• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Vaccines, Vaccinations Discussions

So why doesn't this give the new CDC panel assurances that aluminum is safe in the amounts given?

:rofl:

You really ask that question!

Answer: Because the new CDC panel was appointed by the moronic grifter RFK (Brain Worm) Jr.!
That's your default response, but it really doesn't answer the question.

Of course it does! Alum salts in vaccines were first studied and found to be effective a century ago! And, of course, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, we take in far more aluminum through air, water, food and skin, than we ever will in a lifetime of vaccines.

You have no idea, as usual, what you are talking about.
 
I’m curious if anyone would watch the MAHA movie coming out?

 
I’m curious if anyone would watch the MAHA movie coming out?


:rofl:

Your ignorance is breathtaking.
 
I’m curious if anyone would watch the MAHA movie coming out?


:rofl:

Your ignorance is breathtaking.
Why? Understanding both sides will give me greater clarity!
 
I’m curious why he says the Covid vaccine is gobbledegook. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing.

 
 
I’m curious if anyone would watch the MAHA movie coming out?

Based on fact-checking previous MAHA movies that would be an unproductive use of time.
Who runs fact-checking? I'm just trying to be objective. What did they say that would make you feel watching their movie would be an unproductive use of your time? Did fact-checking believe they lied or that they were spewing propaganda with no proof of anything? I wonder why these people would create a documentary with nothing to back them up. Making a movie can't be cheap, after all. :oops:
 
I’m curious if anyone would watch the MAHA movie coming out?

Based on fact-checking previous MAHA movies that would be an unproductive use of time.
Who runs fact-checking?
Fact-checking is a process, not an organisation.
:picardfacepalm:
I'm just trying to be objective.
Then do some fact-checking!
What did they say that would make you feel watching their movie would be an unproductive use of your time?
Who are "they"?
Did fact-checking believe they lied or that they were spewing propaganda with no proof of anything?
I have no clue who "fact-checking" is meant to be, but objective reality shows that they did all of that.
I wonder why these people would create a documentary with nothing to back them up.
Money. Lots of money.
Making a movie can't be cheap, after all. :oops:
Something needn't be cheap to be profitable.
 
I’m curious if anyone would watch the MAHA movie coming out?

Based on fact-checking previous MAHA movies that would be an unproductive use of time.
Who runs fact-checking?
Fact-checking is a process, not an organisation.
:picardfacepalm:

Back at FF peacegirl told us that there were Internet Fact Checkers who would already have disproved her claims if they were wrong.
 
I’m curious if anyone would watch the MAHA movie coming out?

Based on fact-checking previous MAHA movies that would be an unproductive use of time.
Who runs fact-checking?
That fact-checking is a process, not an organisation, should be obvious from the sentence structure. You can replace "fact-checking" with a verb, and the sentence is still a grammatically correct sentence; Replace it with a noun and it is no longer grammatically correct.

"Based on eating previous MAHA movies that would be an unproductive use of time" is strange, but meaningful.

"Based on John previous MAHA movies that would be an unproductive use of time" is nonsense.
 
The MAHA Report Cites Studies That Don’t Exist

Epidemiologist Katherine Keyes is listed in the MAHA report as the first author of a study on anxiety in adolescents. When NOTUS reached out to her this week, she was surprised to hear of the citation. She does study mental health and substance use, she said. But she didn’t write the paper listed.

“The paper cited is not a real paper that I or my colleagues were involved with,” Keyes told NOTUS via email. “We’ve certainly done research on this topic, but did not publish a paper in JAMA Pediatrics on this topic with that co-author group, or with that title.”

It’s not clear that anyone wrote the study cited in the MAHA report. The citation refers to a study titled, “Changes in mental health and substance abuse among US adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic,” along with a nonfunctional link to the study’s digital object identifier. While the citation claims that the study appeared in the 12th issue of the 176th edition of the journal JAMA Pediatrics, that issue didn’t include a study with that title.

...

A section describing the “corporate capture of media” highlights two studies that it says are “broadly illustrative” of how a rise in direct-to-consumer drug advertisements has led to more prescriptions being written for ADHD medications and antidepressants for kids.

The catch? Neither of those studies is anywhere to be found. Here are the two citations:

Shah, M. B., et al. (2008). Direct-to-consumer advertising and the rise in ADHD medication use among children. Pediatrics, 122(5), e1055- e1060.

Findling, R. L., et al. (2009). Direct-to-consumer advertising of psychotropic medications for youth: A growing concern. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 19(5), 487-492.

...

Those articles don’t appear in the table of contents for the journals listed in their citations. A spokesperson for Virginia Commonwealth University, where psychiatric researcher Robert L. Findling currently teaches, confirmed to NOTUS that he never authored such an article. The author of the first study doesn’t appear to be a real ADHD researcher at all — at least, not one with a Google Scholar profile.

In another section titled, “American Children are on Too Much Medicine – A Recent and Emerging Crisis,” the report claims that 25% to 40% of mild cases of asthma are overprescribed. But searching Google for the exact title of the paper it cites to back up that figure — “Overprescribing of oral corticosteroids for children with asthma” — leads to only one result: the MAHA report.

...

The corticosteroids study’s supposed first author, pediatric pulmonologist Harold J. Farber, denied writing it or ever working with the other listed authors. He pointed to similar research he’s conducted, but said that even if the MAHA report cited that study correctly, its conclusions are “clearly an overgeneralization” of the findings.

“It is a tremendous leap of faith to generalize from a study in one Medicaid managed care program in Texas using 2011 to 2015 data to national care patterns in 2025,” Farber said in an email.

...

In one section about mental health medication, which Kennedy has railed against for years, the report cites a review paper it claims shows that therapy alone is as or more effective than psychiatric medicine. But one of that paper’s statisticians told NOTUS that conclusion doesn’t make sense, given their study didn’t even attempt to measure or compare therapy’s effectiveness as a mental health treatment.

“We did not include psychotherapy in our review. We only compared the effectiveness of (new generation) antidepressants against each other, and against placebo,” Joanne McKenzie, a biostatistics professor at an Australian university, said in an email.

...
 
Back
Top Bottom