as an "expert"?
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.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?
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.As for "Monsanto" I assume you mean Bayer Crop Science?
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.Yes. That was the point of that Youtube video.
Which he was not.No I don't believe he was. I'm pretty sure was advertised as a scientist, and pro vax.
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?
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.
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.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
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.
Just curious, have you actually looked at any of the evidence in these cases?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.
Just curious, have you actually looked at any of the evidence in these cases?
Yes, at least that which is publicly available.Just curious, have you actually looked at any of the evidence in these cases?
So do you think that all the evidence was anecdotal?Yes. It's is referred to as "anecdotal" evidence. And most juries are stacked with people who do not understand what that means.
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.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.