RFK Jr reports 20% of Moderna Vaccine recipents suffer "grave injuries"

[Joes Place]

Both these were linked earlier in this thread. The CHD points have been brought up in at least three threads now. The Hooker critique is new to the debate since probably 1/2 way through this thread.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...-rate-of-1-in-100-cdc-should-rush-to-denmark/

A) That is an editorial article, not a peer review of their paper.

To their (alleged) points:

1) The MMR vaccine was THE vaccine all of you antivaxxers were focused on, BECAUSE the timing of that vaccine occurred around when autism typically shows up.
The study debunked EXACTLY what the claims at the time were. 100%
Gish galloping into new territory is irrelevant.

2) Because, rates around different societies and around the globe VARY. There is no indication the rate is statistically different from nominal area rates. NONE. And there is no analysis demonstrating the rate seen it the study is a statistical anomaly

3) See Point #1. YOU guys were the ones all over MMR as the culprit. This study debunked that, 100%. And the same adjuvants are seen in the MMR vaccine as in others. Remember? You just argued their autism rates were "too low". All the other vaccine regimens the kids in both groups got DEBUNKS THAT THEORY TOO!!!

4) Yes, it does. Because that's what goes with the MMR vaccine, and there was NO DIFFERENCE

5) That's not remotely relevant, and another red herring. The kids in this study were TRACKED as part of the study

6) There is ZERO evidence of this in the study. Another red herring.​

If the Op Ed here has any valid complaints about the study, the proper location for those is in another paper submitted to that same journal as a followup, "debunking" it. OR, a letter to the editor calling their alleged points into question, for the journal and authors to address it. THE AUTHORS OF YOUR LINK WILL NOT DO THIS BECAUSE THEIR ALLEGATIONS ARE MERITLESS AND WILL BE TOSSED.

If they have REAL concerns about vaccines, then get a friggin MD or PhD, and publish followup in this same journal. What you have posted is a sad, easily debunked Op Ed.

 

[Joes Place]

To add: The Danish study skewed towards actual PROTECTIVE effect of the MMR vaccine for autism, in case you don't know how CIs work.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

LMAO - the "believe me" rationale. You get funnier with each post.

Flat Earth on.

There's that straw man again, you just can't seem to debate without fallacy, can you?

I always thought this article did a nice job of presenting some of the evidence:
https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/2018/4/1/international2018

Testimonial evidence from countless sources. Mothers testifying that their child regressed into autism shortly after vaccinations. You can ridicule it all you want, claim it "proves" nothing, blah blah blah....but testimonial evidence is exactly that...evidence.

There's this whole thing with the beloved expert Dr. Zimmerman:
http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/the-vaccination-debate

More evidence:
https://sharylattkisson.com/2016/03...ng-to-destroy-vaccine-autism-study-documents/

VICP has compensated families of autistic children:
https://vaccinesafetycommission.org...m-the-Vaccine-Injury-Compensation-Program.pdf

The autism prevalence vs. ramp up of the vaccine schedule graph of course doesn't prove causation, but the fact that it is evidence is undeniable. BTW, Joe thinks that autism rates have remained constant throughout history, isn't that funny?

Oh yeah, and then there was this whole thing:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/...hat-the-cdc-vaccine-schedule-is-causing-harm/

These are just a few of the evidential points from debates past.

 

[shank hawk]

