Vaccinations; recent developments

[kEhYo77]

Very cool. Thanks for posting that.

But get ready for the water down.

Mags

No problem, Mags

I hope for the best for all the mankind.

As for the Shhh...

Rise of the Machines
I think he might be  the new AI BOT! hahah
No one sane would behave like it does with a blind denial of the truth...

[SeaMonkey]

Very cool. Thanks for posting that.

But get ready for the water down.

Mags

kEhYo77,

I'd like to echo what Mags has said.
What is being done by the relatively small number
of Truthers to keep us well informed is incredible
and very much appreciated.

Download link for document

[SeaMonkey]

...I do talking about sexual things?

Some might call your exposition a Freudian Slip.
The pre-occupation with things 'sexual' does for
certain indicate a weird frame of mind.

Sorry to say Sarkey, you've lost it.  Whatever credibility
you may have enjoyed is gone, vanished.

[sarkeizen]

From: here
PDF download

Did you read any of those studies?  My guess is "no".  So let's pick everyone's favorite: MMR

First study is the Cochrane review from 2012.  Which is a collection of studies of different types and sizes.  The conclusion of your PDF document is: "The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate."

So this study was about comparing MMR to monovalent vaccines.  The discussion section begins thus:"We found only limited evidence of the safety of MMR compared to its single component vaccines from studies that had a low risk of bias. The few studies least likely to be affected by systematic error pointed to a likely association with fewer upper respiratory tract infections, increased febrile convulsions in the first two weeks
post vaccination and no increased incidence of aseptic meningitis (for Jeryl-Lynn strain-containing mumps vaccine). Low risk of bias evidence did not support a causal association with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis or autism."

The conclusion is about the large amount of variability in the metrics used by the studies as well as risk of selection bias (particularly in some of the early ones).  As you can see from the above the statement this isn't about saying vaccines are not very safe or effective.  There's a whole conversation to be had around allocation concealment but as anything beyond "Greenmedinfo supplies perfectly unbiased information about fields they have no expertise in" seems to be considered "watering down" I'm sure you'll be more comfortable if you just go back and read some NaturalNews articles that you already agree with.

[sarkeizen]

Some might call your exposition a Freudian Slip.

Just nobody who knows what that is would.

The pre-occupation with things 'sexual' does for certain indicate a weird frame of mind.

The fact that you are the one who devotes to most text to said subject I'll assume you're referring to yourself here.

I'll give you another chance to show you're not fixated though   How about answering some of these questions...

Finding sources of Information promoted by The Establishment (Dis-Information and Propaganda) is not a problem for the vast majority.

Please find the contents of DeStefano et. al 2004.  I'll start a clock.

The links we've provided are to sources which are not as readily discovered.

Please point out an actual published study covered in one of your links which is "not readily discovered".