Vaccinations; recent developments

[Cap-Z-ro]

Ok, where are they...where'd they go ?

Where is king shill and his witt/Groom of the Stool ?

First, I will eliminate the Groom from the issue...I will do that by breaking into words of 3 or more  syllables.


Constantinople copacetic cunnilinguistic...


There while he's working on those words we can get down to it.

Here's how it looked from my vantage point atop the roof of Commissioner Gordon's building.

The king enters the thread demanding evidence to counter all his various purported study's supporting vaccinations from vested interests.

He goes on to offhandedly dismiss THE whistleblower as a a lab janitor or something who's unable to distinguish a graph from a crossword puzzle...when according to what I've heard, there were apparently many whistleblowers who came forward.

I guess he thought that little detail to be insignificant to bring up...maybe inconvenient wood be a more suitable term ?

Regards...



and follows up with more demands for evidence that vaccines are not toxic.

[Pirate88179]

Cap - 1:

If you can distract your fascination with men's butts for a moment,  oh wait, you can't?

Oh,OK.

Never mind.

Bill

[sarkeizen]

He goes on to offhandedly dismiss THE whistleblower as a a lab janitor or something who's unable to distinguish a graph from a crossword puzzle...

This would all be easier if a) You actually make a clear argument - with names and cites and b) you just READ the actual study and associated information.  You are conflating a lot of stuff this is probably because of statement like this:

when according to what I've heard,

See I don't base my understanding one what the cousin to the dishwasher said they heard in passing from the garbageman.

The person who is getting the label "CDC whistleblower" is Thompson a co-author of the study in question.  He claims that statistically significant data was omitted.  This was after talking with one Brian Hooker.  Hooker is not a statistician which is why he muffed his analysis and got a false positive.  A mistake I wouldn't expect from a grad student let alone a professional.

Also if you really want to believe Thompson - then you also have to believe Hooker which means you believe that MMR is unrelated to autism for everyone except afro-americans.  If you disagree and believe that MMR is a significant risk factor for all people.  Then you have to believe that Hooker's reanalysis is wrong and that Thompson is confused.

Let me know when you, or anyone can make an actual argument.  I won't hold my breath.

[sarkeizen]

Most who come into the various discussions here simply wish to provide food for thought

Probably not, at least not in this thread.  "food for thought" describes something that can be "intellectually chewed over".  There is almost no examples of that here.  Case in point "allcanadian" says that he and his friends OBSERVED PEOPLE WITH LOW IQs getting vaccinated.  I argue that only complete morons would think this is something that actually promotes thinking.  It's a) Not something that can be validated unless we know allcanadian and his/her friends.  b) it's not something that can be validated through some other group because there's probably nobody who would have that data. c) it's bigoted nonsense as you in all likelihood can't OBSERVE IQ.

All you can do with allcanadian's statement is accept it or not.  This is pretty much what most people in this thread provide.  This isn't making people think deeply at all.  If anything it's teaching people to accept facile arguments the exact opposite of "food for thought".

[Cap-Z-ro]

This would all be easier if a) You actually make a clear argument - with names and cites and b) you just READ the actual study and associated information.

Its always good for a laugh when morons tell everybody how unedgumacated they are and then use the word "cites" as if its a noun.


You are conflating a lot of stuff this is probably because of statement like this:See I don't base my understanding one what the cousin to the dishwasher said they heard in passing from the garbageman.

Except in this case, here is where the shill has taken the bait, and has both feet buried in the tar baby.

Anyone with google knows there were many whistleblowers who came forward...and not just the one guy he keeps referencing.

Now, I suppose he will expect you to believe ALL of them are either stupid or lying.

The person who is getting the label "CDC whistleblower" is Thompson a co-author of the study in question.  He claims that statistically significant data was omitted.  This was after talking with one Brian Hooker.  Hooker is not a statistician which is why he muffed his analysis and got a false positive.  A mistake I wouldn't expect from a grad student let alone a professional.

Lets all look at this bozo's logic a little closer shall we...his words - "...statistically significant data was omitted." and - " Hooker is not a statistician which is why he muffed his analysis..."

Maybe he can explain how someone can ' muffed his analysis ' when " statistically significant data was omitted "

The Marines have a term for this...its called this being hung on your own petard.

Shill Shoots Self in Foot...nooz @ eleben.

Also if you really want to believe Thompson - then you also have to believe Hooker which means you believe that MMR is unrelated to autism for everyone except afro-americans.  If you disagree and believe that MMR is a significant risk factor for all people.  Then you have to believe that Hooker's reanalysis is wrong and that Thompson is confused.

Blah blah blah...also addressed above

Let me know when you, or anyone can make an actual argument.  I won't hold my breath.

If I were him I wood be holding my breath...at least while in the presence of his 'Groom of the Stool'.
i can only imaging the smell of stale stool...and thats just his breath.

And speaking of stupid, the 'Groom' is not eligible for further acknowledgement in this thread, as he has yet to discern the meaning of the multi-syllable three word code provided for him recently above.

Besides, he can only find relevance whenever a male body part is referenced in context...if not, he will interject his gay references whenever he feels the urge.

Regards...