AbstractThe aim of this study was to investigate a previously overlooked, universally introduced environmental factor, fetal and retroviral contaminants in childhood vaccines, absent prior to change points (CPs) in autistic disorder (AD) prevalence with subsequent dose-effect evidence and known pathologic mechanisms of action. Worldwide population based cohort study was used for the design of this study. The United States, Western Australia, United Kingdom and Denmark settings were used. All live born infants who later developed autistic disorder delivered after 1 January 1970, whose redacted vaccination and autistic disorder diagnosis information is publicly available in databases maintained by the US Federal Government, Western Australia, UK, and Denmark. The live births, grouped by father’s age, were from the US and Australia. The children vaccinated with MMRII, Varicella and Hepatitis A vaccines varied from 19 to 35 months of age at the time of vaccination. Autistic disorder birth year change points were identified as 1980.9, 1988.4 and 1996 for the US, 1987 for UK, 1990.4 for Western Australia, and 1987.5 for Denmark. Change points in these countries corresponded to introduction of or increased doses of human fetal cell line-manufactured vaccines, while no relationship was found between paternal age or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) revisions and autistic disorder diagnosis. Further, linear regression revealed that Varicella and Hepatitis A immunization coverage was significantly correlated to autistic disorder cases. R software was used to calculate change points. Autistic disorder change points years are coincident with introduction of vaccines manufactured using human fetal cell lines, containing fetal and retroviral contaminants, into childhood vaccine regimens. This pattern was repeated in the US, UK, Western Australia and Denmark. Thus, rising autistic disorder prevalence is directly related to vaccines manufactured utilizing human fetal cells. Increased paternal age and DSM revisions were not related to rising autistic disorder prevalence.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

1) The MMR vaccine was THE vaccine all of you antivaxxers were focused on, BECAUSE the timing of that vaccine occurred around when autism typically shows up.
The study debunked EXACTLY what the claims at the time were. 100%
Gish galloping into new territory is irrelevant.

Good grief, what an amateur response. The point still stands. None of this BS you posted addressed the issue at all. What the hell do you mean "EXACTLY what the claims at the time were"? At WHAT time? It's a relatively new - recently published study! That is not even remotely the "claims at the time". That's what's so ridiculous about this study in the first place. Everyone's been claiming no studies on the other vaccines - other than MMR - and then they come out with ANOTHER MMR study. Wow. No wonder why you didn't try to touch this issue the first 50+ times I brought this point up.

Fatal flaw remains fatal flaw.

#2 isn't really a critique of the study per se. I'm not saying I agree with you, I don't care to waste time to argue this point honestly.

3) See Point #1. YOU guys were the ones all over MMR as the culprit. This study debunked that, 100%. And the same adjuvants are seen in the MMR vaccine as in others. Remember? You just argued their autism rates were "too low". All the other vaccine regimens the kids in both groups got DEBUNKS THAT THEORY TOO!!!

You mean the point you failed so miserably at? Okay....see my point #1 Point stands. Then you say "And the same adjuvants are seen in the MMR vaccine as in others". MMR doesn't contain aluminum now does it? Wow. How many strikes do you get Joe?

Fatal flaw remains fatal flaw.

4) Yes, it does. Because that's what goes with the MMR vaccine, and there was NO DIFFERENCE

MMR vaccine DOES NOT contain aluminum adjuvant!

Fatal flaw remains fatal flaw.

5) That's not remotely relevant, and another red herring. The kids in this study were TRACKED as part of the study

If the dataset used in the study has published science that indicates inconsistencies then that is not irrelevant. If you feel there is something wrong with THAT particular study they speak of, then we'll talk, but if you're going to not even discuss that study and dismiss it calling the whole topic irrelevant, that's an obvious unreasonable assertion. Bad data in = bad data out. This one is relevant, but if I'm being honest I wouldn't call it a fatal flaw.

6) There is ZERO evidence of this in the study. Another red herring.

Of course though there is plenty of evidence that HUB happens in studies like this, and studies like this one are highly vulnerable to it. Since the authors admit it wasn't controlled for, it's absolutely an issue, and may render the data highly unreliable. Another terrible response provided by Joe. Quit wasting both of our times with your awful amateur responses.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

6) There is ZERO evidence of this in the study. Another red herring.

What the flip do you expect anyway? Specific explanations of extracted data points as examples directly from the study? Yes there is evidence the HUB in general exists, and neither one of us should be a bit surprised if the data in this study are affected by it, as the authors rightfully acknowledge.

