Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 62

Thread: “The Truth About Vaccines”

  1. #1
    Last edited by donnay; 04-06-2017 at 09:01 AM.
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    And no, Angela, not more of the same vaccine lies. It's clear your mind is totally close to anything outside of your world view.

    Thanks for the -rep it just gives me more reason to post videos and information like this, to let people step-out-of-the-box and make their own informed decisions--as it should be.
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  4. #3

    Default

    48 hour marathon. The Truth About Vaccines. A Must see!

    https://go2.thetruthaboutvaccines.co...ines3_04222017
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  5. #4

    Default

    Any time a title claims "The Truth" it never is.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Any time a title claims "The Truth" it never is.
    Does that statement make your denial feel better?
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  7. #6

    Default

    The Occult Archetype Called Vaccination

    By: Jon Rappoport



    In many past articles, I’ve taken apart the so-called science of vaccines and shown how deceptive it is. Here I take another approach: examining the archetypes and symbols that surround vaccination and give it occult power.

    Begun as a crude version of homeopathy (“treat like with like”), in which a mild injected version of a disease would supposedly protect against the actual disease, vaccination soon developed into a military outpost, with the commander ordering the appearance of his scouts: antibodies. “Line up men, now hunt!”

    Today, as a revival of ancient symbology, vaccination is a conferred seal, a sign of moral righteousness. It’s a mark on the arm, signifying tribal inclusion. No tribe member is left out. Inclusion by vaccination protects against invisible spirits (viruses).

    The notion of the tribe is enforced by dire predictions of pandemics: the spirits of other tribes (from previously unknown hot zones in jungles) are attacking the good tribe, our tribe.

    Mothers, the keepers of the children, are given a way to celebrate their esteemed, symbolic, animal role as “lionesses”: confer the seal on their offspring through vaccination. Protect the future of the tribe. Speak out and defame and curse the mothers who don’t vaccinate their children. Excommunicate them from the tribe.

    The ceremony of vaccination is a rite of passage for the child. He/she is now more than the offspring of the parents. The child is in the village. The child is property of the village. As the years pass, periodic booster shots reconfirm this status.

    Some ancient rituals presented dangers. The child, on his way to becoming a man, would be sent out to live alone in the forest for a brief period and survive. Vaccination symbolizes this in a passive way: the injection of disease-viruses which might be harmful are transmuted into protective spirits in the body. The injection of toxic chemicals is a passageway into immunity. If a child is damaged in the process, the parents and the tribe consider it a tragic but acceptable risk, because on the whole the tribe and the village are protected against the evil spirits (viruses).

    The psychological and occult and archetypal impact of vaccination is key: modern parents are given the opportunity to feel, on a subconscious level, a return to older times, when life was more bracing and immediate and vital. That is the mythology. Modern life, for basic consumers, has fewer dimensions—but vaccination awakens sleeping memories of an age when ritual and ceremony were essential to the future of the group. No one would defect from these moments. Refusal was unthinkable. Survival was All. The mandate was powerful. On a deep level, parents today can experience that power. It is satisfying.

    The doctor giving the injections is, of course, the priest of the tribe, the medicine man, the holder of secrets. He is the spiritual source of, and connection to, “unseen realms” where opposing spirits carry out warfare and struggle for supremacy. Without the medicine man, the tribe would disintegrate.

    The medicine man is permitted to say and do anything. He can tell lies if lies serve a noble purpose and effect greater strength of the tribe. He can manipulate language and truth and meaning. He can turn day into night. He can present paradox and contradiction. No one can question his pronouncements.

    Loyalty to the medicine man is absolute. In this regard, a rebel is exiled or destroyed.

    People living today in industrial and technological societies are relatively numb. Their options and choices seem confined to a range of products they can buy. They yearn for absolutes. They want a command that taps into the adrenaline-stimulating need for, and risk to, survival. The ritual of vaccination, along with the ever-present threat of illness and outbreak and pandemic, awakens that need and risk.

    Modern parents need archetypes and symbols of demon spirits. Viruses. Ebola, Zika, West Nile, SARS, Swine Flu. These spirits are unseen. They could attack. They do attack.

    “We must go the medicine man for the ritual. He will put the seal of protection on us and our children. We must never question or challenge the medicine man. That is forbidden. He is proud and powerful and he could bring down curses on us.”

