# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  CDC Caught Hiding Data Showing Mercury in Vaccines Linked to Autism

## Tod

> Health Impact News Editor Comments In a press release issued this week, one  that so far no mainstream media sources have bothered to report, it was  announced that Dr. Brian Hooker had finally received documents from the  CDC through a Freedom of Information Act that revealed the CDC had  access to data linking Thimerosal in vaccines to autism, non-organic  sleep disorders, and speech disorders. Two members of Congress helped Dr. Hooker  draft his letter to the CDC, after having spent nearly 10 years  submitting over 100 Freedom of Information Acts to no avail. This information, so far, has been completely blacked out of the mainstream media. This information is very damaging to the  CDC, which has stated for years that there are no studies linking the  mercury of Thimerosal in vaccines to autism. You can watch for yourself  in the video below the most recent testimony given by the CDC in the  November 2012 Congressional Hearing on Autism, where they claim there  are no studies linking Thimerosal to autism. Thimerosal is still used  today in the flu shot that is administered to pregnant women and  infants.
> The mainstream medias official position regarding vaccines and  autism has been that it has been proven that there is no link, and Dr.  Andrew Wakefield is used as the standard scapegoat being presented as a  disgraced doctor who supposedly got caught fabricating his study. Of  course, Dr. Andrew Wakefields study has been replicated in at least 28 other studies,  and no case has ever been won against Dr. Wakefield in a court of law.  Litigation is still pending, and one of the doctors who was a co-author  in the study has been completely exonerated in the U.K.
>  Yet, the man who supposedly conducted studies for the CDC proving  that vaccines do not cause autism, is a wanted criminal for stealing  millions of dollars from the CDC, and is still on the run from the law.  But that story is seldom, if ever, reported in the mainstream media.  (See: CDC Vaccine Link to Autism Scandal: The Wrong Man was Condemned)


much more, including video from C-SPAN and Ben Swann at link...

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/cdc...ked-to-autism/

----------


## Zippyjuan

One simple fact on the thimerisol- autism possible link.  The US and several countries in Europe removed thimerisol from vaccines intended for children many years ago.  If this thimerisol was a factor in autism, the rate of autism should have gone down once it was removed.  It didn't.  The rate continued to rise. That means thimerisol wasn't a factor in autism. There isn't a stronger proof of no connection between vaccines and autism. 

If you think apples are causing your diarrhea and you stop eating apples but you still have diarrhea, that wasn't the source of your problem. You need to find something else.

As for the flu vaccine, it is available in versions with or without thimerisol.  Ask you doctor. Vials intended for use for multiple patients will use thimerisol- single dose versions do not.




> Thimerosal is still used today in the flu shot that is administered to pregnant women and infants.


The flu vaccine is not to be give to infants or kids under six months.  http://www.flu.gov/at-risk/children/




> Children are at higher risk for the flu because their immune systems are not fully developed. Children with chronic health conditions are at even higher risk of getting the flu and experiencing complications.
> •Children 6 months and older should get the flu vaccine.
> •*Children younger than 6 months cannot get the flu vaccine.* Get vaccinated yourself and follow our prevention tips to keep them healthy.
> •Parents and caregivers of children younger than 5 or with chronic health conditions should get the flu vaccine.
> •If your child is younger than 5 or has any chronic health conditions and experiences flu-like symptoms contact a health care provider as soon as possible.


Also note that the amount of mercury in a vaccine is incredibly small at 25 micrograms or 0.0000025  grams. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVac...fety/UCM096228 It has a half life of about seven days in your body so it cannot bioaccumulate and be a health threat. Unless you get a few thousand vaccines at once which is not recommended.

----------


## Tod

> Vials intended for use for multiple patients will use thimerisol


^that was pointed out in the video.

----------


## BucksforPaul

Hopefully the Big Pharma apologists can explain why mercury was added to vaccines in the first place?

Did any of these scumbag enemies of humanity get punished for poisoning hundreds of millions of people?

A poison is not an acceptable preservative yet these dumb devils want us to take their word that there aren't other derivatives of mercury still present in vaccines.  These bastards have the nerve to continue selling vaccines which still contain thimerosal so what else is in there?

----------


## Zippyjuan

It is a preservative.  In multi- use formulations it is also to prevent cross contamination. 

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVac...fety/UCM096228



> Thimerosal is a mercury-containing organic compound (an organomercurial). Since the 1930s, it has been widely used as a preservative in a number of biological and drug products, including many vaccines, to help prevent potentially life threatening contamination with harmful microbes. Over the past several years, because of an increasing awareness of the theoretical potential for neurotoxicity of even low levels of organomercurials and because of the increased number of thimerosal containing vaccines that had been added to the infant immunization schedule, concerns about the use of thimerosal in vaccines and other products have been raised. Indeed, because of these concerns, the Food and Drug Administration has worked with, and continues to work with, vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal from vaccines.
> 
> Thimerosal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine (see Table 1). A preservative-free version of the inactivated influenza vaccine (contains trace amounts of thimerosal) is available in limited supply at this time for use in infants, children and pregnant women. Some vaccines such as Td, which is indicated for older children (≥ 7 years of age) and adults, are also now available in formulations that are free of thimerosal or contain only trace amounts. Vaccines with trace amounts of thimerosal contain 1 microgram or less of mercury per dose.

----------


## BucksforPaul

"Organic" mercury is worst for you if compared to naturally occurring metallic mercury.  A human body is naturally able to reject metallic mercury, if ingested in a limited quantity, but the "organic" artificial poison tricks the host into accepting the compound.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Actually the form of mercury in vaccines is the one the body rejects most easily- ethyl mercury. Methyl mecury (which is also "organic") is the more toxic and is the one associated with mercury poisoning and is found in some large fish like tuna. Ethyl mercury has a half life in your body of just seven days. 





> *Organic Mercury*
> 
> Mercury occurs in the metallic form, but that is not its only configuration; it can also chemically bond to other elements, to form more complex molecules. When Hg is bonded to carbon atoms, we have what is normally called organic mercury.
> 
> Two of the most common organic mercury compounds are methylmercury (MeHg) and ethylmercury (EtHg), where Hg forms a bond with a methyl (CH3) or ethyl (CH3CH2) group, respectively; their formulas are shown in the picture on the side. X- is an anion, or an ion with more electrons than protons, which compensates for the positive charge in both species.
> 
> *Methylmercury and Bioaccumulation*
> 
> MeHg can be formed by the reaction of metallic mercury with organic molecules or fragments of them; bacteria present in water, for instance, can favour this conversion.
> ...


http://www.decodedscience.com/ethyl-...erence/25234/2

The body can get rid of methyl mercury- but it takes a lot longer time to do so.