 

[Joes Place]

There's that straw man again, you just can't seem to debate without fallacy, can you?

I always thought this article did a nice job of presenting some of the evidence:
https://jbhandleyblog.com/home/2018/4/1/international2018

jbhandley is a completely UNRELIABLE source.

I smacked them down years ago, for convoluting US vs UK graphics on measles, claiming the measles was "going away" in the US, when they actually used data from the UK - and UK had started vaccinations a year or so earlier.

They are an unscientific and unreliable reference. In short, they are outright LIARS.

 

[Joes Place]

What the flip do you expect anyway?

I expect that if anyone has a legitimate concern over the study, to compose a clear and accurate letter to the journal editor explaining those concerns, for the authors and editors to answer directly. Or, a publication in the same journal by them, outlining the problems with the study.

That is how we get studies retracted.

Unfortunately, you cannot find any legit source who can or will do that- instead, they post silly drivel in Op Eds that isn't remotely critical in any scientific or medical sense. They simply post things that sound good to you, so you lap them up.

 

[Joes Place]

Good grief, what an amateur response. The point still stands.

No, the point doesn't stand.
If they are legitimate concerns, the journal should have had them forwarded for publication and discussion in a scientific forum. That is how vaccine science works.

 

[RileyHawk]

What, you're not even going to ask me for it? Rookie.

Why would I? You're a joke.

 

[RileyHawk]

I expect that if anyone has a legitimate concern over the study, to compose a clear and accurate letter to the journal editor explaining those concerns, for the authors and editors to answer directly. Or, a publication in the same journal by them, outlining the problems with the study.

That is how we get studies retracted.

Unfortunately, you cannot find any legit source who can or will do that- instead, they post silly drivel in Op Eds that isn't remotely critical in any scientific or medical sense. They simply post things that sound good to you, so you lap them up.

But, but, but.... believe me, Joe! Lol

These conspiracy guys are fun to mess with. They have lots of "evidence" that comes from other conspiracy theorists that they whack off to and proclaim righteousness. I'll stick with consensus based science for now.

Nevertheless, this is fun.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

jbhandley is a completely UNRELIABLE source.

I smacked them down years ago, for convoluting US vs UK graphics on measles, claiming the measles was "going away" in the US, when they actually used data from the UK - and UK had started vaccinations a year or so earlier.

They are an unscientific and unreliable reference. In short, they are outright LIARS.

Dude that wasn't even Handley.....and....MMR doesn't contain aluminum. Didn't we discuss this Handley thing before, and I found the article and posted it again for you somewhat recently? It's probably still there. If you ever had it, you're losing it.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

jbhandley is a completely UNRELIABLE source.

I smacked them down years ago, for convoluting US vs UK graphics on measles, claiming the measles was "going away" in the US, when they actually used data from the UK - and UK had started vaccinations a year or so earlier.

They are an unscientific and unreliable reference. In short, they are outright LIARS.

If you have a problem with the information in his article, then I suggest you bring it up here. But you won't, just like you have no real defense for any information that is brought to this debate.

 

[Joes Place]

If you have a problem with the information in his article, then I suggest you bring it up here.

Been there, done that.

And the biggest problem is that NONE of your sources will take their "problems" with the science to any reputable journal for actual debate with scientists. Instead, they push their tripe on Youtube and random websites, where their naive audiences think they are making valid scientific points, when they are not.

NOTHING stops them from publishing their own letters or work in a journal OR going to a conference and putting together abstracts/presentations. NOTHING. But they won't do it because they'll get PWNED by actual scientists.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

No, the point doesn't stand.
If they are legitimate concerns, the journal should have had them forwarded for publication and discussion in a scientific forum. That is how vaccine science works.

You can't argue this extremely valid point on it's merit. The point still stands, and that applies to the rest of them too.

 

[Joes Place]

You can't argue this extremely valid point on it's merit.

But it isn't a valid point; if your antivaxxer think it is, then take that to the journals and put articles in them and at conferences with the concerns. That's where the science debate occurs, and those are the sources used to assess vaccine safety.