    Then there are the shameful marks, which are to be avoided in every way possible. A child who shows the rashes and swellings of illnesses is highly suspect. Did he not participate in the protective ritual? Are his parents evil? Are they possessed? Should the child and his parents be shunned? Will the medicine man help them or lay an irreversible curse on them for defecting?

    Subconsciously and archetypally, the “modern science of vaccination” is doctrine. It is alchemy. It is magic. Going against the magic is tantamount to trying to overturn the very basis of life in the tribe.

    In the extreme view, rebels are carriers of evil spirits (viruses). They are infectors. They transmit evil spirits throughout the tribe and the village. They cause people to fall ill and die. Yes, the medicine man is doing all he can to protect his people (through vaccination), but this is war. Nothing is guaranteed. The evil spirits are arrayed against the medicine man. We must help him and bolster his power and advantage. We have our role to play. He is the hero. Cling to the hero. Praise him.

    In the fullness of time, do whatever we can to increase his glory. He is engaged in an occult struggle on levels we cannot hope to fathom. On our behalf. In the tribe.

    His many remedies (incomprehensible to us) are walking a fine line. Because of their power, they have risks (side effects). These risks are numerous. Every night in collective meetings (television ads), we are told of the numerous problems that could arise (ask your doctor if X is right for you). But the impact of hearing these warnings is extremely positive, because we feel the danger, and feeling the danger is what we need and want, because, again, we are in a war against the evil spirits—and the sensation of risk is preferable to feeling nothing. Give us more warnings, and let us experience a return to ancient days when we lived on the edge of extinction and knew the blood coursing through our veins was alive.

    It takes a village. We are the tribe. We are the warriors.

    The needle is the magic transmitter. The plunger of the syringe is the force. The fluid in the syringe is the alchemical transformer. Be silent in their presence. Accept their mysterious grace.
    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/occ...ed-vaccination
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  8. #7

    Default Study shows vaccines causes chronic disease

    The following recent study looks almost too good to be true: http://www.rescuepost.com/files/maws...al-science.pdf
    The vaccinated children were more likely to be diagnosed with: otitis media, pneumonia, allergic rhinitis, eczema, and NDD...

    This is from the conclusion:
    With regard to acute and chronic conditions, vaccinated children were significantly less likely than the unvaccinated to have had chickenpox and pertussis but, contrary to expectation, were significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with otitis media, pneumonia, allergic rhinitis, eczema, and NDD. The vaccinated were also more likely to have used antibiotics, allergy and fever medications; to have been fitted with ventilation ear tubes; visited a doctor for a health issue in the previous year, and been hospitalized.
    There is only one problem with this study that is that the difference in health - where the unvaccinated are in general healthier - isn't caused by vaccines.

    There is obviously a reason that some children weren't vaccinated. To me it is obvious that parents that refuse to have their children vaccinated, won't go to the doctors so quick.
    There are different ways to interpret this. It could mean that people that refuse to let themselves (and their children) be mistreated by the medical doctors are healthier in general.

    It could also mean that the unvaccinated children are simply not diagnosed as having a disease. In this way this study could mean that the vaccinated children are more often diagnosed as having an illness, where the unvaccinated children are just as ill without the doctor's diagnosis.

    Here’s a story that uses this study as a starting point: http://info.cmsri.org/the-driven-res...-who-is-sicker
    Last edited by Firestarter; 05-11-2017 at 04:12 AM. Reason: Fixed link
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason.

  9. #8

    Default



    A pilot study of 666 homeschooled six to 12-year-olds from four American states published on April 27th in the Journal of Translational Sciences, compared 261 unvaccinated children with 405 partially or fully vaccinated children, and assessed their overall health based on their mothers' reports of vaccinations and physician-diagnosed illnesses. What it found about increases in immune-mediated diseases like allergies and neurodevelopmental diseases including autism, should make all parents think twice before they ever vaccinate again:
    *Vaccinated children were more than three times as likely to be diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum (OR 4.3)
    *Vaccinated children were 30-fold more likely to be diagnosed with allergic rhinitis (hay fever) than non-vaccinated children
    * Vaccinated children were 22-fold more likely to require an allergy medication than unvaccinated children
    *Vaccinated children had more than quadruple the risk of being diagnosed with a learning disability than unvaccinated children (OR 5.2)
    *Vaccinated children were 300 percent more likely to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder than unvaccinated children (OR 4.3)
    * Vaccinated children were 340 percent (OR 4.4) more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia than unvaccinated children
    *Vaccinated children were 300 percent more likely to be diagnosed with an ear infection than unvaccinated children (OR 4.0)
    *Vaccinated children were 700 percent more likely to have surgery to insert ear drainage tubes than unvaccinated children (OR 8.01)
    * Vaccinated children were 2.5-fold more likely to be diagnosed with any chronic illness than unvaccinated children

