Swine flu vaccine = population control -NWO stunt?

[EnemyPartyII]

Of many such, here are 127-sources, on 13 pages: WAVE - Vaccine Ineffectiveness

I don't see anything there that mentions vaccines being "enforced"

 

[Tenebrae]

Of many such, here are 127-sources, on 13 pages: WAVE - Vaccine Ineffectiveness

How about from a non biased source? No-vaccine.com doesnt really strike me as such

 

[Drekkan85]

Of many such, here are 127-sources, on 13 pages: WAVE - Vaccine Ineffectiveness

Wait - is No-vaccine.com a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

No?

Then it's BS and completely unusable and non-credible in a debate on the science of vaccination.

 

[everlasting_J1:10]

To all the above post, here is where i stand, starting back at the first part of this year (2009) I do believe (know) that God started opening my eyes to some things that my mind was never really open to or thought exisited before.
The truth is we all know that BIG CHANGE in America and the world is coming/started....
With taking this in and finding that balance between; the Spiritual (my heart) the intelectual (my mind) and the physical (my body/actions) this is what i will say:

What can we do to stop it ..... NOTHING ..... Whatever is in God's plan for the End of days is going to happen and I think we should be aware of these things like the NWO, Vaccinations, Marshall Law, Global Currency, "The Mark" what it is and not being ignorant by accepting it and population reduction etc.

But The Body of Christ should prepare their selves not by putting the focus on each subject but by making sure their lamps are kept full.

I am reminded of the bible story of the 10 virgins. 5 did not have enough oil to see the masters return and missed it. I DONT WANT TO BE THERE.
My Prayer is not fill me up but , "Lord, keep me full".

Instead of focusing on beating the NWO or Alerting the world to it. Now dont get me wrong those that are not aware we should tell, just try not to cast your pearls before swin. Meaning, This is the time for the body to come together and start working towards becoming the BRIDE.
We need to be counter acting these things by HIDDING GODS WORD IN OUR HEARTS.

So here is my Closing statment:

Dont let the enemy overcome you with out you knowing it. Be smart! Be led of the Holy Spirit. Take into consideration that God is God and is going to alert the whole body. ( just like He did me, no one told me of these things I did not seek them out but I was listening and God opened my eyes to them) Dont swing at air. Prepare and Keep full.
<>< TIFF

 

[everlasting_J1:10]

To all the above post, here is where i stand, starting back at the first part of this year (2009) I do believe (know) that God started opening my eyes to some things that my mind was never really open to or thought exisited before.
The truth is we all know that BIG CHANGE in America and the world is coming/started....
With taking this in and finding that balance between; the Spiritual (my heart) the intelectual (my mind) and the physical (my body/actions) this is what i will say:

What can we do to stop it ..... NOTHING ..... Whatever is in God's plan for the End of days is going to happen and I think we should be aware of these things like the NWO, Vaccinations, Marshall Law, Global Currency, "The Mark" what it is and not being ignorant by accepting it and population reduction etc.

But The Body of Christ should prepare their selves not by putting the focus on each subject but by making sure their lamps are kept full.

I am reminded of the bible story of the 10 virgins. 5 did not have enough oil to see the masters return and missed it. I DONT WANT TO BE THERE.
My Prayer is not fill me up but , "Lord, keep me full".

Instead of focusing on beating the NWO or Alerting the world to it. Now dont get me wrong those that are not aware we should tell, just try not to cast your pearls before swin. Meaning, This is the time for the body to come together and start working towards becoming the BRIDE.
We need to be counter acting these things by HIDDING GODS WORD IN OUR HEARTS.

So here is my Closing statment:

Dont let the enemy overcome you with out you knowing it. Be smart! Be led of the Holy Spirit. Take into consideration that God is God and is going to alert the whole body. ( just like He did me, no one told me of these things I did not seek them out but I was listening and God opened my eyes to them) Dont swing at air. Prepare and Keep full.
<>< TIFF

 

[visionary]

Wait - is No-vaccine.com a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

No?

Then it's BS and completely unusable and non-credible in a debate on the science of vaccination.

That is like saying nothing outside of RCC is acceptable... while being an RCC.. that sounds good. .. but that is only one view...

Just because peer-reviews scientific journals are governed by a body of same thought gang of intellects does not make it any more viable than another outside the loop scientific group.

 

[Drekkan85]

That is like saying nothing outside of RCC is acceptable... while being an RCC.. that sounds good. .. but that is only one view...

Just because peer-reviews scientific journals are governed by a body of same thought gang of intellects does not make it any more viable than another outside the loop scientific group.

It's not about who governs them, and it's not about WHo they are. It's about WHAT they do - peer review. Do you know what that even is? It's about letting others in your field of speciality get access to your paper and attempt to shred it apart for any reason they can find whatsoever. If your paper is unsound it will eventually be found out, if it somehow slips through the cracks scientists are STILL too skeptical to let it slide as 'truth' but instead keep testing (curiously, this is how Wakefield's first paper was found out as being fraudulent and therefore retracted).

