Ok, I'll bite the bullet with another round of downvoting to respond, cause we want to incentivize healthy debates here ;-)
> However, there is nothing stopping someone from suing in federal court, and any attorney's fees during "Vaccine Court" are paid for by the government due to the Vaccine Injury Fund.
From the article https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Vaccine_court
"Vaccine court" is the popular term which refers to the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which administers a no-fault system for litigating vaccine injury claims. These claims against vaccine manufacturers cannot normally be filed in state or federal civil courts, but instead must be heard in the Court of Claims, sitting without a jury."
No fault, no jury, no state or federal courts.
> Maybe Snopes is too mainstream for some readers
Snopes is not mainstream. Snopes is misleading shillery founded by a two fraudulant sexual deviants & their cat. One irritating thing about snopes is their claim of "False" with confusing commentary to "support" their judgement, but hey, it's Snopes so it must be true right? But I digress. After all we agreed to be good investigators...
> Did collected data actually prove that the MMR vaccine produces a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American boys? The answer is no, it did not.
Again, the whole "proof" thing about these studies. There's only evidence & there is no "proof" vaccines are effective. There may be evidence, but not "proof".
> So is Hooker’s result valid? Was there really a 3.36-fold increased risk for autism in African-American males who received MMR vaccination before the age of 36 months in this dataset? Hooker [performed] multiple subset analyses, which, of course, are prone to false positives.
Aha! This is the crux of Snope's "False" claim hidden at the bottom of the article; a CDC (the same institution being investigated) employee analysis. Nail in the coffin for this "False" assessment \s; and the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible \s. Typical Snopes to play elaborate games of wordsmithing so people on Facebook can say "False!" because nobody reads the mumbo jumbo underneath. I don't know why I wasted my time.
Since you are so keen on source material; Here's the original piece of Dr. Bill Thompson's interview. He seems quite persistent about his claims. Maybe Dr. Thompson should read the Snopes artice to get some sense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGOtDVilkUc
Or Dr. Thompson says "My boss is asking me to lie" "I have basically stopped lying".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8697rSvIqhg
There's even an entire documentary about Dr. Thompson.
http://vaxxedthemovie.com/
Of course there are other whistle blowers.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/10/0...
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/merck-whistleb...
> Now, I'm not the best researcher, but I feel like I would have picked a more representative group than just homeschooled children (maybe they were the only groups of mothers that would complete a survey?
> Unlikely, I would imagine that I could get more than 600 responders from a far larger group).
That's great, however vaccines are compulsory for a child to enter the public education system. No education, CPR comes to take your child away...Home & Religious schoolers are the only options.
> I found it interesting that the results stated the odds-ratio for preterm birth + vaccination -> NDD (autism), but not the odds-ratio for vaccination - preterm birth -> NDD
> If anyone has the actual paper, I would appreciate a link!
http://newamericannews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/MAWSON...
Conclusions: In this study based on mothers’ reports, the vaccinated had a higher rate of allergies and NDD than the unvaccinated. Vaccination, but not preterm birth, remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors. However, preterm birth combined with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD. Further research involving larger, independent samples is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health.
> President Trump commissioned a panel headed by Robert Kennedy & supported by Robert De Niro
> Not sure what you're trying to prove with this one. If you can explain further, I'd appreciate it.
There is a serious enough concern to warrent the creation of a Federal panel as a result of the advocacy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr & Robert De Niro. Again, we are looking for evidence as we aren't going to find "proof".
> Could an easier explanation exist for why there is such a harsh response? That maybe people don't want children to die unnecessarily?
I've been noticing that when there is a concerted effort to bully people for their criticism, there are probably monied interests behind it. Remember the whole "climate change deniers" being bullied? Turns out there are legitimate doubts re: climate change science & the implied carbon taxes. Btw, did you know that the CIA created the label "conspiracy theorist" to discredit skeptics of the Warren Commission analysis of the JFK assasination?
https://projectunspeakable.com/conspiracy-theory-invention-o...
Here's a transcript of CIA Document 1035-960:
http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html
Anytime we are told to demonize a "such-and-such denier", it calls into question, why is there a public relations campaign to bully these "deniers"? People tend to follow their interests & be honest when there are no conflicts of interest. Certainly, people do not want to be subjected to ostricization & bullying for having an opinion & healthy skepticism. It would also be naive to think that monied interests are not above physically harming critics that can hurt their interests.
If vaccines were so effective, the only children "dying unnecessarily" would be the unvaccinated. If vaccines are causing health issues, then children are "dying unnecessarily" from the vaccines themselves. When there is reasonable doubt, it's best to let people make decisions over their own bodies or the bodies of their children.
> Unpopular opinion: I'd much rather my child have autism than die of a disease that could be vaccinated against.
I'd rather not have my child have the health consequences associated with vaccines. I'm not afraid of the fear mongering propagandized by parties with obvious conflicts of interest. Do you believe the pharmaceutical companies? I don't...
> Influenza and things like a GI infection (campylobacter) are known to cause GBS.
If this was a simple case of Influenza, why would the vaccine court award money to these parents? This was only one search result that popped up showing one month. There are 12 months in the year. It looks like awarding parents money for vaccine injuries is a regular occurance. This does not match the narrative that "vaccines are perfectly safe". Why do we have such a dissonance in narrative? Looks like there's something to hide. Where there's smoke...
> We get booster shots for a reason.
No thanks.
> However, measles is pretty virulent, so the vaccine isn't 100% effective, more like 97%.
Yet the unvaccinated were blamed for these measles outbreak. Sounds like #FakeNews applies in those cases.
> Even if you think glyphosate is dangerous for your health, the small amounts of it in vaccines that you take rarely compared to the massive amounts in daily food and drink makes it hard for me to worry.
Glyphosate is considered a carcinogen by California. Also, it is far more dangerous injected directly into the bloodstream of a baby than it is injested by an adult.
Vaccines have had a history of containing unwanted compounds.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Polio_vaccine
"Over 98 million Americans received one or more doses of polio vaccine between 1955 and 1963 when a proportion of vaccine was contaminated with SV40; it has been estimated that 10–30 million Americans may have received a dose of vaccine contaminated with SV40"
Of course, with Dr. Thompson being told to lie, seems to indicate that there is reasonable evidence that there there are more issues than what has been published. In fact, with Dr. Thompson, we should vet everything that the CDC has published. Perhaps we should more independent studies & we should allow parents to make their own decisions re: vaccines.
Re: Mercury in vaccines - Thiomersal
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Thiomersal
> Thiomersal (INN), or thimerosal (USP), is an organomercury compound. This compound is a well established antiseptic and antifungal agent.
> It has been used as a preservative in vaccines, immunoglobulin preparations, skin test antigens, antivenins, ophthalmic and nasal products, and tattoo inks.
> The current scientific consensus is that no convincing scientific evidence supports these fears
The point is there will never be "convincing scietific evidence" that injecting Mercury into your baby's bloodstream is harmful due to conflict of interest by the "current scientific consensus" (even though there isn't consensus, it's just that those scientists who disagree are not part of the "current scientific consensus").
To round out this comment, here's a live video of the known neurotoxin mercury's degenative effects on neurons. Who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to inject babies with Mercury, directly into their bloodstream? Maybe the same institutions that thought it was a good idea to inject the SV40 virus.
Here's the video. I encourage you to watch...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHqVDMr9ivo