    MORE


    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul.
    "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne
    "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

  10. #9

    Default

    Vaccinated Vs. Unvaccinated Pilot Study: Early Vaccination Sees Exponential Increase in Chronic Disorders

    Written By: Jefferey Jaxen

    5/9/17 UPDATE: This groundbreaking study was immediately retracted for political reasons. Read our update here.

    The move towards mandatory vaccination is no longer a conspiracy theory. California Senate Bill 277 snapped families into a reality where informed consent and health freedom do not apply.

    Presently, the American people are facing 173 vaccine-related bills in 40 states. The language of many of the new bills aims to increase tracking, target non-vaccinating families, force vaccine schedules, and further persecute families who choose not to accept vaccines; the private products of for-profit, legally protected pharmaceutical companies. The corporate media and medical industries have thrown their full influence behind Big Pharma’s transparent ‘safe and effective’ messaging. At the same time, both industries are simultaneously censoring discussions around the fraud, dangers, mounting injuries, and criminal behavior inherent within the vaccine industry and those pushing for mandatory vaccination. A central point of contention, and human rights violation, is the fact that historically, no true study has been conducted between vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations. However, such a study has now come to fruition.

    The Study

    Having worked on the study for 15 years, from its original conception to completion, Dr. Anthony Mawson and his coauthors have now had their work published in the Journal of Translational Science.The study, titled, ‘Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year-old U.S. children’. [1] Since long-term health outcomes of the current vaccination schedule haven’t been studied, Dr. Mawson and his coauthors set out to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children across a broad range of health outcomes. The study was designed as a cross-sectional survey of homeschooling mothers on their vaccinated and unvaccinated biological children ages 6 to 12. It included mothers of 666 children ranging from fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated. The mothers were asked to indicate on a list of more than 40 acute and chronic illnesses all those for which her child or children had received a diagnosis by a physician among other questions.

    The Results

    The vaccinated children were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with the following: allergic rhinitis, other allergies, eczema/atopic dermatitis, a learning disability, autism spectrum disorder, any neurodevelopmental disorder (NDD) (i.e., learning disability, ADHD or ASD) and chronic illness.

    The following is a breakdown of the specific results for vaccinated children:

    Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) was 4.7-fold higher in vaccinated children
    ADHD risk was 4.7-fold higher
    Learning disability risk was 3.7-fold higher
    Vaccinated children in the study were 3.7 times more likely to have been diagnosed with some kind of (NDD).
    Preterm birth and vaccination was associated with 6.6-fold increased odds of NDD
    Vaccinated children were also significantly more likely to be diagnosed with an immune-related disorder. The risk of allergic rhinitis (commonly known as hay fever) was over 30 times higher in vaccinated children, while the risk of other allergies was increased 3.9 fold and the eczema risk was increased 2.4 fold.

    The Conclusion

    Given the current global climate as described in this article’s introduction, the study highlighted three extremely noteworthy conclusions as follows:

    “…the strength and consistency of the findings, the apparent “dose-response” relationship between vaccination status and several forms of chronic illness, and the significant association between vaccination and NDDs all support the possibility that some aspect of the current vaccination program could be contributing to risks of childhood morbidity.”
    “Vaccination also remained significantly associated with neurodevelopmental disorders after controlling for other factors…”
    “…preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of neurodevelopmental disorder above that of vaccination alone.”

