Drug GcMAF cure for Autism? Vaccines causing Autism?

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Drug Globulin component Macrophage Activating Factor GcMAF - cure for Autism?

Vaccines compromises immune systems and cause all sorts of diseases. Please watch the videos.

Dr.Bradstreet Search Warrant: the promising drug GcMAF was their target!!

Explosive: The real reason Holistic Doctors are being killed and vanishing!

8 Dead Doctors, 5 Missing!
You Wont Believe What They Knew, Who They Encountered & Why They're Targeted

Did they find a cure for autism? What do you think?

Anti-vaccine doctor behind ‘dangerous’ autism therapy found dead. Family cries foul.

[BADecker]

Curing autism, the Kerri Rivera way.

http://cdautism.org/

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Curing autism, the Kerri Rivera way.

http://cdautism.org/

Seems like GcMAF is illegal here in the US... I wonder why...

[MakingMoneyHoney]

No one cares about the cure for autism? Or that children are being forced to have vaccines that may inhibit their immune systems?

Were Dr. Lisa Riley, Dr. Baron Holt And Dr. Ronald Schwartz Murdered Too? (Holistic Medicine)

Published on Jul 25, 2015

"Holistic medicine is seen as a direct threat by mainstream medical institutions, which is a modern day war that has been fought for nearly two hundred years. And just like in the past, many American alternative medicine doctors face stiff resistance by organizations and figures who intend to dismiss and silence their invaluable work of promoting human wellness. Along these lines are the recent deaths of (at the time this video is being filmed) seven holistic doctors in and around the State of Florida, three of whom I have covered in a recent video on this YouTube channel (which can be found via link #1 in the show notes below). Since that video was published on July 2nd, 2015 there have been an additional four “mysterious deaths” of practicing alternative medicine doctors, three of whom I would like to specifically address in this video, Dr. Lisa Riley, Dr. Baron Holt and Dr. Ronald Swartz. It is also important to state that the deaths of these seven doctors have all occurred within thirty days and there are also an additional five alternative medicine practitioners who are still “missing”, which could bring the total number of mysterious deaths to 12 in less than a month.

The first mysterious death of a holistic medicine doctor is that of Dr. Lisa Riley who (according to NYDailyNews.com) was found with a single gunshot wound to her head which was said to have come from her husband, a figure known as Terrible Thomas, a champion boxer. Additionally warrants were issued by the State of Georgia for the arrest of Dr. Lisa Riley’s husband whose actual name is Yathomas Riley, who now resides in a Lee County Jail since his arrest on July 10th, 2015. The second suspicious death of an alternative medicine doctor is that of Dr. Baron Holt who (at the young age of 33) was found dead on the East coast of Florida on June 21st, 2015 or Father's Day, the same day that another alternative medicine doctor was found dead in Florida, Dr. Bruce Hedendal. It is critical to point out that (as is mentioned on HealthNutNews.com) that Dr. Baron Holt was in good health and optimistic spirits when he suddenly passed away, an event that his family describes as shocking and whom are waiting patiently for the results of his autopsy for more information. And the third odd death of a holistic medicine practitioner is that of Dr. Ronald Schwartz who (according to Sun-Sentinel.com) was found shot to death in his private residence, which is similar to how Dr. Teresa Sievers was found dead. A noteworthy side mention is that the media coverage surrounding this man’s death has been (in my observations) intentionally controversial with much interest being paid to his personal life instead of the facts related to his murder (a wonderful example of which can be found via link #5 in the show notes below).

The deaths of these three doctors (as well as the four others known of) have many suspecting there is a patterns within these crimes, that something or someone(s) are seeking to unnerve and upend the holistic medicine community in and around Florida, which is a State known for its haphazard policing and vigilante justice system. I personally suspect the death of Dr. Lisa Riley as being an “isolated incident” in the context of these seven deaths (however I could be mistaken) with the others being highly likely connected to each other, if only by chance. All of which makes me (as well as any other decent human being) pause and wonder, what in the world is actually happening and why such a media blackout relating to these homicides? So as more information about any of the doctors discussed here or elsewhere as well as new information emerges, I will continue to share what I find via new videos on this YouTube channel."

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Suzanne Somers Exposes Underground Doctors Quietly Curing Cancer

Actress Suzanne Somers on death of Holistic Doctor Gonzalez

"Published on Jul 25, 2015

Suzanne Somers has spoken out about the great character of Dr. Gonzalez and how he helped her Cancer! Since his passing she makes it clear that the deaths of these Holistic doctors is indeed suspicious!!"

[MakingMoneyHoney]

CDC Advises Delayed Breastfeeding To Boost Vaccine Efficacy

"Ten researchers from the CDC’s National Centers for Immunization and Respiratory Disease (NCIRD) released a paper arguing that because the immune-boosting effects of breastmilk inhibit the effects of the live oral rotavirus vaccine, nursing mothers should delay breastfeeding their infants....Honestly, I don’t care how nuanced their recommendation is. Do they not realize what they have stumbled upon? In demonstrating that breastmilk counters the live vaccine, they’ve shown that breastmilk counters the virus.

A live vaccine contains a weakened form of the virus that causes the disease. The idea is that by presenting the weakened virus to your body, your immune system will develop an immune response to the virus sufficient to help you fight off a more virulent attack of the virus later. In other words, when your body is fighting off the live virus, it is effectively fighting off the virus itself, just in smaller quantities.