That's what makes science. Without peer review I can make any claim I want. Hmmm, my great amount of testing has proven that posting on Christian Forums causes autism through secret radio waves installed onto the page by a government conspiracy loaded virus!

What? Submit to peer reviewed testing? Bah - they're just on the payroll! The people must be warned!

Peer review is a necessary but not sufficient for something to be used in a discussion on science. If it hasn't cleared that hurdle, it's just assertion and opinion - not evidence.

This is especially ironic given that every scientific study that has withstood peer review has shown the exact opposite of the claim that vaccines are harmful - witness the Danish study on trackign autism rates in both vaccinated and unvaccinated kids QED.

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON

We are starting to get a lot of reports from this thread. Either keep to the topic, and off the personal stuff, or we will shut it down. Thanks, and don't forget to tip your server.


MOD HAT OFF​

 

[visionary]

It's not about who governs them, and it's not about WHo they are. It's about WHAT they do - peer review. Do you know what that even is? It's about letting others in your field of speciality get access to your paper and attempt to shred it apart for any reason they can find whatsoever. If your paper is unsound it will eventually be found out, if it somehow slips through the cracks scientists are STILL too skeptical to let it slide as 'truth' but instead keep testing (curiously, this is how Wakefield's first paper was found out as being fraudulent and therefore retracted).

That's what makes science. Without peer review I can make any claim I want. Hmmm, my great amount of testing has proven that posting on Christian Forums causes autism through secret radio waves installed onto the page by a government conspiracy loaded virus!

What? Submit to peer reviewed testing? Bah - they're just on the payroll! The people must be warned!

Peer review is a necessary but not sufficient for something to be used in a discussion on science. If it hasn't cleared that hurdle, it's just assertion and opinion - not evidence.

This is especially ironic given that every scientific study that has withstood peer review has shown the exact opposite of the claim that vaccines are harmful - witness the Danish study on trackign autism rates in both vaccinated and unvaccinated kids QED.

Most peer review research work is bought and paid to give a certain direction the thumbsup sign. That is what they get paid to say with fancy words even if the experiments do not
prove it to be true.

 

[Drekkan85]

Most peer review research work is bought and paid to give a certain direction the thumbsup sign. That is what they get paid to say with fancy words even if the experiments do not
prove it to be true.

Of course you have proof for this accusation? Have you ever actually worked with peer review before? That's partly why the process is double blind - so you CAN'T peer review it with bias. And even then, incredulous scientists will be testing the work they see in journals - that's how Wakefield's fraud was discovered and then retracted.

 

[BjorkIsCool]

You watch and you'll see that these warnings are correct. God told us that there will be a government who controls the world under the leadership of the anti-christ. God told us that many people will be killed and imprisoned. What we are seeing is the beginning of that. Wake up!

We are currently seeing the beginning of people being killed and imprisoned by a government who controls the world under the leadership of the anti-christ? Where?

 

[visionary]

Of course you have proof for this accusation? Have you ever actually worked with peer review before? That's partly why the process is double blind - so you CAN'T peer review it with bias. And even then, incredulous scientists will be testing the work they see in journals - that's how Wakefield's fraud was discovered and then retracted.

You read it all the time, the research information gets falsified in order to get the FDA to approve the drug for market.


In the online, open-access journal PLoS ONE, Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh reports the first meta-analysis of surveys questioning scientists about their misbehaviours. The results suggest that altering or making up data is more frequent than previously estimated and might be particularly high in medical research.

How Many Scientists Fabricate And Falsify Research?

Recent scandals like Hwang Woo-Suk's fake stem-cell lines or Jon Sudb&#248;'s made-up cancer trials have dramatically demonstrated that fraudulent research is very easy to publish, even in the most prestigious journals.

 

[Cabal]

You read it all the time, the research information gets falsified in order to get the FDA to approve the drug for market.


In the online, open-access journal PLoS ONE, Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh reports the first meta-analysis of surveys questioning scientists about their misbehaviours. The results suggest that altering or making up data is more frequent than previously estimated and might be particularly high in medical research.

"Research is wrong, and here's the research to prove it!"

Recent scandals like Hwang Woo-Suk's fake stem-cell lines or Jon Sudbø's made-up cancer trials have dramatically demonstrated that fraudulent research is very easy to publish, even in the most prestigious journals.

That's two publications out of...how many?

And neither of them were on vaccine work, so those are moot points anyway.

 

[visionary]

Bookmark in Connotea Falsified research goes unnoticed for over eight years - July 15, 2009
Posted for Fiona Tomkinson, British Science Association Media Fellow

The verdict is out on two researchers, Judith Thomas and Juan Contreras, who falsified results in journals and progress reports for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) - spanning an incredible eight years and amounting to more than $23 million in NIH grants (The Scientist).