    While all three conclusions should be, and are, resonating deeply within the masses of health professionals and parents, the study’s third conclusion is especially timely and relevant beyond its stated assertion. Over the last year, numerous medical whistleblowers and scientific research papers have warned and demonstrated that routine vaccine injury to preterm infants in hospital neonatal intensive care units (NICU) is occurring. Whistleblower nurses Michelle Rowton James and Joanne [last name unavailable] publicly spotlighted how inhuman and commonplace NICU vaccine injury have rooted in the culture of establishment medicine. While three major studies [2],[3],[4] have corroborated the nurse’s whistleblowing admissions. Meanwhile, in April 2017 The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK) released a statement asking for all Americans to join them in their call for a ban on vaccination of infants in the NICU. Speaking on the call to action Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, CEO, and Director of IPAK, stated:

    “We’ve asked the biomedical community to produce studies that show ill effect of vaccines on neonates, and they have not produced them.”
    There is currently a clash happening between religious-like vaccine dogma and increasingly aware segments of the public, research, and medical communities. In the balance hangs the opportunity for a truly open discussion on vaccines and a rare chance to reform a pharmaceutically-dominated medical community that has lost its way. Giving the current trend, the consequences of not seizing the opportunity for open dialogue appears to lead down a road of mandatory medicine and censorship of exponentially mounting human injury and mortality. Put simply, the battle now rages between openness and transparency versus the protection, through omission and overt censorship, of Big Pharma’s business model and need for ever-expanding bottom lines at all costs.

    REFERENCES:

    [1] Anthony R Mawson, Brian D Ray, Azad R Bhuiyan, Binu Jacob (2017) Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S children, Journal of Translational Science, DOI: 10.15761/JTS.1000186

    [2] Sen S, Cloete Y, Hassan K, Buss P (2001) Adverse events following vaccination in premature infants, Acta Paediatrica, Aug;90(8):916-20.

    [3] J Bonhoeffer, C‐A Siegrist, and P T Heath (2006), Immunisation of premature infants, Archives of Disease in Childhood, Nov; 91(11): 929–935. DOI: 10.1136/adc.2005.086306

    [4] Stephen D. DeMeo, Sudha R. Raman, Christoph P. Hornik, Catherine C. Wilson, Reese Clark, and P. Brian Smith, (2015), Adverse Events After Routine Immunization of Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants, JAMA Pediatrics, 2015 Aug 1; 169(8): 740–745. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0418
    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/vac...ential-increas
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  11. #10

    Default

    In today's newsletter, we feature an article about two small but powerful studies. They apparently terrify the vaccine industry champions to such an extent that they will publish falsehoods to keep the studies out of the public eye. Dr. Anthony Mawson, author of “Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6 – 12 Year Old U.S. Children” and “Preterm birth, vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: A cross-sectional study of 6 – 12 year old vaccinated and unvaccinated children” has been the target of Retraction Watch, an online blog of the “Center for Scientific Integrity” which receives “generous” funding from The MacArthur Foundation to promote integrity in science.

    This fake news blog, which we hope the foundation will disavow, has been used to target a 35-year career scientist and his research in order to derail publication of two papers that were peer reviewed and accepted on their merits. Retraction Watch falsely claimed that one of the studies had been retracted by another journal, when it had never been officially accepted. They compounded the falsehood by claiming the paper had been retracted a second time, when it had simply been temporarily removed pending a response from the author to the false allegation.

    Celeste McGovern, a freelance journalist who has extensively covered the publication of these studies wrote to Retraction Watch asking for an explanation:

    “The journal had neither formally accepted or retracted it. Clearly, there is a difference, as journals may decline to publish articles without finding fault in them but retraction is usually based upon some scientific mistake or misconduct in the science of the study that is measurable and objective and it is frequently a charge that has serious negative consequences on the careers of the scientists who published the study.Could you please direct me to the complaints about the study so that I can inform now my readers which now number in hundreds of thousands whether there is an honest mistake by the authors and where that is, or misconduct in reporting the truth of their data and what specifically that is?

    If there is no such mistake or misconduct it would seem that reporting such would be itself a grave violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behaviour in professional scientific research and the pursuit of truth. Indeed, a mistake of this magnitude would be defined as scientific misconduct itself.”

    We encourage you to read this excellent summary by Merinda Teller, MPH, PhD of Dr. Mawson’s efforts to bring “integrity in science” to vaccine safety science.

    Best Regards,

    Sayer Ji
    Founder of GreenMedInfo
    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/are...ldren-s-health
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    In today's newsletter, we feature an article about two small but powerful studies. They apparently terrify the vaccine industry champions to such an extent that they will publish falsehoods to keep the studies out of the public eye. Dr. Anthony Mawson, author of “Pilot Comparative Study on the Health of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated 6 – 12 Year Old U.S. Children” and “Preterm birth, vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: A cross-sectional study of 6 – 12 year old vaccinated and unvaccinated children” has been the target of Retraction Watch, an online blog of the “Center for Scientific Integrity” which receives “generous” funding from The MacArthur Foundation to promote integrity in science.

    http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/are...ldren-s-health

    Updated: Vaccine-autism study retracted — again

    For the second time, a journal has quickly retracted a study that suggested vaccines raise the risk of autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.

