Nice list. Shame its all rubbish. You spent six paragraphs building a case against vaccines and cited zero vaccine trials. Fujii: anesthesia. Boldt: IV fluids. Reuben: pain meds. Macchiarini: tracheal transplants. Four frauds, four completely different fields, and not one of them touched a vaccine. You copy-pasted a Wikipedia tour of research fraud and hoped nobody would check what the papers were actually about. Your one vaccine example is Wakefield, and you torpedoed it yourself in your own post by admitting it wasn't even a double-blind RCT. Twelve kids. No control group. A guy taking £435,000 from lawyers suing vaccine makers while filing a patent on his own competing vaccine, and not disclosing either. That's not "the peer review process failed." That's a fraud who got caught, stripped of his license, and retracted. Cite it again and you're just advertising that you didn't read your own source. ...And here's the part that actually wrecks your whole post: every single case on your list was caught, exposed, and retracted by the same scientific process you're trying to discredit. You're holding up a list of "science catching liars and throwing them out" as proof that science can't be trusted. That's not an argument, that's simply you tripping over your own evidence. "Corporations get the soyence they pay for" is the laziest line in the post. Nordic national health registries, VAERS, the UK Yellow Card scheme: publicly funded, no product to sell, nothing to gain from faking numbers, and they land on the same conclusions as the "corporate" trials. If it's all just fraud for money, walk us through the business model behind government agencies with no product doing the fraud for free. Subprime mortgages were fraud, dressed up and sold as safe. By your reasoning that means your savings account is also a scam, because hey, same industry, same buildings, same word "bank" on the door. Nobody with a functioning brain makes that leap. A rotten product in one corner of an industry doesn't rot every product next to it. Same logic you're refusing to apply to your own list. You want a real weak point in vaccine science? find one. This post isn't it. It's five fraud cases, four of which are irrelevant and one of which you disqualified yourself, dressed up as a takedown of an entire field of medicine - you've simply provided a yet another solid example of Brandolini's Law (aka Bullsh!t Asymmetry Principle) - the amount of energy and effort required to refute misinformation is an order of magnitude larger than the effort needed to produce it, and you're producing more of it than a cattle farm. Here's the part that should bother you more than it seems to: every name on your list was caught, investigated, and retracted through the peer review and replication process you're using them to discredit. That's not a system failing. That's a system working, at a normal human pace. Fraud exists, everyone understands that, no system is imperfect, everyone understand that - but they gets caught out by the very process you argue fails when other labs try to replicate the result and can't. That mechanism is exactly what would catch large-scale vaccine data fraud too, and in decades of Nordic national registries, VAERS, UK Yellow Card data, and independent replications across dozens of countries with no shared funding, it hasn't. So, all you've really managed to do is recycle five cases from other specialties and have not proved any evidence against vaccines or mRNA vaccines - you've just added copied and pasted the usual noise.
Create an account or sign in to comment