If you cannot get your concerns published in legitimate journals, they are probably not valid concerns.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Been there, done that.

Another lie. But that's how you do it, isn't it Joe?

 

[naturalbornhawk]

But it isn't a valid point; if your antivaxxer think it is, then take that to the journals and put articles in them and at conferences with the concerns. If you cannot get your concerns published in legitimate journals, they are probably not valid concerns.

Who's to say that the journal would publish it even if valid points are submitted? Dude the journals are almost as corrupt as the evening news. Obviously we're not going to have an unbiased discussion there.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-medical-journals-sell-out-getting-paid-to-play/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126057/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/196846

 

[Joes Place]

Who's to say that the journal would publish it even if valid points are submitted?

That's what journals do.

 

[Joes Place]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126057/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/196846

FUNFACT: The industry doesn't pay for vaccine trials, nor make much money off vaccines as compared to the name-brand drugs they push in ads regularly.

You keep convoluting these things, but they are simply not the same.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

That's what journals do.

When you're heavily industry funded, as the journals undeniably are, you're not going to be unbiased, and that is no environment for debate. Period.

Does someone have to have a sit down with you and explain how this world works? Or.....are you a liar? I don't think there is any way possible you can believe the majority of the bs you type, I'm going with the 2nd option.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

as compared to the name-brand drugs they push in ads regularly.

You of course mean the drugs they push on people to, in many cases cover up symptoms of the chronic conditions vaccines undoubtedly help cause?

 

[William Bonney]

I think the max vax philosophy of the last 20 years is too much. The smart vax strategy gets you the same results without overloading your kids system all at once.

 

[Joes Place]

When you're heavily industry funded, as the journals undeniably are

"Industry funded"?

No. Most of their subscription revenues are from universities and libraries. And anyone buying copyrighted materials from them.

You seem rather dis-informed on this.

 

[Joes Place]

You of course mean the drugs they push on people to, in many cases cover up symptoms of the chronic conditions vaccines undoubtedly help cause?

There is, once again, zero data supporting your conspiracy theory.

 

[Nat Algren]

6. Are polio vaccines safe?

When national immunization campaigns were initiated in the
1950s, the number of reported cases of polio following mass in-
oculations with the killed-virus vaccine was significantly greater
than before mass inoculations, and may have more than doubled in
the U.S. as a whole. For example, Vermont reported 15 cases of
polio during the one-year report period ending August 30, 1954
(before mass inoculations), compared to 55 cases of polio during
the one-year period ending August 30, 1955 (after mass inocula-
tions)Ca 266% increase. Rhode Island reported 22 cases during
the before inoculations period as compared to 122 cases during the
after inoculations periodCa 454% increase. In New Hampshire the
figures increased from 38 to 129; in Connecticut they rose from
144 to 276; and in Massachusetts they swelled from 273 to
2027 - a whopping 642% increase (Figure 2) [26:140;29:146;42].

When national immunization campaigns were initiated in the 1950s, the
number of reported cases of polio following mass inoculations with the
killed-virus vaccine was significantly greater than before mass inocula-
tions, and may have more than doubled in the U.S. as a whole. Source:
U.S. Government statistics.