    The study first raised a furor last year, prompting a Frontiers journal to quickly retract it. After it was republished in the Journal of Translational Science this month, that journal has also retracted it.

    Although the titles of the two papers changed, the abstracts were nearly identical. Both studies surveyed the parents of 666 home-schooled children, 39% of whom where not vaccinated, and concluded that vaccination increased the risk of neurodevelopmental problems, particularly if children were born prematurely.

    A representative of the Journal of Translational Science told us “Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children” has been retracted, and it will update us with an explanation.

    When the study appeared last year in Frontiers in Public Health, it caused a firestorm on Twitter, prompting Frontiers to release a public statement, noting that the study was only “provisionally accepted but not published.” It was retracted later that same week.

    In 2011, first author Anthony Mawson at Jackson State University, filed a lawsuit against the Mississippi State Department of Health, in which he alleged that, after he advocated the need for more studies on vaccine safety, a state officer interfered with his then-position at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, resulting in his contract not getting renewed. The suit was dismissed the following year.
    This isn’t the first time an anti-vaccine study was republished after a hasty retraction — last February, Vaccine temporarily removed (then retracted) a study linking the vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV) to behavioral problems in mice; in July, the paper was republished by the journal Immunologic Research, albeit with major revisions, according to one of the co-authors.
    http://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/0...y-republished/
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-09-2017 at 02:31 PM.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  13. #12

    Default

    When the study appeared last year in Frontiers in Public Health, it caused a firestorm on Twitter, prompting Frontiers to release a public statement, noting that the study was only “provisionally accepted but not published.” It was retracted later that same week.
    Retraction Watch is not accurate here. Frontiers in Public Health rejected it. It was never fully published, so it was not "retracted."

    As to the Journal of Translational Science, there is no public statement yet as to why it was removed. RW is using an "unnamed source" but admits they have not heard from the Journal yet.

    Either way, it is highly unusual that two peer-reviewed publications would publish something, then take it down. The Journal of Translational Science would certainly have known what happened last year.

    Here's the full study that was peer-reviewed and accepted.
    Uncensored Health Freedom News:
    http://healthimpactnews.com/

    Yes, I believe the science of vaccines is settled - Zippyjuan Team

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Created4 View Post
    Retraction Watch is not accurate here. Frontiers in Public Health rejected it. It was never fully published, so it was not "retracted."

    As to the Journal of Translational Science, there is no public statement yet as to why it was removed. RW is using an "unnamed source" but admits they have not heard from the Journal yet.

    Either way, it is highly unusual that two peer-reviewed publications would publish something, then take it down. The Journal of Translational Science would certainly have known what happened last year.

    Here's the full study that was peer-reviewed and accepted.
    "Provisionally accepted". https://twitter.com/FrontiersIn/stat...27519537258496 The never published the actual article.

    "Open Access Text" or OAT who published that one is a "pay to publish" source. If you have the money, it is pretty easy to get published there. http://oatext.com/OpenAccess.php

    OA Text is an open-access publication, in which publication overheads are covered by an article processing charge, most often covered by funding bodies, sometimes university departments, and on rare occasions when funding is not available, fees are waivered. Publication fees are used directly to cover the cost of publishing the article.
    That one too has been retracted.

    Either way, it is highly unusual that two peer-reviewed publications would publish something, then take it down. The Journal of Translational Science would certainly have known what happened last year.
    It was a survey of people who visited a single online website devoted to home school children and data was self-reported. That is not a representative sample of the general population and not a viable study. That is why it keeps getting pulled. It is impossible to derive any useful data from their sample- other than to comment on visitors to that single website who replied.

    As it notes itself at your link:

    2. As contact information on homeschool families was unavailable, there was no defined population or sampling frame from which a randomized study could be carried out, and from which response rates could be determined
    Do a survey of members on this website. Ask who you would like to see as President of the United States. Would you be able to use that data to predict the outcome of the general election? Is that data useful and applicable to the rest of the country? Would Ron Paul win the General Election in a landslide like he would here? Poor study is still a poor study. They tried to present it as something new by changing the title and submitting it to another pay to play publisher. They probably submitted it to dozens if not hundreds trying to get it published.