If breastmilk’s immune-boosting properties fight-off the live vaccine, then that means that breastmilk is fighting off the virus itself (just in smaller quantities).

Yet instead of recommending that the best way to fight this disease in infants is to encourage mothers to breastfeed, they’re recommending that mothers refrain from breastfeeding so that the vaccine can work!

I’m troubled by the underlying assumptions these researchers are making. They’re assuming, for example, that the vaccine should be used regardless of its efficacy. They’re assuming that the vaccine is better for the baby than breastfeeding. They’re assuming that the vaccine is safe.....I think it’s interesting to note that the researchers aren’t asking about what’s best for the baby. The question they have in mind is quite focused: just how much does breastmilk neutralize the vaccine?

Arguably, it’s a win for nursing mothers everywhere since it proves just how effective breastmilk can be!"

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Vaccine mandates are just corporate statutes and they are about profit . . . Not health!

Video

ASSERTIONS

In summary, the transcripts of the JCVI/DH meetings from the period from 1983 to 2010 appear to show that:

1) Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, the JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines;

2) Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues;

3) On multiple occasions requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to their data sheets, when these were in conflict with JCVI’s official advices on immunisations;

4) Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies;

5) Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits;

6) Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine paediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted;

7) Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues;

Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunisation program which could put certain children at risk of severe long-term neurological damage;

Notably, all of these actions appear to violate the JCVI’s own Code of Practice

Read Full Report

Governments Have Descended to the Level  of  Mere Private Corporations

[protokol]

If there's a strange increase of "holistic practitioners" dying in mysterious ways, then it's most likely a result of skewed data presented by "holistic practioners". They're good at that, you know.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

CDC intentionally destroyed documents relating to Vaccines causing Autism!

"Published on Aug 2, 2015

State Rep from Florida, Bill Posey reveals that not only did CDC intentionally destroy documents relating to studies that certain vaccines cause Autism, he also reveals that a certain Whistleblower stashed copies of the documents that the CDC destroyed!"

Jon Rappoport's Blog: Bombshell: CDC destroyed vaccine documents, Congressman reveals


C-Span.org: REP. Bill Posey Calling for an Investigation of the CDC's MMR reasearch fraud - "Rep. Bill Posey brings former CDC researcher and now Whistleblower, Dr. Bill Thompson's letter regarding significant files they omitted and destroyed to avoid reporting any significant race effects in their study."

[protokol]

Enough with this non-existent link between vaccines and autism. Did you not read about the year-old meta-analysis of 1.25 million people showing no link? Read more here: https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autism

Do know how many children were sampled in Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent paper which started this whole debacle off? 12. Yes that's right, TWELVE. And they weren't even fairly sampled - some of their parents were suing over alleged vaccine injury - a huge conflict of interest.

So enough about vaccines and autism. OK?

[TECSHARE]

Enough with this non-existent link between vaccines and autism. Did you not read about the year-old meta-analysis of 1.25 million people showing no link? Read more here: https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autism

Do know how many children were sampled in Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent paper which started this whole debacle off? 12. Yes that's right, TWELVE. And they weren't even fairly sampled - some of their parents were suing over alleged vaccine injury - a huge conflict of interest.

So enough about vaccines and autism. OK?

Not ok.

"Another accusation, that Dr. Wakefield asserted a definite link of MMR vaccines to autism was never published. He never made that claim. Some of his team colleagues put forth their interpretation that MMRs were linked to autism, but that was not part of Wakefield's Lancet paper. Dr. Wakefield was looking into the possible link of those commonly experienced gut disorders in children under five years old as a precursor to their autism related behavior.

That link to MMRs was actually made by the parents of those 12 participating children. They were doing fine until they received MMR vaccinations, and the parents reported this to Dr. Wakefield's team. Dr. Wakefield included the parents' reports in the case study findings. Including parents' observations in case study reports is highly appropriate.

Dr. Wakefield's only conclusion was the measles/gut disorder connection to autistic behavior possibilities merited further study."

http://www.naturalnews.com/033425_BMJ_Andrew_Wakefield.html

New Published Study Verifies Andrew Wakefield’s Research on Autism – Again (MMR Vaccine Causes Autism):
www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/06/21/new-published-study-verifies-andrew-wakefields-research-on-autism-again-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism/

Try again.

How the fuck can injecting mercury, aluminum, live viruses, as well as other inflammatory substances NOT have a toxic effect on the body and brain? There are NO INDEPENDENT STUDIES covering the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines in humans. I am sure you believe there are though, so I challenge you to find ONE study that does this. For every other drug on the market this type of testing is required, yet there are none for vaccines. I wonder why that is... Have fun.

[protokol]

Enough with this non-existent link between vaccines and autism. Did you not read about the year-old meta-analysis of 1.25 million people showing no link? Read more here: https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autism

Do know how many children were sampled in Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent paper which started this whole debacle off? 12. Yes that's right, TWELVE. And they weren't even fairly sampled - some of their parents were suing over alleged vaccine injury - a huge conflict of interest.

So enough about vaccines and autism. OK?

Not ok.

"Another accusation, that Dr. Wakefield asserted a definite link of MMR vaccines to autism was never published. He never made that claim. Some of his team colleagues put forth their interpretation that MMRs were linked to autism, but that was not part of Wakefield's Lancet paper. Dr. Wakefield was looking into the possible link of those commonly experienced gut disorders in children under five years old as a precursor to their autism related behavior.