----------


## IBleedNavyAndOrange

> One simple fact on the thimerisol- autism possible link.  The US and several countries in Europe removed thimerisol from vaccines intended for children many years ago.


Strange.

When baby NavyAndOrange was at a check up and dr vaccine pusher tried (and failed) to convince us to poison baby, he said he could get any of the shots with no thimerisal.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Strange.
> 
> When baby NavyAndOrange was at a check up and dr vaccine pusher tried (and failed) to convince us to poison baby, *he said he could get any of the shots with no thimerisal*.


If you scroll down this page, it has a list of vaccines and it indicates which ones still use thimerisol. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVac...fety/UCM096228

The only ones listed as still having some in are some variations of the flu shot.

----------


## FindLiberty

The problem is medical propaganda and the initiation of force at various levels... If it's so good to do, why enforce its use with the gov-guns?

The technical issue should focus on all adjuvants, not just the addition of a little Mercury poison.

When they now say all the bad stuff has been completely removed and the vaccinations are now (or always were) perfectly safe, does that make it all true?

----------


## donnay

> much more, including video from C-SPAN and Ben Swann at link...
> 
> http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/cdc...ked-to-autism/


Great info.  There is more exposure and more awareness and harder for them to keep deceiving the people.  +rep

----------


## Zippyjuan

(Did I get Tod's rep or did you agree with my post?)

----------


## donnay

> (Did I get Tod's rep or did you agree with my post?)


Yeah I meant it for Tod--but that's okay Zippy, even though you're a contrarian and we do not agree, you are not hateful, so I don't mind giving you a +rep .

----------


## Danke

In B4 angelaPR.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Yeah I meant it for Tod--but that's okay Zippy, even though you're a contrarian and we do not agree, you are not hateful, so I don't mind giving you a +rep .


Thank you! And one for you in return.

----------


## IBleedNavyAndOrange

> If you scroll down this page, it has a list of vaccines and it indicates which ones still use thimerisol. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVac...fety/UCM096228
> 
> The only ones listed as still having some in are some variations of the flu shot.


dtap does also.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVac...y/UCM096228#t3

----------


## IBleedNavyAndOrange

> Zippy, even though you're a contrarian and we do not agree, you are not hateful, so I don't mind giving you a +rep .


THIS!

Thank you for always being respectful.

----------


## angelatc

> much more, including video from C-SPAN and Ben Swann at link...
> 
> http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/cdc...ked-to-autism/


This is a blog that cite a press release, which is found here:  http://www.prweb.com/releases/ASOT/T...eb11598819.htm

He seems to be citing a single study by a Dr. Verstraetan:


> According to Hooker, the data on over 400,000 infants born between 1991 and 1997, which was analyzed by CDC epidemiologist Thomas Verstraeten, MD, “proves unequivocally that in 2000, CDC officials were informed internally of the very high risk of autism, non-organic sleep disorder and speech disorder associated with Thimerosal exposure.”


(His original study was actually widely touted, but when a follow-up study didn't produce the same results, he was immediately vilified as a shill. )

Here's an outline on the whole manufactured controversy by people who aren't bat$#@! crazy:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywil...es-and-autism/ 




> *Is The CDC Hiding Data About Mercury, Vaccines, And Autism?*
> 
> 
> 
>  You know the rule. The answer is, “No.” But the assertion has gone viral on social media thanks to the zombie-like resurrection of a* long-told, oft-debunked story* that the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is hiding its own data linking autism and mercury in vaccines. If you see such assertions in your timelines and newsfeeds (sample headline: “CDC Caught Hiding Data Showing Mercury in Vaccines Linked to Autism”), send the disseminators here. Why? Read on.





> In his presentation at the Simpsonwood conference, Verstraeten noted,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the result for autism, in which we don’t see much of a trend except for a slight, but not significant, increase for the highest exposure. *The overall test for trend is statistically not significant.*


Or don't.  Keep believing that the whole world is evil and only you know the real truth.


Not everybody deserves a trophy. Ignorance does not deserve respect.

----------


## angelatc

> In B4 angelaPR.


Really? What did I do?    Tod is the guy posting a story based on nothing more than a sleazy Press Release.  

But you'd rather call me names for the sake of poisoning the well.  That's all you have because there's simply no truth in any of this.  You're just a big bad internet bully-wannabe.

----------


## Danke

> Really? What did I do?    Tod is the guy posting a story based on nothing more than a sleazy Press Release.  
> 
> But you'd rather call me names for the sake of poisoning the well.  That's all you have because there's simply no truth in any of this.  You're just a big bad internet bully-wannabe.


Someone can't take a little ribbing.  I suggest some time off from the Internet.

-rep "$#@! you $#@!" -AngelaTC

----------


## angelatc

> Someone can't take a little ribbing.  I suggest some time off from the Internet.
> 
> -rep "$#@! you $#@!" -AngelaTC


If you were just joking, then I am sorry.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> dtap does also.
> 
> http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVac...y/UCM096228#t3


 One version- the one from Sanofi Pasteur, Inc. has a trace. 0.00012% to be more precise or ≤ 0.3 µg/0.5 mL dose which is one eighty fifth of the amount in a flu vaccine (whihc has 25 micrograms)- basically non-existant.  And that was a tiny amount. Less than 0.3 micrograms is less than .00000003 grams.

----------


## eduardo89

> If you were just joking, then I am sorry.


Do you have a sister, niece, cousin, divorced neighbour, etc that you could set Danke up with to show how sorry you truly are?

----------


## angelatc

> Do you have a sister, niece, cousin, divorced neighbour, etc that you could set Danke up with to show how sorry you truly are?



No sister, no niece, no female cousins...my neighbor is a widow.  She's like 82, but single.  Would that worK?

----------


## Danke

> If you were just joking, then I am sorry.


Have you ever known me to be serious?

----------


## angelatc

> Have you ever known me to be serious?


I have to concede that is a very valid point.    














(But you seem pretty serious when you talk about airplanes.)

----------


## Danke

> Do you have a sister, niece, cousin, divorced neighbour, etc that you could set Danke up with to show how sorry you truly are?


She could buy me a ticket for Colombia.

----------


## eduardo89

> No sister, no niece, no female cousins...my neighbor is a widow.  She's like 82, but single.  Would that worK?


I've never known Danke to be picky...

You could also ask your sons if they have any single friends.

----------


## angelatc

> I've never known Danke to be picky...
> 
> You could also ask your sons if they have any single friends.


Wait - wot?

----------


## eduardo89

> Wait - wot?


