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.
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.
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.
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.
This is a common misunderstanding with all of these tests. _None_ of them test for defense/protection against the disease itself. They only test for indicator of immune response.
I looked at the test in a previous comment above, the results between placebo and vaccine are similar.
There were no controls on _any_ of these tests on who was exposed to the disease.
The second link says they had an "immunogenic response" (the only tests ever done for vaccines) but then ends with this:
>... vaccine was ineffective at reducing the natural infection rate in semi-immune African adults.
Monsanto effects on scientists brought before the courts:
>Wisner, who said the trial would include commentary from 10 current or former Monsanto employees, also read aloud internal corporate documents obtained during the case. In response to one critical study about glyphosate exposure, Donna Farmer, product protection lead, wrote in an email: “How do we combat this?”[0]
Peer reviewed journals do not defend or protect studies that are never published in the first place.
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)
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.