You misunderstood me, I poorly stated my position. As I was citing a study done on monkeys directly looking for a link between autism and vaccine dosages, I assumed it was clear that I meant human autism studies. The core of the video, the subject of this thread, is a leading researcher in the study that is cited to prove that there is no link, confessing that he was part of a cover-up of the link they found.
This is the hockey stick exposure of the “settled science”.
The vaccine industry is knowingly responsible for maiming 1 in 62 people, the biggest medical tort case in history. Must be why they lobbied for and got immunity for their malpractice.
But they must me addicted to their profits, for they have doubled down on hawking their poison, just like the tobacco industry did in their day
No, nothing you said was clear. That "monkey study" sounds like a typical urban legend, one that can be debunked easily by anyone who understands science and has critical thinking skills. Just a couple of problems with that story are that research monkeys are quite expensive--from a couple of thousand up to tens of thousands of dollars. The number of monkeys needed to conduct a statistically robust study--for example, looking for a disease with an incidence of 1 in 60--would be cost-prohibitive, since you would need hundreds of monkeys...so, at $4000 a monkey, you could be talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on a single study. And that is just for the monkeys, not counting the other costs of research. That cost presumes that a researcher would even be able to purchase that many monkeys, since monkeys breed slowly. Doing research with monkeys is not like doing research with fish or mice, which reproduce rapidly and abundantly. Most experiments with monkeys only use a few--typically less than 20--and those experiments only take place once every bit of information can be extracted from studies done in cells and small animals. Another problem with that story is that monkeys do not get autism. Some researchers in China genetically engineered monkeys to show some signs of autism, but they still have to validate that model--and even then, it will always be understood that it is just a model, and not a mirror of human autism.
This is the hockey stick exposure of the “settled science”.
The term "settled science" is not used by scientists. It seems to be a phrase made up by Al Gore and his ilk to try to browbeat people into accepting an idea about which they continue to show well-founded skepticism. Real scientists know that you can never say anything is settled in science; someone can always come up with a better explanation of the data. If scientific investigation were so straightforward and easy that it would only take a couple of experiments to get to the basic facts about a subject, we wouldn't need scientists any more because we would already know everything. But science is not that easy--someone can spend years on a single problem and find nothing more than tantalizing hints about what is actually going on. That actually describes my PhD work--I had a question that I tried to answer but could not. It is now 16 years since I turned in my dissertation to get my degree, and that question still has not been answered. On the plus side, it remains a perfectly good question for PhD students to use to get their doctorates.
The vaccine industry is knowingly responsible for maiming 1 in 62 people, the biggest medical tort case in history. Must be why they lobbied for and got immunity for their malpractice.
Where is the evidence that vaccines maim people? By "maiming" people, I assume you are referring to that discredited "study" that "showed" that measles vaccine causes autism. That "study" was extremely poorly designed and conducted. For starters, it never went through an independent review board (IRB) who would have primarily looked at the ethical issues with the study, but would also have examined its scientific validity. It would have failed IRB review on both counts. So that guy was doing invasive, non-approved experiments on babies in order to "prove" that the combination MMR vaccine is dangerous--and his motive was to get people to use a measles monovaccine instead, since he had financial interest in such a vaccine. He also had a financial interest in filing lawsuits and padding his pockets; publishing an article (of his own, non-validated and uncorroborated data) supposedly showing a link between MMR and autism would have given him the scientific "proof" he would have needed to present to courts to win such cases. I do not know how the article survived the peer-review process, since the "science" in it was so horrifically bad. It has since been retracted, and that doctor no longer can practice medicine. Unfortunately, that article caused a big waste of precious research dollars and time as researchers scrambled to replicate and/or validate those results.
The fact is that autism is a genetic disease. No vaccine can affect a person's genes, since a vaccine cannot travel backwards in time to when that person was a tiny embryo or before that person was conceived.
Furthermore, given that all drugs (vaccines are drugs) are tested in thousands or even tens of thousands of volunteers before they can get FDA approval--don't you think that the several dozens of researchers would notice severe side-effects from them--given that they are specifically looking for side-effects from the drugs? FYI, for every drug that makes it to market, over 200 are rejected--the people conducting clinical trials and the FDA are very serious about making sure the drugs we use are safe and effective. The lie that vaccines are not tested before being sold is just that--a lie. You can find out the truth for yourself if you learn how to dig through the databases I mentioned in a previous post--www.pubmed.org and www.clinicaltrials.gov. These databases are used extensively by scientists (it is how we find out about the latest research in our fields), but they are open to public use.
BTW, that film that was pulled from the film festival is not worth the tape it was recorded on. Many people like to make propaganda/conspiracy films--my son watches them on youtube all the time--but that doesn't make them true. My son finds them highly amusing, while I spend time attempting to correct the many untruths in those films. Do you believe the global warming propaganda films like "An Inconvenient Truth" or "The Day After Tomorrow"? If you can accept that those are propaganda, then why do you unquestionably believe that a similar, non-scientific, film about a (debunked) vaccine-autism link is true?