The Great Beyond: Falsified research goes unnoticed for over eight years

 

[visionary]

90&#37; research papers published today has falsified datas just for the sake of publication and funding.

Army Report Finds Walter Reed Doctor Falsified Data
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Colonel Coots: "It is a significant breach of academic protocol. It's a breach of trust."
Academic physicians who hold senior faculty positions at prestigious medical centers, who have trained at the finest US medical schools, are found to have engaged in fraud and deception, shamelessly hawking products for companies that pay them.

A front page article in The New York Times reports that an investigation by Walter Reed Army Medical Center, found that Dr. Timothy Kuklo, a former surgeon at Walter Reed (2003-2007), who is currently an associate professor at Washington University, St. Louis, made patently false claims about the number of soldiers he claimed he successfully treated (92%) with Infuse, a Medtronic product.

"It's like a ghost population that were reported in the article as having been treated that we have no record of ever having existed," Colonel Coots said in a telephone interview on Tuesday. "So this really was all falsified information."

Dr. Kuklo is a paid consultant for Medtronic whose sales during a six month period for bioengineered products, principally Infuse, reached $419 million.

Alliance for Human Research Protection - Army Report Finds Walter Reed Doctor Falsified Data

 

[visionary]

Both logic and observation confirm that most people who need to expose other people to XYZ (either directly or environmentally) have a preference for analysts who say such exposures create a negligible amount of cancer -- or better still, none at all.

Therefore, in terms of protecting human health, it would be inherently unsafe if the XYZ community sponsored and thus controlled nearly all research on the carcinogenicity of XYZ. Scientists in the XYZ field would quickly learn the need for prudence about anything which would upset such sponsors -- if the scientists wished to have their grants renewed, their papers published, their nominations to XYZ advisory committees approved, and generally wished to have a comfortable future in their field.

If You Own the Consensus, How Can You Lose?

 

[visionary]

In such a situation, one predictable result of the funding would be the extreme scarcity of "boat-rockers" and the extreme abundance of sponsor-friendly and self-censoring XYZ experts.

Similar statements from the latter about the cancer-hazard from XYZ exposure would indeed constitute the overwhelming consensus in the field. Moreover, due to the very wide distribution of grants by the XYZ community, the consensus would appear to arise from a great variety of disinterested sources: Medical centers, schools of public health, schools of veterinary science, departments of environmental sciences, epidemiology, biostatistics, physics, biology, toxicology.

Nonetheless, an "overwhelming consensus of XYZ experts" might be artificial, under the circumstances.

Who Controls the Input?

 

[Cabal]

Ok, so we're on five disgraced researchers now. Out of how many who aren't?

And why does this mean we can ignore being vaccinated exactly? These people weren't doing research in that field.

 

[visionary]

With all the revelations during recent years -- in field after field -- about falsified research, falsified safety-testing, falsified performance-testing, falsified cost-reports, and falsified pollution-reports, there is nothing far-fetched about the prospect in XYZ research that both dependent and independent analysts could get deceived by falsified databases..

"Do Scientists Cheat?", a one-hour broadcast of the PBS science series NOVA, October 25, 1988. Transcript # 1517. (Boston, MA 02134, USA: WGBH Educational Foundation, 125 Western Ave.)

 

[Cabal]

Both logic and observation confirm that most people who need to expose other people to XYZ (either directly or environmentally) have a preference for analysts who say such exposures create a negligible amount of cancer -- or better still, none at all.

Therefore, in terms of protecting human health, it would be inherently unsafe if the XYZ community sponsored and thus controlled nearly all research on the carcinogenicity of XYZ. Scientists in the XYZ field would quickly learn the need for prudence about anything which would upset such sponsors -- if the scientists wished to have their grants renewed, their papers published, their nominations to XYZ advisory committees approved, and generally wished to have a comfortable future in their field.

If You Own the Consensus, How Can You Lose?

In such a situation, one predictable result of the funding would be the extreme scarcity of "boat-rockers" and the extreme abundance of sponsor-friendly and self-censoring XYZ experts.

Similar statements from the latter about the cancer-hazard from XYZ exposure would indeed constitute the overwhelming consensus in the field. Moreover, due to the very wide distribution of grants by the XYZ community, the consensus would appear to arise from a great variety of disinterested sources: Medical centers, schools of public health, schools of veterinary science, departments of environmental sciences, epidemiology, biostatistics, physics, biology, toxicology.

Nonetheless, an "overwhelming consensus of XYZ experts" might be artificial, under the circumstances.

Who Controls the Input?

Or, more simply, the overwhelming consensus etc might be there because the facts back them up.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Medical journals frequently do tests on drugs that show them to have effects counter to what their developers or marketers claim. The top three articles on the British Medical Journal site, for example, are all about "rocking the boat" in this context.