    As for the Journal of Translational Science,

    The Journal of Translational Science is not indexed in PubMed. It’s been over two years since the journal was first published, and it is rare for a journal to not be indexed there. Without PubMed, it is extraordinarily difficult to cites one of the articles published in JTS. Of course, there’s no reason given for it’s exclusion from PubMed, but we can speculate that possibly the science is bad.

    JTS lacks an impact factor. The impact factor gives us a relative understanding of the quality of a journal – generally, the impact factor tells us approximately how many times an average article published in a journal is cited per year. A journal like Nature has an impact factor of 36, which means the average article is cited 36 times a year. Why is this important? We know that more pivotal and valuable research is cited many times and often repeated by other scientists, especially in new publications. This is how science develops solid evidence, by examining and repeating the findings of others.

    The publisher of JTS, OAT, is a predatory publisher according to the definitive Beall’s List of predatory publishers. A predatory publisher is “exploitative open-access publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors without providing the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals.”

    Low impact factor, predatory journals are generally dismissed by scientific researchers because the peer-review is weak. These journals are often abused by researchers whose data has been rejected by one or more of the respected journals, so they settle for these low quality versions. In the academic community, publications such as these often cannot be used as evidence of qualification for tenure.
    http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skept...vaccine-trope/
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-09-2017 at 03:51 PM.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  15. #14

    Default

    So based on your ad hominem attack on the Journal of Translational Science, why would they retract this (if indeed it has been retracted - the Journal has not confirmed this yet)?

    You're reasoning lacks any logic, as usual. You state that the Journal "retracted" it because it is not a good study, and then turn around and state the Journal lacks any credibility because it publishes junk. And then you compare it to a survey to predict the outcome of an election.

    Did you ever study logic??

    At any rate, people can read the study now in spite of attempts at censorship and make up their own minds.
    Uncensored Health Freedom News:
    http://healthimpactnews.com/

    Yes, I believe the science of vaccines is settled - Zippyjuan Team

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Created4 View Post
    So based on your ad hominem attack on the Journal of Translational Science, why would they retract this (if indeed it has been retracted - the Journal has not confirmed this yet)?

    You're reasoning lacks any logic, as usual. You state that the Journal "retracted" it because it is not a good study, and then turn around and state the Journal lacks any credibility because it publishes junk. And then you compare it to a survey to predict the outcome of an election.

    Did you ever study logic??

    At any rate, people can read the study now in spite of attempts at censorship and make up their own minds.
    And then you compare it to a survey to predict the outcome of an election.
    Both are examples of online surveys conducted on a single website. Neither are representative of the overall population so have no value you can draw any useful conclusions from.

    If you understand logic you would be able to easily see the flaws of the study. As they themselves noted:

    As contact information on homeschool families was unavailable, there was no defined population or sampling frame from which a randomized study could be carried out, and from which response rates could be determined
    Bad study is bad study- not "censorship".
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-09-2017 at 04:43 PM.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    If you understand logic you would be able to easily see the flaws of the study. As they themselves noted:
    I didn't even comment on the study, but nice try with your illogical strawman technique. I think it is your favorite one, along with non sequitur.

    The vax vs. unvaccinated has plenty of evidence, and is not dependent on this study. This study, with its limitations (not necessarily flaws) certainly does not prove your pro-vaccine position. It adds to the body of evidence that vaccines are not what they are advertised to be.

    Here is our first coverage of the topic, which interviews medical doctors:

    Unvaccinated Children Healthier Than Vaccinated Kids – Doctors Agree
    Uncensored Health Freedom News:
    http://healthimpactnews.com/

    Yes, I believe the science of vaccines is settled - Zippyjuan Team

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Created4 View Post
    I didn't even comment on the study, but nice try with your illogical strawman technique. I think it is your favorite one, along with non sequitur.

    The vax vs. unvaccinated has plenty of evidence, and is not dependent on this study. This study, with its limitations (not necessarily flaws) certainly does not prove your pro-vaccine position. It adds to the body of evidence that vaccines are not what they are advertised to be.