That link to MMRs was actually made by the parents of those 12 participating children. They were doing fine until they received MMR vaccinations, and the parents reported this to Dr. Wakefield's team. Dr. Wakefield included the parents' reports in the case study findings. Including parents' observations in case study reports is highly appropriate.

Dr. Wakefield's only conclusion was the measles/gut disorder connection to autistic behavior possibilities merited further study."

http://www.naturalnews.com/033425_BMJ_Andrew_Wakefield.html

New Published Study Verifies Andrew Wakefield’s Research on Autism – Again (MMR Vaccine Causes Autism):
www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/06/21/new-published-study-verifies-andrew-wakefields-research-on-autism-again-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism/

Try again.

Well yeah, It would be hard for Wakefield to say that a study of only 12 people had enough statistical significance to claim a definite link. But the conflicts of interest (and his press conferences) show that that was what he was implying. Anyway it's irrelevent what he said/thought, the paper was properly fraudulent. This guy called himself a scientist, yet was doing things like paying children at his son's birthday party for blood samples. Does that seem like a fair, ethical and unbiased way to do research to you?

The paper you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with a link between vaccines and autism - as far as I can see it claims a link between autism and GI symptoms. And there were only 25 participants. Here's the link to the actual paper: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058058 - please quote the part where a link between vaccines and autism is shown.

In addition to the meta-analysis I posted previously, here's a single study (not a meta-analysis), and also a cohort study. Of 95,000 people.

Article about study: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/21/no-link-between-mmr-and-autism-major-study-concludes

Actual paper:  http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2275444

I've shown what's wrong with Wakefield's paper, and with the study you just posted. Now you tell me exactly what's wrong with my two sources.

[TECSHARE]

How the fuck can injecting mercury, aluminum, live viruses, as well as other inflammatory substances NOT have a toxic effect on the body and brain? There are NO INDEPENDENT STUDIES covering the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines in humans. I am sure you believe there are though, so I challenge you to find ONE study that does this. For every other drug on the market this type of testing is required, yet there are none for vaccines. I wonder why that is... Have fun.

As far as your "actual paper" that is just an abstract. I am not sure how you expect me to honestly review the study based on a synopsis. Furthermore, I never said Wakefield was right, just that he did not commit fraud. I believe the subject deserves further study. As real scientists know, the studies should never be over because science is never settled. You on the other hand are of the belief that the subject should just be ignored.

I will be waiting patiently for you to produce a single independent human efficacy and safety study for injected vaccines.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Enough with this non-existent link between vaccines and autism. Did you not read about the year-old meta-analysis of 1.25 million people showing no link? Read more here: https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autism

Do know how many children were sampled in Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent paper which started this whole debacle off? 12. Yes that's right, TWELVE. And they weren't even fairly sampled - some of their parents were suing over alleged vaccine injury - a huge conflict of interest.

So enough about vaccines and autism. OK?

*Scratches head*

Did you watch the C-SPAN video?

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) ADMITTED to holding evidence from trials, and destroying those documents instead of publishing them.

State Rep from Florida, Bill Posey

I rise today on matters of scientific integrity and research. To begin with, I am absolutely, resolutely, pro-vaccine. Advancements in medical immunization have saved countless and greatly benefitted public health. That being said, it’s troubling to me that in a recent Senate hearing on childhood vaccinations, it was never mentioned that our government has paid out over $3 billion through a vaccine injury compensation program for children who have been injured by vaccinations.

“Regardless of the subject matter, parents making decisions about their children’s health deserve to have the best information available to them. They should be able to count on federal agencies to tell them the truth. For these reasons, I bring the following matter to the House floor.

“In August 2014, Dr. William Thompson, a senior scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, worked with a whistleblower attorney to provide my office with documents related to a 2004 CDC study that examined the possibility of a relationship between [the] mumps, measles, rubella vaccine and autism. In a statement released in August, 2014, Dr. Thompson stated, ‘I regret that my co-authors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics.’

“Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request the following excepts from the statement written by Dr. Thompson be entered into the record.

“Now quoting Dr. Thompson.

“‘My primary job duties while working in the immunization safety branch from 2000 to 2006, were to later co-lead three major vaccine safety studies. The MADDSP, MMR autism cases control study was being carried out in response to the Wakefield-Lancet study that suggested an association between the MMR vaccine and an autism-like health outcome. There were several major concerns among scientists and consumer advocates outside the CDC in the fall of 2000, regarding the execution of the Verstraeten Study.

One of the important goals that was determined up front, in the spring of 2001, before any of these studies started, was to have all three protocols vetted outside the CDC prior to the start of the analyses so consumer advocates could not claim that we were presenting analyses that suited our own goals and biases.

We hypothesized that if we found statistically significant effects at either 18 or 36 month thresholds, we would conclude that vaccinating children early with MMR vaccine could lead to autism-like characteristics or features. We all met and finalized the study protocol and analysis plan. The goal was to not deviate from the analysis plan to avoid the debacle that occurred with the Verstraeten thimerosal study published in Pediatrics in 2003.

‘At the Sept 5th meeting we discussed in detail how to code race for both the sample and the birth certificate sample. At the bottom of table 7, it also shows that for the non-birth certificate sample, the adjusted race effect statistical significance was huge.

