Hva skyldes den lave interessen på å kartlegge 100% uvaksinertes helse?

[mamma-x-3]

Ja, hvorfor er interessen så lav på å virkelig gå i dybden og forske på 100% uvaksinerte vs 100% vaksinerte? Mange stiller dette spørsmålet:

 

....."Scientifically it would be a relatively simple matter to ascertain the true effects of vaccinations by observing a large enough group (at least 500) of vaccinated children for a long enough time (3-5 years)

after the vaccination and comparing them to a similar group who had not received vaccinations.

 

Such a prospective, case-control study is the “gold standard” for medical research. Again, incredibly, in the over 40 years since vaccinations have been in large-scale use in this country, not one prospective, case-control study on vaccinations has ever been done!

 

And yet there is no other research method which is as free from ambiguity and bias as this. There are few areas of science where the ideal of an unbiased, open-ended approach to gathering data is so thoroughly debased as in vaccine research...."

 

Klipp fra:

http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/GW3414.pdf

[EJ09]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

[Gjest]

Wakefield gjorde dette i sin studie på rhesusaper. Her ble de vaksinerte apene sammenlignet med uvaksinerte. Det ble funnet at de vaksinerte apebabyene viste svakere nevrologiske reflekser og vitale tegn.

[EJ09]

Dokumentér dette, er du snill.

[Gjest]

Ikke Wakefield, men her er studien:

 

http://www.vaccinesafetyfirst.com/pdf/Primate%20StudyHewitson.pdf

[EJ09]

Jo, Wakefield:

"The authors thank Dr. Andrew Wakefield for assistance with the study design and for critical review of the article."

Hahaha. Der ser man kanskje hvor seriøs den er.

Hva blir neste? Wakefield sier at homeopati fungerer?