    Here is our first coverage of the topic, which interviews medical doctors:

    Unvaccinated Children Healthier Than Vaccinated Kids – Doctors Agree
    Your article headline cites the retracted study. The rest is anecdotal not scientific evidence.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-09-2017 at 05:57 PM.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Your article headline cites the retracted study. The rest is anecdotal not scientific evidence.
    It is what doctors observe in clinical practice. That is scientific evidence.

    Your BIAS has already been exposed. You have an anti-science BELIEF, because you BELIEVE the science regarding vaccines is settled - a CLEAR anti-science belief.

    Your opinions and beliefs are not science, and you are not credible. Everyone knows that....
    Uncensored Health Freedom News:
    http://healthimpactnews.com/

    Yes, I believe the science of vaccines is settled - Zippyjuan Team

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Created4 View Post
    It is what doctors observe in clinical practice. That is scientific evidence.

    Your BIAS has already been exposed. You have an anti-science BELIEF, because you BELIEVE the science regarding vaccines is settled - a CLEAR anti-science belief.

    Your opinions and beliefs are not science, and you are not credible. Everyone knows that....
    Share the evidence. What is the percentage of individuals who receive vaccines are harmed by them? What sort of harm? That study was not scientific proof because it was not a scientifically conducted study. Which is why it was retracted.

    I am not anti- science. I am asking for the science to prove your case. The study did not do so.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-09-2017 at 06:17 PM.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    What is the percentage of individuals who receive vaccines are harmed by them?
    We've been down this road before. That is YOUR argument - your strawman argument. The numbers are not known, and I don't have to know them, because it is not my argument.

    Vaccines harm and kill some people. That is fact, and is easily proven. The U.S. government has paid billions in vaccine injuries. This is mostly censored information, and therefore news sources like ours that are not controlled by the pharmaceutical industry are crucial to bring these facts to the public.

    Doctors who view vaccine damage in their patients are reporting facts.

    The science is NOT settled on anything. As more and more vaccines get pumped into society and children, more data and more studies are needed.
    Uncensored Health Freedom News:
    http://healthimpactnews.com/

    Yes, I believe the science of vaccines is settled - Zippyjuan Team

  22. #21

    Default



    Published on May 5, 2017
    Update the studies were pulled here are the archive copies:
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...

    Celeste McGovern joins Rob Dew and Owen Shroyer to discuss the first ever study comparing the health levels of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

    See the studies here:
    http://oatext.com/Preterm-birth,-vacc...

    http://oatext.com/Pilot-comparative-s...
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Created4 View Post
    .
    The numbers are not known, and I don't have to know them, because it is not my argument.
    Vaccines harm and kill some people. That is fact, and is easily proven.
    I see. You know it but you don't have any data. It is easily proven but you have no proof. Thanks for trying.

    Doctors who view vaccine damage in their patients are reporting facts.
    What are the facts they are reporting? What percent of patients they give vaccines to are having negative side effects? What sort of side effects?
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-09-2017 at 06:36 PM.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I see. You know it but you don't have any data. It is easily proven but you have no proof. Thanks for trying.
    On the contrary, it has been proven many many times, and the FACT that the National Vaccine Compensation Program pays out BILLIONS to those injured and killed by vaccines is PUBLIC knowledge. It does not have to be proven to anyone. It is fact. It is simply censored information in the mainstream corporate media.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    What percent of patients they give vaccines to are having negative side effects?
    Again, that is YOUR strawman argument (asking for percentages). Your mere question validates the FACT that some are harmed by vaccines.

    Proving the numbers or percentages harmed is not possible by you or anyone else, because that data is not available. The CDC admittingly will not do a true vaccinated versus unvaccinated study.

    But you know all this. You have an agenda and a belief you want to promote here, which is plain to all.
    Uncensored Health Freedom News:
    http://healthimpactnews.com/

    Yes, I believe the science of vaccines is settled - Zippyjuan Team

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Created4 View Post
    On the contrary, it has been proven many many times, and the FACT that the National Vaccine Compensation Program pays out BILLIONS to those injured and killed by vaccines is PUBLIC knowledge. It does not have to be proven to anyone. It is fact. It is simply censored information in the mainstream corporate media.



    Again, that is YOUR strawman argument (asking for percentages). Your mere question validates the FACT that some are harmed by vaccines.

    Proving the numbers or percentages harmed is not possible by you or anyone else, because that data is not available. The CDC admittingly will not do a true vaccinated versus unvaccinated study.