‘All the authors and I met and decided sometime between August and September 2002, not to report any race effects from the paper. Sometime soon after the meeting, we decided to exclude reporting any race effects. The co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study.

The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room, and reviewed and went through all the hardcopy documents that we had thought we should discard, and put them into a huge garbage can. However, because I assumed it was illegal and would violate both FOIA and DOJ requests, I kept hardcopies of all documents in my office, and I retain all associated computer files. I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper.’ -- "end of quote of the doctor"

“Mr. Speaker, I believe it is our duty to insure that the documents that Dr. Thompson are not ignored. Therefore I will provide them to members of Congress and the House Committees upon request. Considering the nature of the whistleblower’s documents as well as the involvement of the CDC, a hearing and a thorough investigation is warranted.

“So I ask, Mr. Speaker, I beg, I implore my colleagues on the appropriations committees to please, please take such action.”

[protokol]

How the fuck can injecting mercury, aluminum, live viruses, as well as other inflammatory substances NOT have a toxic effect on the body and brain? There are NO INDEPENDENT STUDIES covering the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines in humans. I am sure you believe there are though, so I challenge you to find ONE study that does this. For every other drug on the market this type of testing is required, yet there are none for vaccines. I wonder why that is... Have fun.

As far as your "actual paper" that is just an abstract. I am not sure how you expect me to honestly review the study based on a synopsis. Furthermore, I never said Wakefield was right, just that he did not commit fraud. I believe the subject deserves further study. As real scientists know, the studies should never be over because science is never settled. You on the other hand are of the belief that the subject should just be ignored.

I will be waiting patiently for you to produce a single independent human efficacy and safety study for injected vaccines.

TBH I thought I was linking to the full paper, but you're right, only the abstract is available to view. However, you get an idea of the study just from the abstract, it includes the statistical results, and the huge sample size (which I think trumped any other study to date). It actually used an extra variable: It looked at children with older siblings that had autism, and compared the chance of the younger children getting autism. Here is the conclusion:

In this large sample of privately insured children with older siblings, receipt of the MMR vaccine was not associated with increased risk of ASD, regardless of whether older siblings had ASD. These findings indicate no harmful association between MMR vaccine receipt and ASD even among children already at higher risk for ASD.

Yes, Wakefield was fraudulent in his Lancet paper. He did not divulge huge conflicts of interest with his sample. Even if he wasn't fraudulent, it was still a shitty study with a tiny sample size. It was also of a case-control design, which is easier to perform than a cohort study, but nowhere near as effective for finding the cause of disease: Here's a link which explains the difference: http://www.theanalysisfactor.com/cohort-and-case-control-studies-pros-and-cons/

As for your question about a study regarding the safety of vaccines, many have been done. Here's a document with a big-ass list: https://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

Anyhow, we aren't talking about whether all injected vaccines are safe. They probably are, but we are specifically investigating whether a link between MMR vaccines and autism exists. I've shown, with studies that are far more statistically significant than the ones posted by believers in the autism link, that it's bullshit. Not only that, but I have shown specifically what was wrong with said studies. Now it's your turn to poke holes in my sources.

Good luck.

[protokol]

Enough with this non-existent link between vaccines and autism. Did you not read about the year-old meta-analysis of 1.25 million people showing no link? Read more here: https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autism

Do know how many children were sampled in Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent paper which started this whole debacle off? 12. Yes that's right, TWELVE. And they weren't even fairly sampled - some of their parents were suing over alleged vaccine injury - a huge conflict of interest.

So enough about vaccines and autism. OK?

*Scratches head*

Did you watch the C-SPAN video?

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) ADMITTED to holding evidence from trials, and destroying those documents instead of publishing them.

State Rep from Florida, Bill Posey

I rise today on matters of scientific integrity and research. To begin with, I am absolutely, resolutely, pro-vaccine. Advancements in medical immunization have saved countless and greatly benefitted public health. That being said, it’s troubling to me that in a recent Senate hearing on childhood vaccinations, it was never mentioned that our government has paid out over $3 billion through a vaccine injury compensation program for children who have been injured by vaccinations.

“Regardless of the subject matter, parents making decisions about their children’s health deserve to have the best information available to them. They should be able to count on federal agencies to tell them the truth. For these reasons, I bring the following matter to the House floor.

“In August 2014, Dr. William Thompson, a senior scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, worked with a whistleblower attorney to provide my office with documents related to a 2004 CDC study that examined the possibility of a relationship between [the] mumps, measles, rubella vaccine and autism. In a statement released in August, 2014, Dr. Thompson stated, ‘I regret that my co-authors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics.’

“Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request the following excepts from the statement written by Dr. Thompson be entered into the record.

“Now quoting Dr. Thompson.

“‘My primary job duties while working in the immunization safety branch from 2000 to 2006, were to later co-lead three major vaccine safety studies. The MADDSP, MMR autism cases control study was being carried out in response to the Wakefield-Lancet study that suggested an association between the MMR vaccine and an autism-like health outcome. There were several major concerns among scientists and consumer advocates outside the CDC in the fall of 2000, regarding the execution of the Verstraeten Study.

One of the important goals that was determined up front, in the spring of 2001, before any of these studies started, was to have all three protocols vetted outside the CDC prior to the start of the analyses so consumer advocates could not claim that we were presenting analyses that suited our own goals and biases.