Doctors and scientists on the staff of the National Institutes of
Health during the 1950s were well aware that the Salk vaccine was
causing polio. Some frankly stated that it was “worthless as a pre-
ventive and dangerous to take [26:142].” They refused to vacci-
nate their own children [26:142]. Health departments banned the
inoculations [26:140]. The Idaho State Health Director angrily
declared: “I hold the Salk vaccine and its manufacturers responsi-
ble” for a polio outbreak that killed several Idahoans and hospital-
ized dozens more [26:140]. Even Salk himself was quoted as say-
ing: “When you inoculate children with a polio vaccine you don’t
sleep well for two or three weeks [26:144;43].” But the National
Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, and drug companies with large
investments in the vaccine coerced the U.S. Public Health Service
into falsely proclaiming the vaccine was safe and effective
[26:142-5].
In 1976, Dr. Jonas Salk, creator of the killed-virus vaccine used
in the 1950s, testified that the live-virus vaccine (used almost ex-
clusively in the U.S. from the early 1960s to 2000) was the “prin-
cipal if not sole cause” of all reported polio cases in the U.S. since
1961 [44]. (The virus remains in the throat for one to two weeks
and in the feces for up to two months. Thus, vaccine recipients are
at risk, and can potentially spread the disease, as long as fecal ex-
cretion of the virus continues [45].) In 1992, the Federal Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an admission
that the live-virus vaccine had become the dominant cause of polio
in the United States [36]. In fact, according to CDC figures, every
case of polio in the U.S. since 1979 was caused by the oral polio
vaccine [36]. Authorities claim the vaccine was responsible for
about eight cases of polio every year [46]. However, an independ-
ent study that analyzed the government’s own vaccine database
during a recent period of less than five years uncovered 13,641
reports of adverse events following use of the oral polio vaccine.
These reports included 6,364 emergency room visits and 540
deaths (Figure 3) [47,48]. Public outrage at these tragedies became
the impetus for removing the oral polio vaccine from immuniza-
tion schedules [36:568;37;38].

In the mid-1990s, during a period of less than five years, there were
13,641 documented adverse reactions to the oral polio vaccine. 6,364 of
these were serious enough to require hospital emergency room visits. 540
people died. Source: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System
(VAERS); OPV Vaccine Report: Doc. #14.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...acy_and_long-term_health-related_consequences

 

[naturalbornhawk]

There is, once again, zero data supporting your conspiracy theory.

Of course, there is indeed data. You just choose to ignore it. Sound familiar? Only I'm not lying.

 

[Joes Place]

Of course, there is indeed data.

No. There is not.
You've claimed this is a Big Pharma conspiracy, yet it is universities and independent organizations running the studies. Completely independent of those who make the vaccines.

 

[Nat Algren]

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Vax-Unvax-Presentation-Parts-I-X.pdf

 

[Joes Place]

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Vax-Unvax-Presentation-Parts-I-X.pdf

Generation 1: Unpublished study

/Thread.

They cannot get any of their bullshit published, because it is just that: Complete And Utter Bullshit.

 

[Nat Algren]

Generation 1: Unpublished study

/Thread.

They cannot get any of their bullshit published, because it is just that: Complete And Utter Bullshit.

It was CDC. But, glad you finally admit they are BS. And we know what they do to dissenters/Thompson. Then Julie Geberding gets millions to run Merck vaccines for her role.

 

[Joes Place]

It was CDC. But, glad you finally admit they are BS. And we know what they do to dissenters/Thompson. Then Julie Geberding gets millions to run Merck vaccines for her role.

No, it's a powerpoint slide on the internet. That you have no source data for or anything. And you see nothing odd about that.

 

[Nat Algren]

No, it's a powerpoint slide on the internet. That you have no source data for or anything. And you see nothing odd about that.

Obtained from the CDC under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

[Joes Place]

Obtained from the CDC under the Freedom of Information Act.

Not the slide. The slide was made by your "defense fund".

Additionally, many of the publications listed are by authors who "represent" people in litigations over vaccines - which certainly adds a new perspective to motivations vs. independent university researches who have no financial incentives, either way.

 

[Joes Place]

Obtained from the CDC under the Freedom of Information Act.

Note that most of your "articles" are co authored by this guy: a real winner!

