0
8

[–] 22168318? 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

If you have a child with autism caused by vaccines, there is a book "Healing the Symptoms Known as Autism" that was doing well on Amazon. But when it started getting rave reviews from hundreds of people who had the autism cured by purchasers of the book, Amazon banned it. So they have now published it as a free download. https://www.framsteget.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/healing_the_symptoms_known_as_autism_second_edition.pdf

0
0

[–] 22176878? ago 

Shits been debunked, foo.

0
6

[–] 22168265? [S] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Dr. Sherry Tenpenny explains:

The complete absence of the actual antigens in the vaccine, and the presence of cross contamination, and unrecognizable macromolecules means that this "vaccine", in addition to being fraudulent, has 100% risk and 0% benefit to the vaccine.

According to the European Medicines Agency:

Infanrix Hexa is a vaccine used to protect babies and toddlers against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), hepatitis B, poliomyelitis (polio) and diseases such as bacterial meningitis caused by the bacterium Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib).

Infanrix hexa contains the following active substances:

  • toxoids (chemically weakened toxins) from diphtheria and tetanus;
  • parts of Bordetella pertussis (B. pertussis, a bacterium that causes whooping cough);
  • parts of the hepatitis B virus;
  • inactivated polioviruses;
  • polysaccharides (sugars) from Haemophilus influenzae type b.

But according to the scientists at Corvelva, the ingredient claims for this vaccine were not verified by laboratory examination.

In Infanrix Hexa we found:

  • chemical contamination from the manufacturing process or cross-contamination with other manufacturing lines;
  • chemical toxins;
  • bacterial peptide toxins;
  • insoluble and indigestible macromolecule that reacts to the protein assay, but cannot be recognized by any protein databases.

We have not found:

  • Protein antigens of diphtheria toxoids, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, haemophylus influenzae B, Poliomyelitis 1-2-3;
  • Formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde, phenoxyethanol, antibiotic residues indicated in the composition

None of the listed ingredients were found, but what was found was chemical contaminants and toxins. I don't know about you, but that appears to be outright fraud.

0
8

[–] 22170123? 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

They'll just scream "anti-vaxxer" repeatedly until it drowns out any real scientific investigation. A large part of their (huge) marketing budget is dedicated to it.

0
3

[–] 22174730? 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Fake vaccines...don't protect and have a large unknown molecule ...in other words...weaponized vaccines.

0
1

[–] 22172096? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Thank you for the concise summary! Seems like this articles should be tweeted at POTUS and crew until they take action.

0
0

[–] 22172757? ago 

Where is the date on this article?

0
0

[–] 22174760? ago 

It's a year old.

0
0

[–] 22177454? ago 

Thank you.

1
-1

[–] 22174433? 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

I read through the entire published paper. There's a link to the original on an Italian server. The link was dead, and I didn't chase it because I can't read Italian anyway and I would have had to rely on Google Translate.

-The paper's method was poorly written. Anyone with experience with the technology they used would have request more detail (source: has worked with this technology).

-There is no reference at all to the number of replicates that were done. What this looks like is sloppy lab technique and gross contamination with loss of sample. This is very easy to do. There are many steps. But if you have a result that looks like contamination, you'd certainly want to repeat it (I'd want triplicate) to be sure it wasn't your team's technique that introduced the contamination.

-MALDI-TOF-MS is limited by the equipment, some of which can be exceedingly expensive, like mortgage on a upscale house in the suburbs expensive. Older equipment is cheaper, but far less accurate. They didn't cite their instrument's resolving power. Granted, the sample in a vaccine should have been enormous, and easily detected on even bargain-basement gear.

-The don't cite any control. When you have an instrument like this, you run a control on it to ensure that the system is working properly and detecting a known sample. This way you know the machine and analytical software are all working. Especially given the anomalous result, I would have expected them to state clearly the control was good to rule out blaming the instrument.

TLDR: This looks like incredibly sloppy lab work that's being presented as if it were a legitimate finding. They didn't take even basic steps to rule out common confounders with the instrument and the technique. It's either piss poor research or piss poor writing. Either way, it's not evidence of fraud.

0
1

[–] 22176831? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Thus looks like a bunch of talking points copy pasted from some shill handbook.