You do have a son that's over 18, right? I'm sure he has single friends who Danke might be interested in meeting.

----------


## Danke

> You do have a son that's over 18, right? I'm sure he has single friends who Danke might be interested in meeting.


I feel like you are making jokes at my expense.

I'm going to my room to cry a little bit.

----------


## angelatc

> You do have a son that's over 18, right? I'm sure he has single friends who Danke might be interested in meeting.


Uh, if they know any single girls, they're likely trying very hard to woo them.  If we're talking about guys ... I can ask?

----------


## eduardo89

> I feel like you are making jokes at my expense.
> 
> I'm going to my room to cry a little bit.


Just trying to be a good friend and set you up with some college girls.

----------


## eduardo89

> Uh, if they know any single girls, they're likely trying very hard to woo them.  *If we're talking about guys ... I can ask?*


He may not be very picky, but he at least asks that the people he 'dates' not have a penis. At least not by the time he dates them.

----------


## angelatc

> He may not be very picky, but he at least asks that the people he 'dates' not have a penis. At least not by the time he dates them.


Ok, then I'm guessing that there's not a lot of spare women to be had.  My kid's a gamer.

----------


## libertyjam

> One version- the one from Sanofi Pasteur, Inc. has a trace. 0.00012% to be more precise or ≤ 0.3 µg/0.5 mL dose which is one eighty fifth of the amount in a flu vaccine (whihc has 25 micrograms)- basically non-existant.  And that was a tiny amount. Less than 0.3 micrograms is less than .00000003 grams.


Stop slipping extra zeros into your representations of what ugms are [mod delete]

----------


## eduardo89

> Stop slipping extra zeros into your representations of what ugms are [mod delete]


1 microgram = 1.0e-7 grams. He has the correct amount of zeroes.

----------


## libertyjam

> 1 microgram = 1.0e-7 grams. He has the correct amount of zeroes.


Goddam you are stupid. 1 microgram = 1.0e-6 grams, always has, always will, [mod delete]

----------


## eduardo89

> Goddam you are stupid. 1 microgram = 1.0e-6 grams, always has, always will, [mod delete]


Sorry, meant to write 0.1 micrograms.

Zippy said 0.3 micrograms is 0.00000003 grams. He is correct. 0.3 micrograms = 0.3e-7 grams.

----------


## Zippyjuan

It is supposed to be ten to the minus sixth (not seventh) micrograms in a gram (thanks for the correction!) but even at that, we still are talking a *really* insignificant quantity- 0.0000003 grams- (0.3 MILLIONTHS of a gram) and half of even that tiny amount is gone from your body in just a week.

----------


## Danke

> Stop slipping extra zeros into your representations of what ugms are you $#@!ing poseur.





> Goddam you are stupid. 1 microgram = 1.0e-6 grams, always has, always will, $#@!ing poseur.




Increase the dosage.  Talk to your doctor.

----------


## green73

Quite the thread.

----------


## donnay

> Yeah I meant it for Tod--but that's okay Zippy, even though you're a contrarian and we do not agree, you are not hateful, so I don't mind giving you a +rep .


This is exactly what I mean about hateful people--here is a -rep memo from angelatc:

Thread: CDC Caught Hiding Data Showing Mercury in Vaccines Linked to Autism 

"$#@! you"                      02-25-2014 03:38 PM  angelatc 


She is definitely a bundle of sunshine.  SMH

----------


## BucksforPaul

> This is exactly what I mean about hateful people--here is a -rep memo from angelatc:
> 
> Thread: CDC Caught Hiding Data Showing Mercury in Vaccines Linked to Autism 
> 
> "$#@! you"                      02-25-2014 03:38 PM  angelatc 
> 
> 
> She is definitely a bundle of sunshine.  SMH


Lol this is what she said to me "It's a preservative, you idiot." 02-25-2014 01:36pm angelatc

How the $#@! can a poison be an acceptable preservative?

----------


## donnay

> Lol this is what she said to me "It's a preservative, you idiot." 02-25-2014 01:36pm angelatc
> 
> How the $#@! can a poison be an acceptable preservative?



LOL!  Everyone is either an idiot or told to fornicate themselves.  She is such a bundle of sunshine, isn't she?  I bet she has won over lots of people with that attitude.

----------


## eduardo89

I can't say she's ever given me a neg rep. She's always been super sweet to me.

----------


## angelatc

> Lol this is what she said to me "It's a preservative, you idiot." 02-25-2014 01:36pm angelatc
> 
> How the $#@! can a poison be an acceptable preservative?



 I’d agree that inorganic mercury is highly toxic and has no place in vaccine formulations, but it has never has been included in vaccine formulations.  A point thats been made here time and time and time and time and time and time again.

Thimerosil is an entirely different entity with an entirely different toxicolgical profile than inorganic mercury.   It is to mercury like table salt is to chlorine.  It is extremely useful as a preservative in multi-use vaccine vials.

Simply put, Thimerosal is not a known neurotoxin - you are confusing it with something else.   That's "how the $#@!" it can be an acceptable preservative.

----------


## donnay

*Establishment Safety Debate: Thimerosal in Vaccines vs. Admittedly Dangerous Methylmercury*

Eileen Dannemann
*Vaccine Liberation Army*
 September 28, 2011

The vaccine purveyors often argue that “ethylmercury” compounds (THIMEROSAL) are safe, while admitting that “methylmercury” compounds are harmful. Hence industry uses the FDA-approved purportedly “safe” ethlymercury compound found in Thimerosal.

Having thoroughly reviewed two key published studies on mercury metabolism, one in rats and one in human infants, what Dr. Paul G. King noticed and articulated, among other realities, in his latest posting is that during the metabolic process in the human and animal bodies the supposedly “harmless” ethylmercury compound, Thimerosal, is metabolized (converted) into the toxic and “harmful” methylmercury. And then in turn, the harmful methylmercury is metabolized (converted) into the most harmful, long-term-toxic, “inorganic” mercury that is retained in bodily tissue.

In the rat study, which Dr. King cites, the lab rats were raised for the purpose of this study and had no reported mercury levels in their blood before the experiment.

There were three groups in the study:

1. A test group of Thimerosal-(ethylymercury)-treated rats;
 2. A test group of methylmercury-chloride-treated rats; and
 3. A control group of rats treated with a ‘water’ placebo.
 At the end of the experiment, as expected, the water-treated control group had no reported levels of mercury in their blood or organs.

The group treated with methylmercury chloride (which vaccine purveyors routinely “sound bite” as the harmful organic mercury as compared to the “safe” Thimerosal, ethylmercury), as expected, had both methylmercury and inorganic mercury in their blood and organs.