We hypothesized that if we found statistically significant effects at either 18 or 36 month thresholds, we would conclude that vaccinating children early with MMR vaccine could lead to autism-like characteristics or features. We all met and finalized the study protocol and analysis plan. The goal was to not deviate from the analysis plan to avoid the debacle that occurred with the Verstraeten thimerosal study published in Pediatrics in 2003.

‘At the Sept 5th meeting we discussed in detail how to code race for both the sample and the birth certificate sample. At the bottom of table 7, it also shows that for the non-birth certificate sample, the adjusted race effect statistical significance was huge.

‘All the authors and I met and decided sometime between August and September 2002, not to report any race effects from the paper. Sometime soon after the meeting, we decided to exclude reporting any race effects. The co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study.

The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room, and reviewed and went through all the hardcopy documents that we had thought we should discard, and put them into a huge garbage can. However, because I assumed it was illegal and would violate both FOIA and DOJ requests, I kept hardcopies of all documents in my office, and I retain all associated computer files. I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper.’ -- "end of quote of the doctor"

“Mr. Speaker, I believe it is our duty to insure that the documents that Dr. Thompson are not ignored. Therefore I will provide them to members of Congress and the House Committees upon request. Considering the nature of the whistleblower’s documents as well as the involvement of the CDC, a hearing and a thorough investigation is warranted.

“So I ask, Mr. Speaker, I beg, I implore my colleagues on the appropriations committees to please, please take such action.”

You might want to read this thoroughly: http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp

What I don't understand with you anti-vaxxers, is that it seems nothing can possibly change your mind. I posted a meta-analysis of over 1 million people which shows no link... No, the science is never truly settled, but when you have properly designed studies with that sort of sample size, it's seems ludicrous to go back to your case-controlled studies with a sample size that you can almost count on your fingers and toes...

[TECSHARE]

How the fuck can injecting mercury, aluminum, live viruses, as well as other inflammatory substances NOT have a toxic effect on the body and brain? There are NO INDEPENDENT STUDIES covering the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines in humans. I am sure you believe there are though, so I challenge you to find ONE study that does this. For every other drug on the market this type of testing is required, yet there are none for vaccines. I wonder why that is... Have fun.

As far as your "actual paper" that is just an abstract. I am not sure how you expect me to honestly review the study based on a synopsis. Furthermore, I never said Wakefield was right, just that he did not commit fraud. I believe the subject deserves further study. As real scientists know, the studies should never be over because science is never settled. You on the other hand are of the belief that the subject should just be ignored.

I will be waiting patiently for you to produce a single independent human efficacy and safety study for injected vaccines.

TBH I thought I was linking to the full paper, but you're right, only the abstract is available to view. However, you get an idea of the study just from the abstract, it includes the statistical results, and the huge sample size (which I think trumped any other study to date). It actually used an extra variable: It looked at children with older siblings that had autism, and compared the chance of the younger children getting autism. Here is the conclusion:

In this large sample of privately insured children with older siblings, receipt of the MMR vaccine was not associated with increased risk of ASD, regardless of whether older siblings had ASD. These findings indicate no harmful association between MMR vaccine receipt and ASD even among children already at higher risk for ASD.

Yes, Wakefield was fraudulent in his Lancet paper. He did not divulge huge conflicts of interest with his sample. Even if he wasn't fraudulent, it was still a shitty study with a tiny sample size. It was also of a case-control design, which is easier to perform than a cohort study, but nowhere near as effective for finding the cause of disease: Here's a link which explains the difference: http://www.theanalysisfactor.com/cohort-and-case-control-studies-pros-and-cons/

As for your question about a study regarding the safety of vaccines, many have been done. Here's a document with a big-ass list: https://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

Anyhow, we aren't talking about whether all injected vaccines are safe. They probably are, but we are specifically investigating whether a link between MMR vaccines and autism exists. I've shown, with studies that are far more statistically significant than the ones posted by believers in the autism link, that it's bullshit. Not only that, but I have shown specifically what was wrong with said studies. Now it's your turn to poke holes in my sources.

Good luck.

"Getting an idea" of the study doesn't allow me to critically examine it. It would be like if I made a conclusion about a book, handed you the first page of cliff notes, then asked you to refute my point, it is completely disingenuous.

As I already stated, the Wakefield paper NEVER MADE THOSE CONCLUSIONS, all he did was suggest the subject needs further study. Others made those conclusions for him, you can not attribute that to him. As MakingMoneyHoney stated, the CDC was forced to admit they purposely destroyed related evidence showing very clearly there is an agenda at play in an attempt to destroy Wakefield's career for daring to suggest the subject needs further study.

Additionally your huge list of studies did not include one single study about the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines in humans. Of course it is a nice way to try to waste my time digging thru reams of studies you throw at me in bulk as if they all support your argument. Furthermore if I did point out some flaw in any of the studies, because you referenced a giant list, all you have to do is say "oh no I didn't mean that study... I mean this one..." giving you a perfect excuse to not have to back up your claims one bit.

NOTE: for those of you who are actually looking for real scientific information regarding vaccine safety (or lack there of), I suggest you listen to all parts of this presentation by Dr. Suzanne Humphries, it is quite informative.

For everyone else, don't bother watching it, because we all know you don't care enough to actually dedicate that much time to listening because your minds are made up and you are too lazy to examine the situation critically anyway even if you could understand it with your complete ignorance of scientific method.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFQQOv-Oi6U

The medical industry has plenty of room for improvement, stop supporting the myth that it is infallible: http://rblaw.net/medical-negligence-3rd-leading-cause-death-united-states/

In Dr. Wakefield's own words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d40suCKnjbI

WE ARE talking about injected vaccines being unsafe, that is the WHOLE POINT of this thread. I realize it is inconvenient to your bias towards support of vaccines, but that does not magically make it irrelevant. If there are SO MANY independent scientific studies conducted regarding the human safety and efficacy of injected vaccines, you should have NO PROBLEM citing JUST ONE of them. If you are so completely in the right you should have no problem at all finding one and standing behind it. This is a CRITICAL POINT, because it demonstrates very clearly that THE SCIENCE NEVER EXISTED, and this is nothing but the marketing of a dangerous product which is MANDATORY.

[protokol]

How the fuck can injecting mercury, aluminum, live viruses, as well as other inflammatory substances NOT have a toxic effect on the body and brain? There are NO INDEPENDENT STUDIES covering the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines in humans. I am sure you believe there are though, so I challenge you to find ONE study that does this. For every other drug on the market this type of testing is required, yet there are none for vaccines. I wonder why that is... Have fun.

As far as your "actual paper" that is just an abstract. I am not sure how you expect me to honestly review the study based on a synopsis. Furthermore, I never said Wakefield was right, just that he did not commit fraud. I believe the subject deserves further study. As real scientists know, the studies should never be over because science is never settled. You on the other hand are of the belief that the subject should just be ignored.

I will be waiting patiently for you to produce a single independent human efficacy and safety study for injected vaccines.

TBH I thought I was linking to the full paper, but you're right, only the abstract is available to view. However, you get an idea of the study just from the abstract, it includes the statistical results, and the huge sample size (which I think trumped any other study to date). It actually used an extra variable: It looked at children with older siblings that had autism, and compared the chance of the younger children getting autism. Here is the conclusion:

In this large sample of privately insured children with older siblings, receipt of the MMR vaccine was not associated with increased risk of ASD, regardless of whether older siblings had ASD. These findings indicate no harmful association between MMR vaccine receipt and ASD even among children already at higher risk for ASD.

Yes, Wakefield was fraudulent in his Lancet paper. He did not divulge huge conflicts of interest with his sample. Even if he wasn't fraudulent, it was still a shitty study with a tiny sample size. It was also of a case-control design, which is easier to perform than a cohort study, but nowhere near as effective for finding the cause of disease: Here's a link which explains the difference: http://www.theanalysisfactor.com/cohort-and-case-control-studies-pros-and-cons/

As for your question about a study regarding the safety of vaccines, many have been done. Here's a document with a big-ass list: https://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

Anyhow, we aren't talking about whether all injected vaccines are safe. They probably are, but we are specifically investigating whether a link between MMR vaccines and autism exists. I've shown, with studies that are far more statistically significant than the ones posted by believers in the autism link, that it's bullshit. Not only that, but I have shown specifically what was wrong with said studies. Now it's your turn to poke holes in my sources.

Good luck.

"Getting an idea" of the study doesn't allow me to critically examine it. It would be like if I made a conclusion about a book, handed you the first page of cliff notes, then asked you to refute my point, it is completely disingenuous.

As I already stated, the Wakefield paper NEVER MADE THOSE CONCLUSIONS, all he did was suggest the subject needs further study. Others made those conclusions for him, you can not attribute that to him. As MakingMoneyHoney stated, the CDC was forced to admit they purposely destroyed related evidence showing very clearly there is an agenda at play in an attempt to destroy Wakefield's career for daring to suggest the subject needs further study.

Additionally your huge list of studies did not include one single study about the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines in humans. Of course it is a nice way to try to waste my time digging thru reams of studies you throw at me in bulk as if they all support your argument. Furthermore if I did point out some flaw in any of the studies, because you referenced a giant list, all you have to do is say "oh no I didn't mean that study... I mean this one..." giving you a perfect excuse to not have to back up your claims one bit.

NOTE: for those of you who are actually looking for real scientific information regarding vaccine safety (or lack there of), I suggest you listen to all parts of this presentation by Dr. Suzanne Humphries, it is quite informative.

For everyone else, don't bother watching it, because we all know you don't care enough to actually dedicate that much time to listening because your minds are made up and you are too lazy to examine the situation critically anyway even if you could understand it with your complete ignorance of scientific method.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFQQOv-Oi6U

The medical industry has plenty of room for improvement, stop supporting the myth that it is infallible: http://rblaw.net/medical-negligence-3rd-leading-cause-death-united-states/

In Dr. Wakefield's own words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d40suCKnjbI

WE ARE talking about injected vaccines being unsafe, that is the WHOLE POINT of this thread. I realize it is inconvenient to your bias towards support of vaccines, but that does not magically make it irrelevant. If there are SO MANY independent scientific studies conducted regarding the human safety and efficacy of injected vaccines, you should have NO PROBLEM citing JUST ONE of them. If you are so completely in the right you should have no problem at all finding one and standing behind it. This is a CRITICAL POINT, because it demonstrates very clearly that THE SCIENCE NEVER EXISTED, and this is nothing but the marketing of a dangerous product which is MANDATORY.

It seems I'm wasting my time here.

I went out of my way to criticise the studies you are citing (including the article about a study you posted which actually had NOTHING to do with the issue):

The paper you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with a link between vaccines and autism - as far as I can see it claims a link between autism and GI symptoms. And there were only 25 participants. Here's the link to the actual paper: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058058

You posted it to refute me, yet you have not touched upon it since. Could it be that you didn't actually read the paper, even though it was cited in the bullshit article you linked, claiming content that doesn't exist? That's bad form. Again, I ask you to please quote the section which gives evidence for your viewpoint that MMR vaccine causes autism... Good luck.

I also showed how Andrew Wakefield is a fraudulent individual, who failed to declare conflicts of interest in an important study, and again you fail to refute my points.

All you seem to be able to do is move the goalposts (ask me for more studies that give evidence for the safety of vaccines in general, which I do) without making any refutation of my main evidence, which are 2 massively statistically significant papers, 1 a cohort study of 95,000 people, the other a meta-analysis of 1.25 million people. Both pieces of evidence MASSIVELY REFUTE your opinion.

Again, I went out of my way to refute your evidence. I didn't question your links, ask you for more evidence etc, I simply asked you to refute mine.

If you can find faults with my 2 pieces of evidence, please state them. I have provided adequate evidence that counters your claims, which are backed by objectively far inferior evidence. The burden of proof is on YOU, I do not need to refute any more claims of yours.

I'm not going to watch any youtube videos. Link me to relevant studies/analyses and I'll read them.

And learn some more about science, specifically epidemiology. Here's a really good book that explains a lot about how to interpret medical trials and Bad Science

[TECSHARE]

It seems I'm wasting my time here.

I went out of my way to criticise the studies you are citing (including the article about a study you posted which actually had NOTHING to do with the issue):

The paper you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with a link between vaccines and autism - as far as I can see it claims a link between autism and GI symptoms. And there were only 25 participants. Here's the link to the actual paper: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058058

You posted it to refute me, yet you have not touched upon it since. Could it be that you didn't actually read the paper, even though it was cited in the bullshit article you linked, claiming content that doesn't exist? That's bad form. Again, I ask you to please quote the section which gives evidence for your viewpoint that MMR vaccine causes autism... Good luck.

I also showed how Andrew Wakefield is a fraudulent individual, who failed to declare conflicts of interest in an important study, and again you fail to refute my points.

All you seem to be able to do is move the goalposts (ask me for more studies that give evidence for the safety of vaccines in general, which I do) without making any refutation of my main evidence, which are 2 massively statistically significant papers, 1 a cohort study of 95,000 people, the other a meta-analysis of 1.25 million people. Both pieces of evidence MASSIVELY REFUTE your opinion.

Again, I went out of my way to refute your evidence. I didn't question your links, ask you for more evidence etc, I simply asked you to refute mine.

If you can find faults with my 2 pieces of evidence, please state them. I have provided adequate evidence that counters your claims, which are backed by objectively far inferior evidence. The burden of proof is on YOU, I do not need to refute any more claims of yours.

I'm not going to watch any youtube videos. Link me to relevant studies/analyses and I'll read them.

And learn some more about science, specifically epidemiology. Here's a really good book that explains a lot about how to interpret medical trials and Bad Science

Yes, you are wasting your own time.

We are so grateful for you "going out of your way" to criticize studies which at no point I claimed were conclusive evidence of anything except that the correlation between vaccines and autism should be studied further. Your claim that one large study showing there is no correlation should end the debate shows your complete ignorance of scientific method. Furthermore, you conveniently skipped over a very extensive list of studies linked in that article supporting Dr. Wakefield's conclusion that the subject should be studied further, and that there is a link between gut bacteria and autism (fact). He at no point claimed it was proof of a link between MMR and autism, but you wouldn't know this because you are simply parroting second hand information and pretending you took the time to educate yourself about the subject.

"Here is a list of 28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield’s research:

    The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
    The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
    Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
    Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005
    Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
    Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
    Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
    The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
    Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
    Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
    Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161
    Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
    Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
    Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
    Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
    Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
    Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
    Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
    Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
    American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
    Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
    Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
    Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.
    Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16
    Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465
    Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991
    Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
    Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303"

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/06/21/new-published-study-verifies-andrew-wakefields-research-on-autism-again-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism/

Again, I ask you to please quote the section which gives evidence for your viewpoint that MMR vaccine causes autism

I would, except I never made this claim, and neither did Dr. Wakefield. He suggested the subject needs further study, and I agree with him. How should I be expected to defend a premise I did not make? You are making wild assumptions here and expecting me to explain them. You don't get to assign an argument to me and force me to defend it when I never even made that argument. That is not how debate works.

I am refuting your claim that the science behind the safety of vaccines is settled, because it is not by a long shot. You are so blinded by your bias you aren't even reading my words, you just assign a viewpoint to me based on your past interactions with people you deem "antivaxers" in a pathetic attempt at marginalization.

I don't need to show you anything, because you are arguing based on points I never made, therefore your argument is disingenuous at its premise. My only argument is that the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines is not sufficiently documented. I never asked you to watch any youtube videos, those were for people actually interested in educating themselves and learning about the subject, not for people who have decided they know the results for a fact and consider the study of the subject a "waste of time".

There is one part of one of the videos you should listen to because it is very relevant.
(at 40:10)

"Wakefield: Well the paper was originally... underwent a partial retraction in 2004. What does that mean? It meant that the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton (sp?) asked that we issue a partial retraction of the interpretation that MMR vaccine causes Autism. Well we had never provided that interpretation and... does it... is it a possibility? Yes. Can you retract a possibility? No. It's totally illogical. So, many of my colleagues who I think were quite frightened by this whole process decided to issue a partial retraction, and three of us said no.

Mercola: How many colleagues were involved?

Wakefield: There were thirteen. Ten retracted and three said no. This doesn't make any sense scientifically. You can't retract a possibility. We did not come to the conclusion that the vaccine causes autism, quite the opposite. So, no we are not going to get involved with this."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d40suCKnjbI

You have some nerve telling me I need to learn more about science as if you are an expert when you have such basic reading comprehension problems.

Again, if you are so completely assured that vaccines are safe, provide me with JUST ONE independent study with human trials that demonstrates the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines. If the preponderance of evidence you claim exists really does exist, and you are such an expert on scientific method, this should not be a problem for you at all... unless of course those studies don't exist.

[protokol]

Yes, you are wasting your own time.

We are so grateful for you "going out of your way" to criticize studies which at no point I claimed were conclusive evidence of anything except that the correlation between vaccines and autism should be studied further. Your claim that one large study showing there is no correlation should end the debate shows your complete ignorance of scientific method. Furthermore, you conveniently skipped over a very extensive list of studies linked in that article supporting Dr. Wakefield's conclusion that the subject should be studied further, and that there is a link between gut bacteria and autism (fact). He at no point claimed it was proof of a link between MMR and autism, but you wouldn't know this because you are simply parroting second hand information and pretending you took the time to educate yourself about the subject.

U wot m8?? 

Enough about vaccines and autism. OK?

Not ok. New Published Study Verifies Andrew Wakefield’s Research on Autism – Again (MMR Vaccine Causes Autism)

The paper you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with a link between vaccines and autism

I will be waiting patiently for you to produce a single independent human efficacy and safety study for injected vaccines.

*posts list of genuine vaccine studies

your huge list of studies did not include one single study about the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines in humans.

uuuh well actually all of the studies are about the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines in humans... If you've got a problem with any of them, then you need to discuss it specifically, like I'm doing. Not just accuse me of swamping you with studies haha. Anyway, I just posted great studies proving my point, and now you're asking me to produce more studies to prove another point (moving the goalposts). 

Then you spin the argument to talk about how there's a link between "gut bacteria and autism", when we were not saying anything about gut bacteria. The only reason that gut bacteria are in the discussion is because you posted a study (second quote above), that you said was proving a link between MMR vaccine and autism. However, even though the title of the article said this, I read the ACTUAL PAPER, and saw that it had nothing to do with the article, and was actually to do with GI symptoms. Here's a tip, NEVER TRUST ANYTHING FROM THAT SOURCE AGAIN. They lied to you. Always read the actual paper.

    The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
    The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
    Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
    Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005
    Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
    Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
    Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
    The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
    Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
    Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
    Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161
    Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
    Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
    Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
    Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
    Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
    Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
    Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
    Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
    American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
    Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
    Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
    Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.
    Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16
    Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465
    Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991
    Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
    Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303"

First 3 papers are about GI conditions in autism patients, not the link of MMR and autism which was being discussed earlier. Will check the rest later.

http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/06/21/new-published-study-verifies-andrew-wakefields-research-on-autism-again-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism/

No, that's the shitty source that I questioned earlier. The headline of the article you posted earlier DIRECTLY CONFLICTS with the scientific paper it quotes. You do see how that is problematic, right?

Again, I ask you to please quote the section which gives evidence for your viewpoint that MMR vaccine causes autism

I would, except I never made this claim, and neither did Dr. Wakefield. He suggested the subject needs further study, and I agree with him. How should I be expected to defend a premise I did not make? You are making wild assumptions here and expecting me to explain them. You don't get to assign an argument to me and force me to defend it when I never even made that argument. That is not how debate works.

Yeah, you made this claim when you answered my post saying the MMR autism link was bullshit. You said it was "not OK" and posted the article I talked about above.

I am refuting your claim that the science behind the safety of vaccines is settled, because it is not by a long shot. You are so blinded by your bias you aren't even reading my words, you just assign a viewpoint to me based on your past interactions with people you deem "antivaxers" in a pathetic attempt at marginalization.

I don't need to show you anything, because you are arguing based on points I never made, therefore your argument is disingenuous at its premise. My only argument is that the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines is not sufficiently documented. I never asked you to watch any youtube videos, those were for people actually interested in educating themselves and learning about the subject, not for people who have decided they know the results for a fact and consider the study of the subject a "waste of time".

Ha OK. It's not settled (science never is, 100%), but to counter the evidence I've shown you need to provide evidence of equivalent or higher statistical significance. I linked a HUGE meta-analysis of over 1 million people. A meta-analysis is a statistical representation of as many individual studies as possible. The more studies and the better the design of the meta-analysis, the more accurate the results. This evidence trumps any other on the face of the earth right now - this is the "further study" you talk about. They did it, and these are the results.

If you want to prove your point, you absolutely DO need to show something, otherwise you lose the argument. You made a claim (in your first post in reply to me) I refuted it, and you haven't yet come up with a single critique of my evidence. This whole thread is about vaccines causing autism, man up and smell the coffee - they fucking don't.