Mark R. Geier (born 1948 in Washington, D.C., U.S.) is an American former physician and controversial sometime professional witness who testified in more than 90 cases regarding allegations of injury or illness caused by vaccines.[2][3] Since 2011, Geier's medical license has been suspended or revoked in every state in which he was licensed over concerns about his autism treatments and his misrepresentation of his credentials to the Maryland Board of Health, where he falsely claimed to be a board-certified geneticist and epidemiologist.[4]

Mark and his son, David Geier, are frequently cited by proponents of the now-discredited claim that vaccines cause autism. Geier's credibility as an expert witness has been questioned in 10 court cases.[5] In 2003, a judge ruled that Geier presented himself as an expert witness in "areas for which he has no training, expertise and experience."[2] In other cases in which Geier has testified, judges have labeled his testimony "intellectually dishonest," "not reliable" and "wholly unqualified."[2] Another judge wrote that Geier "may be clever, but he is not credible."[6]

Geier's scientific work has also been criticized; when the Institute of Medicine reviewed vaccine safety in 2004, it dismissed Geier's work as seriously flawed, "uninterpretable", and marred by incorrect use of scientific terms.[2] In 2003, the American Academy of Pediatrics criticized one of Geier's studies, which claimed a link between vaccines and autism, as containing "numerous conceptual and scientific flaws, omissions of fact, inaccuracies, and misstatements."[7] In January 2007, a paper by the Geiers was retracted by the journal Autoimmunity Reviews.[3] New Scientist reported that the supposed institutional review board (IRB) that Geier claimed approved his experiments with autistic children was located at Geier's business address and included Geier, his son and wife, a business partner of Geier's, and a plaintiff's lawyer involved in vaccine litigation,[8] and the Maryland State Board of Physicians referred to it as a "sham IRB" that did not meet the requirements of state or federal law.[4]

 

[Nat Algren]

Not the slide. The slide was made by your "defense fund".

Additionally, many of the publications listed are by authors who "represent" people in litigations over vaccines - which certainly adds a new perspective to motivations vs. independent university researches who have no financial incentives, either way.

Are The Lancet and NEJM reputable?

 

[joelbc1]

When you're heavily industry funded, as the journals undeniably are, you're not going to be unbiased, and that is no environment for debate. Period.

Does someone have to have a sit down with you and explain how this world works? Or.....are you a liar? I don't think there is any way possible you can believe the majority of the bs you type, I'm going with the 2nd option.

And this assertion is based on what, natural? BSed on your logic? Based on your value of “common sense”? Based on something you believe is true, but have no proof?
Natural...you are an anti-science goof. You do not believe in science. You believe science is hucksterism.

 

[Joes Place]

Are The Lancet and NEJM reputable?

Sure! They actually retract publications when they find evidence of fraud or malfeasance.

Have yet to see your anti-vaxxers acknowledge the MMR/autism claims are bogus. Yet both that "study" was retracted AND multiple other studies never identified any correlation (in fact, the Danish study, as I recall, actually identified a trend toward PROTECTIVE aspects of those vaccines relative to autism rates).

 

[Nat Algren]

Sure! They actually retract publications when they find evidence of fraud or malfeasance.

Have yet to see your anti-vaxxers acknowledge the MMR/autism claims are bogus. Yet both that "study" was retracted AND multiple other studies never identified any correlation (in fact, the Danish study, as I recall, actually identified a trend toward PROTECTIVE aspects of those vaccines relative to autism rates).

https://www.brighteon.com/90a12f14-e560-4199-b93e-a677c67ec4e6
May 24, 2020: Philippe Douste-Blazy, Cardiology MD, Former France Health Minister and 2017 candidate for Director at WHO, former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, reveals that in a recent 2020 Chatham House closed door meeting, both the editors of the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine stated their concerns about the criminal pressures of BigPharma on their publications. Things are so bad that it is not science any longer.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

And this assertion is based on what, natural? BSed on your logic? Based on your value of “common sense”? Based on something you believe is true, but have no proof?
Natural...you are an anti-science goof. You do not believe in science. You believe science is hucksterism.

I'm not anti-science. I and others have posted quite a few peer reviewed publications that you fail to recognize. I've posted plenty of evidence here to support my beliefs. It's totally OK with me if you choose to ignore it, just don't tell me it doesn't exist.