Note: “Inorganic” mercury is the end product of mercury metabolism. The methylmercury subject group confirmed that the metabolic pathway for mercury in the human and animal body consists in the reduction/conversion of the harmful methylmercury into a more harmful “inorganic” mercury which is tissue-bound, and long-term-toxic. Hence, both the originating substance (methylmercury) and its conversion/reduction, inorganic mercury was found. 

The Thimerosal Group: Unexpectedly, the rats treated with Thimerosal (ethylmercury) were found to have three types of mercury in the blood samples and their organs, ethylmercury (the originating “supposedly harmless” compound), methylmercury (the admittedly harmful compound) and inorganic mercury (the most harmful, tissue bound end product of mercury metabolism).

This observation begs an answer to the question: Where did the “methylmercury” come from since this group was only originally and solely treated with Thimerosal (an “ethylmercury” compound)? 

Based on the published findings in the three groups of rats, the metabolic pathway for organic mercury involves the conversion of Ethylmercury (Thimerosal) into “methylmercury” and then the further reduction of “methylmercury” into inorganic mercury.

It may be that some of the “ethylmercury” (from Thimerosal) are also directly converted into inorganic mercury. However, there are apparently no studies, in either humans or other animals, that establishes the biochemical conversion of ethylmercury compounds directly into the “inorganic” mercury.

In conclusion, in simple layman’s terms, these studies, as brought to light by Dr. King, establish that ethylmercury (Thimerosal), a “supposedly harmless” compound of mercury according to the vaccine establishment, is converted in the rat [1] and apparently in the human infant [2] into “methylmercury” which, the establishment admits is a harmful form of mercury. It is then further reduced to the long-term most harmful, “inorganic mercury” that bioaccumulates in the tissues and organs.

Based on these findings, we can conclude that injecting the Thimerosal (ethylmercury), found in flu shots, into pregnant women (exposing the in utero fetus to mercury [see Table I on page 15 of Dr. King’s posting (http://dr-king.com/docs/110915_PGKRe...ToUNEP_b.pdf)] and the egregious recommendation that children should be vaccinated, annually with Thimerosal-preserved inactivated-influenza vaccines from 6 months of age until 18 years of age is a perplexing interwoven government/pharmaceutical health strategy that afflicts, debilitates and destroy the lives of individuals and their families in the United States (US) and in any other nation that: a) recommends inactivated-influenza vaccines for pregnant women and children, b) permits those flu shots to be Thimerosal-preserved and c) follows the US recommendations for annual flu shots.

P.S. One more interesting observation: At sacrifice, the rats in the group that had been treated with Thimerosal-ethylmercury (supposed the harmless compound) had significantly higher levels of the long-term, harmful “inorganic” mercury in their brains than the rats in the methylmercury-chloride-treated group.

Perhaps we should inject the harmful methylmercury directly into our children’s arms instead of Thimerosal (ethylmercury). It appears that if we use the harmful form of mercury right off the bat, there is less inorganic mercury in our children’s brains. But, on the other hand, if the establishment wants more inorganic mercury in our children’s brains and organs (which it appears they do) lets stick with Thimerosal. The pharmaceutical companies stand to gain when we make our children sicker and sicker by injecting them first in-utero and then consistently, year after year, with a known and extremely dangerous neurotoxin. And both the government and the pharmaceutical companies stand to gain when they injury the emerging generation with vaccines, misdiagnose them as mentally ill (Autistic, ADD, ADHD, Biopolar, OCD, etc.) and then dumb them down with a life long supply of psyche drugs which, according to the Mayo Clinic is resulting in the birth of an epidemic of deformed offspring.

References:
 [1]Rodriques JL, Serpeloni JM, Batista BL, Souza S, Barbosa Jr F. Identification and distribution of mercury species in rat tissues following administration of Thimerosal or methyl mercury. Arch Toxicol 2010; 84: 891-896.
 [2]Pichichero ME, Gentile A, Giglio N, Umido V, Clarkson T, Cernichiari E, Zareba G, Gotelli C, Gotelli M, Yan L, and Treanor J. (2008) Mercury Levels in Newborns and Infants After Receipt of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines. Pediatrics 2008; 121(2): e208-e214.

Eileen Dannemann is the founder, Student Vaccine Liberation Army 

Contact information: Ncowmail@gmail.com

----------


## angelatc

> *Establishment Safety Debate: Thimerosal in Vaccines vs. Admittedly Dangerous Methylmercury*


This is one big lie filled with so many inaccuracies that it will take me a week to point them all out. (Which I am working on)   And when I do, youll post some $#@!ing YouTube video from another quack.  

You do nothing in this forum but post lies that endanger the lives of children.  The face of evil is always nice and smiling.....does not mean it has to be respected.

All your sources are garbage.  Every piece of trash you post has been debunked all over the internet. There is nothing credible on the entire planet to back up your constant assertions.  [mod deleted]

There is no simply no honest, legitimate debate anywhere on the planet about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

@AngelaTC,

What was the point of that post ^ #49?

If you want to refute the study, then refute it with something of substance.

----------


## donnay

> This is one big lie filled with so many inaccuracies that it will take me a week to point them all out. (Which I am working on)   And when I do, youll post some $#@!ing YouTube video from another quack.  
> 
> You do nothing in this forum but post lies that endanger the lives of children.  The face of evil is always nice and smiling.....does not mean it has to be respected.
> 
> All your sources are garbage.  Every piece of trash you post has been debunked all over the internet. There is nothing credible on the entire planet to back up your constant assertions.  [mod deleted]
> 
> There is no simply no honest, legitimate debate anywhere on the planet about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.



Again, thanks for the -rep.  


Thread: CDC Caught Hiding Data Showing Mercury in Vaccines Linked to Autism 

"You are literally the face of evil."   02-26-2014 01:42 PM  angelatc 

I must be hitting a nerve.

----------


## osan

> This is one big lie filled with so many inaccuracies that it will take me a week to point them all out. (Which I am working on)   And when I do, youll post some $#@!ing YouTube video from another quack.  
> 
> You do nothing in this forum but post lies that endanger the lives of children.  The face of evil is always nice and smiling.....does not mean it has to be respected.
> 
> All your sources are garbage.  Every piece of trash you post has been debunked all over the internet. There is nothing credible on the entire planet to back up your constant assertions.  [mod deleted]
> *
> There is no simply no honest, legitimate debate anywhere on the planet about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.*


Jesus, if you have a counterargument, then make it.  This is just a frothing rant.

On top of it all, you constantly accuse donnay of lying and making unsupported claims.  Well tell me what in hell do you call that which is bolded?

Get a grip.