    But you know all this. You have an agenda and a belief you want to promote here, which is plain to all.
    Let's check the data for the Vaccine Injury Compensation program you cite as proof of vaccines being harmful.

    How many petitions have been awarded compensation?

    According to the CDC, from 2006 to 2015 over 2.8 billion doses of covered vaccines were distributed in the U.S. For petitions filed in this time period, 4,460 petitions were adjudicated by the Court, and of those 2,911 were compensated. This means for every 1 million doses of vaccine that were distributed, 1 individual was compensated.
    One in a million. https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensa...ata/index.html

    and even at that it also notes:

    Over 80 percent of all compensation awarded by the VICP comes as result of a negotiated settlement between the parties in which HHS has not concluded, based upon review of the evidence, that the alleged vaccine(s) caused the alleged injury.

    What reasons might a petition result in a negotiated settlement?

    Consideration of prior U.S. Court of Federal Claims decisions, both parties decide to minimize risk of loss through settlement
    A desire to minimize the time and expense of litigating a case
    The desire to resolve a petition quickly

    Again, that is YOUR strawman argument (asking for percentages).
    Asking for facts is being a strawman? I don't think so. Just mean you don't have any.


    On the contrary, it has been proven many many times, and the FACT that the National Vaccine Compensation Program pays out BILLIONS to those injured and killed by vaccines is PUBLIC knowledge.
    Proving the numbers or percentages harmed is not possible by you or anyone else, because that data is not available.
    It is public knowledge and has been proven many times. But data is unavailable.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-09-2017 at 06:54 PM.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    One in a million.
    Thank you for conceding the argument. You just proved my point, even by using the CDC's data, if you trust the CDC.

    Of course even this text does not state that only one in a million are harmed by vaccines (your argument). It just states that those are the numbers that file petitions with the government in vaccine court.

    The GAO has stated that most Americans do not even know that the vaccine court (National Vaccine Compensation Program) even exists.

    So what are the real numbers?

    Nobody knows.

    But you conceded my point: Some people die and are harmed by vaccines. Thank you.
    Uncensored Health Freedom News:
    http://healthimpactnews.com/

    Yes, I believe the science of vaccines is settled - Zippyjuan Team

  27. #26

    Default

    I conceded nothing. I asked for proof and got strawmen. But thank you for playing.

    One in a million would effect about 7,000 people on the ENTIRE PLANET. Or 320 people in the entire United States.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-09-2017 at 07:22 PM.
    "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yet." - William Gibson

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  28. #27

    Default

    I’m getting kind of frustrated about forum members accusing each other for being “unscientific”.
    I’m also frustrated that every time I check posts I make, pictures or links have been removed from the internet (I have fixed the link in post #7).

    I do intend to start my own thread on the “truth about vaccines”, but I’m afraid that this will take me a long time.

    For people that want evidence that vaccines do NOT work (and plenty of it); here’s “LEICESTER: SANITATION versus VACCINATION” by J.T. Biggs, from 1912 when “science” still meant something: http://www.whale.to/a/biggs.html
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    I’m getting kind of frustrated about forum members accusing each other for being “unscientific”.
    I’m also frustrated that every time I check posts I make, pictures or links have been removed from the internet (I have fixed the link in post #7).

    I do intend to start my own thread on the “truth about vaccines”, but I’m afraid that this will take me a long time.

    For people that want evidence that vaccines do NOT work (and plenty of it); here’s “LEICESTER: SANITATION versus VACCINATION” by J.T. Biggs, from 1912 when “science” still meant something: http://www.whale.to/a/biggs.html
    +1 I have been saying for years the reason why the US has less and less of these diseases is because we have sanitation, clean water and better hygiene. Of course all the pro-vax people laughed and said that was ridiculous. It's not so ridiculous when you do the research and pay attention.
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  30. #29

    Default

    Not studies. Surveys. The children were not randomly selected, the responses were not verified. It's a bunch of people seeing exactly what they want to see.

    But that doesn't matter to the anti-vaxxers.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Created4 View Post
    It is what doctors observe in clinical practice.
    ..

    No it isn't.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Truth in Media: CDC, Vaccines and Autism
    By donnay in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-27-2016, 02:50 PM
  2. The Truth About Vaccines & Blue Foot Syndrome
    By donnay in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-24-2015, 08:35 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-11-2014, 08:51 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-20-2012, 01:33 AM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-08-2008, 09:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •