[monocasa]

It's more that there's been study after study after study showing no link, and the guy saying there is a link was trying to find a market for his vaccine instead of the standard MMR vaccine and has instead shifted his focus to making money off of his books and movies.

The guy is literally profiting over increasing the death rate of children.

[RobertRoberts]

There was proof of a link between autism and vaccines. It just came out this past January in 2019. But the news didn't report on it.

[anoncake]

Surely you can provide a citation? Though if anyone claims they have proven such a link, then either they are lying, incompetent or mathematicians. Because nothing gets proven in other fields.

[RobertRoberts]

The reason I won't post a link about this topic is because I get rabbid responses, threats and accusations, and lots of down votes.

I have posted links to real data, doctors, scientists and papers before and all of it is rejected because of some reason.

It's not a fight I am up for right now.

I recommend doing a search for CDC vaccine doctor witness 2019. I am sure you (or someone else) will come back here to accuse me of something anyways.

Yes, I am jaded, it's disgusting how unscientific people get when you question vaccine safety. (even though billions have been paid out in damages caused by vaccines... sigh, yes billions)

Edit: If you want to hear from a very respected doctor who has studied the science behind vaccines and won't take another vaccine ever again, look up Dr. Suzanne Humphries. Most people won't actually listen to the data she presents, but just attack her out of spite and fear.

[dboat]

Scientists and researchers are constantly saying wrong, untrue things when they are not restrained by the rigor of the peer review process. It is not a scientist's informed opinion that matters, what matters is what they can show.

If you do not understand this, I can see how you might receive criticisms and feel they are unfair. But deploy an actual credible source of information, and not someone's opinion, and see the difference it makes.

[RobertRoberts]

Just this past week Monsanto was found to have bullied scientists into falsifying results about their weed killer.

Just because the ideal is that scientists are about the truth, doesn't mean that is what happens.

Edit: There's not been one single peer reviewed double blind test done on the efficacy of vaccines or parachutes.

[monocasa]

Why do y'all keep saying there aren't studies being done?

Hell, this one was peer reveiwed, double blind _and_ and done with twins.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/2871241/

And that's just one of thousands of examples.

[dboat]

Regarding the Monsanto story, that's why we have peer review and journals that do not allow you to publish just by paying. If Monsanto managed to get a corrupted study published in a credible journal, that would be quite a scandal. If this is real, I would be genuinely interested in seeing it.

As to your other point, there are studies done for -every- approved vaccine. You aren't just wrong, you could scarcely be more wrong if you tried.

* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20692031

* https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...

It was not hard to find these, and yes they cover efficacy. Please stop spreading misinformation, especially when it can cost lives.

[anoncake]

> Suzanne Humphries

A homeopath(1) who cites two studies(2) published in a predatory journal, at least one of which was later retracted(3)?

I think you need to get your bullshit detector checked.

(1) http://web.archive.org/web/20130729083449if_/http://drsuzann...

(2) Mawson 2017 at http://drsuzanne.net/dr-suzanne-humphries-vaccines-vaccinati...

(3) https://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/08/retracted-vaccine-aut...

[RobertRoberts]

And here it is. You attack _her_ instead of the information she presents. (And then since people always say _something_ debatable, attack only that)

1) Is Dr. Suzanne Humphries a homeopath?

No she is not, yes she has training in it and yes she's removed it from her CV.

In this video she says "No, it [homeopathy] did not work"... summarizing her statement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLrqmvjrIjI#t=2m30s

2) Retracted paper

A retracted paper (a pilot study at that) from a journal is not proof against the paper's results. It's only proof that the paper was retracted.

Also, it looks like (from your link) it was retracted because of a "twitter storm"... not a scientific basis.

3.) Her actual views summarized pretty well:

Consider her scientific perspective in the video below on the topic of vaccines. (only 20 minutes, it's worth 1 viewing, even if you disagree in advance)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpC0Tbb3diI

[anoncake]

Homeopathy is not debatable, it is obvious bullshit. Not noticing that more or less immediately, as a MD at that, is a pretty good sign that someone is really bad at anything science. Taking studies published in a predatory journal seriously is another sign, though perhaps not as strong one.

None of this is proof that her views are wrong, but they are clear signs that she is bad enough at anything science that she is not worth listening to.

[monocasa]

Hold up do you go by Bobby?