----------


## angelatc

> @AngelaTC,
> 
> What was the point of that post ^ #49?
> 
> If you want to refute the study, then refute it with something of substance.


You anti-vaccine have absolutely no right to demand anything remotely connected to "substance."

----------


## angelatc

> Jesus, if you have a counterargument, then make it.  This is just a frothing rant.
> 
> On top of it all, you constantly accuse donnay of lying and making unsupported claims.  Well tell me what in hell do you call that which is bolded?


*"There is no simply no honest, legitimate debate anywhere on the planet about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines." 						*

That's called a fact.  I understand that many of you do not recognize them when you see one.

----------


## angelatc

Here is the abstract of the first study:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20386881

Here is a quote from it.  


> Taken together, our data demonstrated that the toxicokinetics of TM is  completely different from that of Met-Hg.* Thus, Met-Hg is not an  appropriate reference for assessing the risk from exposure to TM-derived  Hg*


(Methylmercury (Met-Hg), thimerosal (TM))

This study actually supports exactly what I said!  But DonnaY found a blogger who wrote something different about it, so obviously that's right and the guys who actually did the study are wrong.

----------


## angelatc

And here is what the second study actually said:




> The blood half-life of intramuscular ethyl mercury from * thimerosal in vaccines in infants is substantially shorter than that of  oral methyl mercury in adults.* Increased mercury levels were detected in  stools after vaccination, suggesting that the gastrointestinal tract is  involved in ethyl mercury elimination. Because of the differing  pharmacokinetics of ethyl and methyl mercury, exposure guidelines based  on oral methyl mercury in adults may not be accurate for risk  assessments in children who receive thimerosal-containing vaccines.


DonnaY posts lie after lie after lie.  But I'm the bad guy because I have no tolerance for people who fanatically continue to promote an agenda that would literally kill millions of children.

Once again, the studies didn't say what her beloved blogger  spun them to be.  According to this, thermisol actually breaks down faster in infants than it does adults.

I can explain it over and over and over for her, but I can't understand it for her.

----------


## Tod

*regretting having made the OP, since it appears that anything health related causes strife, personal attacks, and name-calling*

----------


## green73

> Again, thanks for the -rep.


I swear I can remember Angela saying that she never gave negative rep. Was that a dream (because, oh yeah, I dream about her) or has she turned over a new leaf?

----------


## donnay

Web:  http://www.dr-king.com http://mercury-freedrugs.org 

Editor: http://www.medicalveritas.com/ 

Quotes

[2011 Sept]* The Vaccine Establishment’s SAFETY Debate: Use of Thimerosal in vaccines Versus the admittedly dangerous use of methylmercury*   these studies, as brought to light by Dr. King, establish that ethylmercury (Thimerosal), a “supposedly harmless” compound of mercury according to the vaccine establishment, is converted in the rat [1] and apparently in the human infant [2] into “methylmercury” which, the establishment admits is a harmful form of mercury. 

[URL="http://www.whale.to/v/king12.pdf"]*"Vaccines and Autism - The Wrong Argument - rev. 1 (24 February 2011; 9 pages)"[/*URL] The keys to maintaining any unsafe commercial activity are misdirection, disinformation, big lies, and pervasive propaganda. To be effective, the commercial interests use persons whom the public trusts. These spokespersons then promote the activity. They lie about its risks. They portray an activity that is less than safe as not only safe but also desirable. In the place of proof of safety, these propagandists invariably tout the "lack of evidence of harm". In addition, the promoters of an unsafe activity do all they can to bury studies that question the activity’s safety under an avalanche of "recognized" studies that are peddled as showing "no evidence of harm". Those who benefit from the commercial activity also do all they can to discredit those persons who dare to publish studies that question the safety of the activity. Further, they use their wealth to buy other "experts" to refute any link between the activity and the harm that it inflicts on the "general public". 

The Rise of Diseases 'Caused' by Sub-acute Hg Poisoning

[2008 Oct] Landmark Study: Mercury Poisoning Causes Autism 

[June 2008 pdf] *Review of article in the Washington Post entitled: 'VACCINATIONS   Faith Lets Some Kids Skip Shots.*'

*Key realities about autism, vaccines, vaccine-injury compensation, Thimerosal, and autism-related research*----Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D & P.G. King PhD.

[pdf] *Key realities about autism, vaccines, vaccine-injury compensation, Thimerosal, and autism-related research*----Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D. & P.G. King  PhD.

*www.MedicalVeritas.com/vaccinemyth.pdf*

 *"An UPDATED Review of the Doublespeak in: 'Vaccines and Autism: Myths and Misconceptions'* By Steven Novella (31 March 2008; 75 pages)" 

 *"Thimerosal Causes Mercury Poisoning XVI - No Proof Of Safety for Thimerosal in Vaccines - A Rebuttal to the Doublespeak in: 'Suffer the Little Children' No More* By Michael Fumento (29 October 2007; 20 pages)" 

 *"Thimerosal Causes Mercury Poisoning XV - Mercury Poisoning by Thimerosal in Vaccines* - A Rebuttal to the Doublespeak in: 'On Vaccines, Immune to Reason' By Paul Howard (18 October 2007; 19 pages)" 

[2006 pdf] "*Influenza Vaccination: Review of Effectiveness of the U.S. Immunization Program, and Policy Considerations*," by David A. Geier, Paul G. King, and Mark R. Geier. J Am Phys SurgJ Am Phys Surg, Fall 2006.

----------


## angelatc

> I swear I can remember Angela saying that she never gave negative rep. Was that a dream (because, oh yeah, I dream about her) or has she turned over a new leaf?


No, you did not dream it, and yes, I did indeed abandon that.

----------


## angelatc

> Web:  http://www.dr-king.com http://mercury-freedrugs.org 
> 
> Editor: http://www.medicalveritas.com/ 
> 
> Quotes
> 
> [2011 Sept]* The Vaccine Establishment’s SAFETY Debate: Use of Thimerosal in vaccines Versus the admittedly dangerous use of methylmercury*   these studies, as brought to light by Dr. King, establish that ethylmercury (Thimerosal), a “supposedly harmless” compound of mercury according to the vaccine .


That is the SAME $#@!ING BLOGGER ARTICLE YOU JUST $#@!ING POSTED!!!!  POSTING IT REPEATEDLY WON"T MAKE IT TRUE!!!!!

----------


## angelatc

> *regretting having made the OP, since it appears that anything health related causes strife, personal attacks, and name-calling*


It appears that liars that put out press releases and the bloggers who cite them as fact should be scrutinized.

----------


## Tod

> It appears that liars that put out press releases and the bloggers who cite them as fact should be scrutinized.


I don't have ANY issue with scrutiny.  It is the personal attacks and name-calling that gets wearisome.




> *2) Treat other people with respect.*
> • No insulting, antagonizing or personally attacking other users.
> • No posting of anyone's personal contact information or members personal details.
> • Ad hominem attacks on any individual or groups is strongly discouraged, use proper names.
> • Be respectful of others' religion.
> • See the "Being respectful" section below for fine point details.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content...age-Guidelines

----------


## mosquitobite

> I swear I can remember Angela saying that she never gave negative rep. Was that a dream (because, oh yeah, I dream about her) or has she turned over a new leaf?





> No, you did not dream it, and yes, I did indeed abandon that.


Convenient new leaf to turn over.  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...87#post5430387

----------


## donnay

> *regretting having made the OP, since it appears that anything health related causes strife, personal attacks, and name-calling*


You shouldn't regret it.  Just because there are bullies in forums it shouldn't stop anyone.  I, for one, am glad you posted it.

----------


## angelatc

> I don't have ANY issue with scrutiny.  It is the personal attacks and name-calling that gets wearisome.


When the anti-vax crowd stops resorting to using  phrases like pHARMa, medical mafia, industry funded, shills, and etc etc instead of actually making a point, I'll stop believing they are not capable of rational thought.

Until then, being smug and condescending simply equates to speaking their native tongue.

----------


## eduardo89

> I swear I can remember Angela saying that she never gave negative rep. Was that a dream (because, oh yeah, I dream about her) or has she turned over a new leaf?


I have never received a negative rep from her. She's a sweetheart and extremely intelligent.

----------


## angelatc

NM - just another [mod deleted]

----------


## angelatc

> You shouldn't regret it.  Just because there are bullies in forums it shouldn't stop anyone.  I, for one, am glad you posted it.


Because you absolutely love things that simply aren't at all true?

----------


## mosquitobite

> I know you're not big on facts, but I didn't neg him for that.


I know you have a reading comprehension problem, so I'll let you re-read it a few times to let my point sink in.

----------


## donnay

> I have never received a negative rep from her. She's a sweetheart and extremely intelligent.


Birds of a feather...  Nothing new.

----------


## angelatc

> I know you have a reading comprehension problem, so I'll let you re-read it a few times to let my point sink in.


I didn't click the link.  

Now that I did, I can honestly claim that as usual you do not actually have a point.  But I'm flattered that you consider me important enough to try to decipher.   I had no idea we could even sort by reputation.

I dislike DonnaY because she continually posts blatant lies promoting an agenda that would literally kill millions of children if it came  to fruition.  Disliking her is sort of like disliking Hitler.

He was incredibly popular too, you know.

----------


## eduardo89

> Birds of a feather...  Nothing new.


That makes no sense. Feathers don't have birds.

----------


## angelatc

> That makes no sense..


 Par for the course.

----------


## Danke

> That makes no sense. Feathers don't have birds.


No charge.


http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/...flock+together

----------


## Fox McCloud

Just weighing in a bit here.

Angelatc's frustration is due in large part to Donnay's posting style that comes across to a few of us as being intentionally deceptive, unscientific, and a prime example of cherry-picking. I very much doubt that Donnay is trying to intentionally deceive people, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating or excuse some of the information being posted.

As I've made arguments before, in other threads defending the safety of fluoride in low doses (let it be said, I've never defended force fluoridation by the government...but none the less, I do personally view fluoridation as something that would likely still happen in a free market environment), individuals, including myself, would post wiki articles, studies, and other relevant links to support the position that fluoride is safe at its current consumption levels (in addition to demonstrating that dermal, sublingual, etc sources don't metabolize well if at all). If evidence generally weighed against Donnay, she would often post a single blog piece or a single website (_sometimes_ one that had just been discredited) and claim the studies were 'paid off', that we were 'repeating the lies of the scientific establishment', or other inflammatory remarks.

This is why Angelatc is very likely frustrated, and rightfully so. If there were studies from various sources flying back and forth and an actual discourse were taking place, then it would be fine, but this is not what's happening; Donnay's standard operating procedure is to merely bury other arguers with copy-paste information that only fits what her own worldview is; any evidence that directly contradicts here worldview is immediately discarded or generally seems to be regarded as "part of the conspiracy" or "paid off by someone".

So, while personally, I do find Angelatc's choice of words and insults a bit harsh (and no offense, unnecessary, Angela), I can undoubtedly and most completely understand it, given the lack of evidence that Donnay often posts and Donnay's very flawed SoP in dealing with evidence that detracts from her own positions and worldview.

----------


## eduardo89

> Just weighing in a bit here.
> 
> Angelatc's frustration is due in large part to Donnay's posting style that comes across to a few of us as being intentionally deceptive, unscientific, and a prime example of cherry-picking. I very much doubt that Donnay is trying to intentionally deceive people, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating or excuse some of the information being posted.
> 
> As I've made arguments before, in other threads defending the safety of fluoride in low doses (let it be said, I've never defended force fluoridation by the government...but none the less, I do personally view fluoridation as something that would likely still happen in a free market environment), individuals, including myself, would post wiki articles, studies, and other relevant links to support the position that fluoride is safe at its current consumption levels (in addition to demonstrating that dermal, sublingual, etc sources don't metabolize well if at all). If evidence generally weighed against Donnay, she would often post a single blog piece or a single website (_sometimes_ one that had just been discredited) and claim the studies were 'paid off', that we were 'repeating the lies of the scientific establishment', or other inflammatory remarks.
> 
> This is why Angelatc is very likely frustrated, and rightfully so. If there were studies from various sources flying back and forth and an actual discourse were taking place, then it would be fine, but this is not what's happening; Donnay's standard operating procedure is to merely bury other arguers with copy-paste information that only fits what her own worldview is; any evidence that directly contradicts here worldview is immediately discarded or generally seems to be regarded as "part of the conspiracy" or "paid off by someone".
> 
> So, while personally, I do find Angelatc's choice of words and insults a bit harsh (and no offense, unnecessary, Angela), I can undoubtedly and most completely understand it, given the lack of evidence that Donnay often posts and Donnay's very flawed SoP in dealing with evidence that detracts from her own positions and worldview.


Can I co-sign that?

I think the most frustrating thing about Donnay is that she never will acknowledge any rebuttals to her 'evidence.' She refuses to acknowledge any scientific studies or facts but instead just responds with another copypasta or youtube video instead of responding to our posts.

----------


## mosquitobite

So the basic argument against donnay is that you can't _control_ her?  She pisses you off because she won't shut up.

We can't even have a civil discussion because instead of ignoring a poster that infuriates a few of you (there *is* an ignore function) some of you feel the need to shout louder and with more links?  

Science is never settled.  You may not like the science donnay presents; she doesn't like the evidence the other side presents.

Liberty is liberty.  First amendment is still there, last I checked.

No one says you have to agree with her, but the way angela devolves into personal insults (Hitler? Really?  Godwin's law, angela - you lose the internetz) just shows how bad the hatred eats at her.  Just by watching the threads you can tell the hatred CONSUMES her.  I would think you'd warn her about forgiveness, eduardo.

----------


## donnay

> Just weighing in a bit here.
> 
> Angelatc's frustration is due in large part to Donnay's posting style that comes across to a few of us as being intentionally deceptive, unscientific, and a prime example of cherry-picking. I very much doubt that Donnay is trying to intentionally deceive people, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating or excuse some of the information being posted.
> 
> As I've made arguments before, in other threads defending the safety of fluoride in low doses (let it be said, I've never defended force fluoridation by the government...but none the less, I do personally view fluoridation as something that would likely still happen in a free market environment), individuals, including myself, would post wiki articles, studies, and other relevant links to support the position that fluoride is safe at its current consumption levels (in addition to demonstrating that dermal, sublingual, etc sources don't metabolize well if at all). If evidence generally weighed against Donnay, she would often post a single blog piece or a single website (_sometimes_ one that had just been discredited) and claim the studies were 'paid off', that we were 'repeating the lies of the scientific establishment', or other inflammatory remarks.
> 
> This is why Angelatc is very likely frustrated, and rightfully so. If there were studies from various sources flying back and forth and an actual discourse were taking place, then it would be fine, but this is not what's happening; Donnay's standard operating procedure is to merely bury other arguers with copy-paste information that only fits what her own worldview is; any evidence that directly contradicts here worldview is immediately discarded or generally seems to be regarded as "part of the conspiracy" or "paid off by someone".
> 
> So, while personally, I do find Angelatc's choice of words and insults a bit harsh (and no offense, unnecessary, Angela), I can undoubtedly and most completely understand it, given the lack of evidence that Donnay often posts and Donnay's very flawed SoP in dealing with evidence that detracts from her own positions and worldview.


You guys are comical. 

We have gone round and round about fluoride and there is much evidence posted about it here in the forums and elsewhere.  Most of the time, you continue the same nonsensical arguments ad nauseum.

----------


## Danke

> So the basic argument against donnay is that you can't _control_ her?  She pisses you off because she won't shut up.
> 
> We can't even have a civil discussion because instead of ignoring a poster that infuriates a few of you (there *is* an ignore function) some of you feel the need to shout louder and with more links?  
> 
> Science is never settled.  You may not like the science donnay presents; she doesn't like the evidence the other side presents.
> 
> Liberty is liberty.  First amendment is still there, last I checked.
> 
> No one says you have to agree with her, but the way angela devolves into personal insults (Hitler? Really?  Godwin's law, angela - you lose the internetz) just shows how bad the hatred eats at her.  Just by watching the threads you can tell the hatred CONSUMES her.  I would think you'd warn her about forgiveness, eduardo.


Global Warming, er Climate Changer is real.

----------


## donnay

> Can I co-sign that?
> 
> I think the most frustrating thing about Donnay is that she never will acknowledge any rebuttals to her 'evidence.' She refuses to acknowledge any scientific studies or facts but instead just responds with another copypasta or youtube video instead of responding to our posts.


The most frustrating thing about you is you think you are holier than thou.  It is ridiculous to think you have all the answers--you are way too young and naïve to know it all.  Beside no one knows it all, regardless of how highly you think of yourself.

----------


## eduardo89

> The most frustrating thing about you is you think you are holier than thou.  It is ridiculous to think you have all the answers--you are way too young and naïve to know it all.  Beside no one knows it all, regardless of how highly you think of yourself.


I don't have all the answers, that's why I look to scientific, peer-reviewed studies on medical/science issues I do not have the knowledge and training to understand on my own. I don't turn to blogs and unsubstantiated personal opinions.

----------


## donnay

> I don't have all the answers, that's why I look to scientific, peer-reviewed studies on medical/science issues I do not have the knowledge and training to understand on my own. I don't turn to blogs and unsubstantiated personal opinions.


Uh huh...sure you don't.  

You turn to scientific peer-reviewed studies that have been bought and paid for by the interests that want good press.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> So the basic argument against donnay is that you can't _control_ her?  She pisses you off because she won't shut up.


I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. The frustration isn't due at all to "not being able to control her"; it's entirely the way in which she argues (ignoring presented evidence, relevancy, etc).




> We can't even have a civil discussion because instead of ignoring a poster that infuriates a few of you (there *is* an ignore function) some of you feel the need to shout louder and with more links?


Let me ask you this; if there was a poster on RPF would was incessantly touting warrantless searches or how 'liberty just doesn't work for criminals'; would you feel compelled to post evidence that is contradictory to what they're saying? We (or at least I) don't feel the need to "shout louder"; I just feel compelled to provided a counter-point to something I feel is egregiously wrong, and provide amble evidence to support my point.  




> Science is never settled.  You may not like the science donnay presents; she doesn't like the evidence the other side presents.


I'm not saying it is; notice how I never said "proved" in my entire point; I merely said that I presented evidence that demonstrated or _supported_ my point. And it's not that I dislike her evidence so much as a lot (not all) of what she has presented in the past is contradicted by many _other_ studies from _different_ sources. Ie: if an activist said "this ball is obviously blue", and 5 studies from 4 different universities, and one from the International color Standards Organization of Bla-bla-bery published one that provided evidence that the ball was, in fact red....well...I'm going to tend to lean towards the latter.

This is exactly what goes on in a lot of arguments, and why frustration ensues--not because we feel the need to shout louder, can't control her, or dislike sources, but because the weight of evidence from multiple institutions will often fall on one side, but Donnay will never the less hold up a single study, blogger, or scientist that supports her position as trumping all others, regardless of how much newer, more rigorous studies say.




> Liberty is liberty.  First amendment is still there, last I checked.


Where have I ever, ever advocated for silencing someone?

----------


## Fox McCloud

> You guys are comical. 
> 
> We have gone round and round about fluoride and there is much evidence posted about it here in the forums and elsewhere.  Most of the time, you continue the same nonsensical arguments ad nauseum.


This is a prime example of why a number of us get frustrated--I can dig up the thread if absolutely necessary (I recall there being two). Donnay's sources were primarily a single chemist (and his orgnazation, the Fluoride Action Network) and a handful of blogs. Many of us posted articles from wikipedia, studies from the the NCBI, the International Journal of Epidemology, the CDC, European Scientific Committee, and a large number of others. These were either ignored completely or all attacked as paid off; none of the evidence within them was examined or scrutinized.

----------


## mosquitobite

> I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. The frustration isn't due at all to "not being able to control her"; it's entirely the way in which she argues (ignoring presented evidence, relevancy, etc).


So because she won't present evidence like you want her to, you get frustrated.  Is that frustration actually donnay's fault?  Or is it yours?  Who owns your reaction?




> Let me ask you this; if there was a poster on RPF would was incessantly touting warrantless searches or how 'liberty just doesn't work for criminals'; would you feel compelled to post evidence that is contradictory to what they're saying? We (or at least I) don't feel the need to "shout louder"; I just feel compelled to provided a counter-point to something I feel is egregiously wrong, and provide amble evidence to support my point.


Sure.  Most of us can present a counter point without resorting to calling our "nemesis"  Hitler though too.




> I'm not saying it is; notice how I never said "proved" in my entire point; I merely said that I presented evidence that demonstrated or _supported_ my point. And it's not that I dislike her evidence so much as a lot (not all) of what she has presented in the past is contradicted by many _other_ studies from _different_ sources. Ie: if an activist said "this ball is obviously blue", and 5 studies from 4 different universities, and one from the International color Standards Organization of Bla-bla-bery published one that provided evidence that the ball was, in fact red....well...I'm going to tend to lean towards the latter.


  So, just as a counter example, I assume you believe in man-made global warming.  Correct?




> This is exactly what goes on in a lot of arguments, and why frustration ensues--not because we feel the need to shout louder, can't control her, or dislike sources, but because the weight of evidence from multiple institutions will often fall on one side, but Donnay will never the less hold up a single study, blogger, or scientist that supports her position as trumping all others, regardless of how much newer, more rigorous studies say.


The majority of scientists support man-made global warming and government policies to reduce CO2.  You support that?




> Where have I ever, ever advocated for silencing someone?


You took it as me directly responding to YOU, but it was directed at all of you who wish for _someone else_ to change, instead of yourself.  You can't control donnay, you can't CHANGE her.  No matter how angry or bitter or nasty angela gets!

My post was directed at this: 


> So, while personally, I do find Angelatc's choice of words and insults a bit harsh (*and no offense, unnecessary, Angela*), I can undoubtedly and most completely understand it, given the lack of evidence that Donnay often posts and Donnay's very flawed SoP in dealing with evidence that detracts from her own positions and worldview.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> So because she won't present evidence like you want her to, you get frustrated.  Is that frustration actually donnay's fault?  Or is it yours?  Who owns your reaction?
> 
> 
> Sure.  Most of us can present a counter point without resorting to calling our "nemesis"  Hitler though too.
> 
>   So, just as a counter example, I assume you believe in man-made global warming.  Correct?
> 
> 
> The majority of scientists support man-made global warming and government policies to reduce CO2.  You support that?
> ...


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mosquitobite again.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> So because she won't present evidence like you want her to, you get frustrated.  Is that frustration actually donnay's fault?  Or is it yours?  Who owns your reaction?


No--for the third time, the frustration is due to ignoring evidence from our side while she condemns our sources as paid off or just "what the scientific establishment has been saying for years", while we do examine her side and her evidence; as I said, if there was an actual discourse of posting various studies back and forth, there wouldn't be the kind of frustration as described. For clarity, again, refer to my "this ball is obviously blue" thing.




> So, just as a counter example, I assume you believe in man-made global warming.  Correct?


I'm skeptical of it, but I entertain it as a distinct possibility; the fact that there's a lot of data that corroborates it is compelling, but there's still a large number of scientists from universities and such that are also posting info that detract from the theory as well. Again, if Donnay's argumentation was more like this, I don't think anyone here would have an issue.

----------


## donnay

> This is a prime example of why a number of us get frustrated--I can dig up the thread if absolutely necessary (I recall there being two). Donnay's sources were primarily a single chemist (and his orgnazation, the Fluoride Action Network) and a handful of blogs. Many of us posted articles from wikipedia, studies from the the NCBI, the International Journal of Epidemology, the CDC, European Scientific Committee, and a large number of others. These were either ignored completely or all attacked as paid off; none of the evidence within them was examined or scrutinized.


Ah some collaboration on -reps, I see how you roll.

It really is absurd how much you think only your links are so much more important.  LOL!

----------


## eduardo89

> It really is absurd how much you think only your links are so much more important.  LOL!


Peer reviewed scientific studies > conspiracy blogs

----------


## donnay

> Peer reviewed scientific studies > conspiracy blogs


As you follow Peer-reviewed scientific studies bought and paid for by the globalists.

----------


## eduardo89

> As you follow Peer-reviewed scientific studies bought and paid for by the globalists.


And you follow conspiracy blogs that make money peddling fear and paranoia.

----------


## osan

> *"There is no simply no honest, legitimate debate anywhere on the planet about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines."                        * 
> 
> That's called a fact.  I understand that many of you do not recognize them when you see one.


And that is called "proof by assertion", which is no proof at all.

I have not said you were wrong.  I wrote that you were presenting no support for your assertions in very much analogous fashion to that against which you complained.

That aside, to assert that vaccines never work is probably not sound.  To assert that they never fail is far more so.  To further imply that there has never been nor will there ever be hanky panky associated with vaccines doesn't even qualify as stoopid.  Humans get themselves into all manner of mischief and the vaccine industry is no exception.  Didn't Bayer send and HIV-tainted production run of some vaccine to Africa because they didn't want to eat the losses?  I mean, after all, the KneeGrows are already all infected, so what's the harm, eh?  Even so... they're KneeGrows, so who cares?

And all THAT aside, it seems curious to me that you get your undies in such a knot over all this.  You seem to have a heavy emotional vestment in vaccines.

----------


## donnay

> And you follow conspiracy blogs that make money peddling fear and paranoia.


No the conspiracy is what you bought, hook, line and sinker.  The globalist do exist.  They are pushing their agenda through because of people like you that think they would never be able to pull off such a conspiracy.

----------


## Bryan

Good debate is welcomed but let's please stick with the guidelines and be respectful (see link in my sig). There are multiple members here who are pushing the lines.

Thank you- and carry on nicely.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Hi guys (and gals)! Howsit going?  Hope people are getting all those frustrations worked out.  I hate it when Mummy and Daddy fight. Makes my tummy hurt.

----------


## angelatc

> As you follow Peer-reviewed scientific studies bought and paid for by the globalists.


Seriously, after the respectful, well reasoned calm explanation that Fox McCloud offered up - she spews this?

----------

