Why is no one talking about this? Section 13 of every vaccine insert reads "[Vaccine] has not been tested for mutagenic potential, carcinogenic potential, or impairment of fertility". With only minor variations, and even where they say they tested fertility, it's highly likely their methodology is a form of fraud. In fact its including that they tested fertility implies issues were found and they're covering them up.

>>16742325 (OP)
Excerpt taken straight out of 112 inserts. Zero replies.

So much for /sci/. Come on people. Do better.

>>16742325 (OP)
This is quite literally the first time I've ever come to /sci/, and even in these 10 minutes I can tell this board is for math nerds, physics nerds, space, and some genuinely top tier schizoposting.

I think what you're looking for might be elsewhere.

>>16742325 (OP)
>Why is no one talking about this?
Because everyone here is powerless. The thought of big pharma corporations not having the best of intentions is a tough pill to swallow.

>>16742436
There was some vaccine that was making babies develop encephalitis. I don't remember which. Maybe the Rotavirus one?!

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/part-201/section-201.57#p-201.57(c)(14)

>13.1 Carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, impairment of fertility. This subsection must state whether long term studies in animals have been performed to evaluate carcinogenic potential and, if so, the species and results. If results from reproduction studies or other data in animals raise concern about mutagenesis or impairment of fertility in either males or females, this must be described. Any precautionary statement on these topics must include practical, relevant advice to the prescriber on the significance of these animal findings. Human data suggesting that the drug may be carcinogenic or mutagenic, or suggesting that it impairs fertility, as described in the “Warnings and Precautions” section, must not be included in this subsection of the labeling.


It's about animal testing studies. The human data is in a different section.

>>16742527
Copied from the other thread.

1) So you're telling me no attempt was made to study whether the vaccine was carcinogenic, mutagenic, or impaired fertility in animal models before moving to clinical trials. Nice.

2) Point them out. Start with this one. Show me where in clinical trials they assessed mutagenesis, carcinogenesis, or impairment of fertility. What their inclusion criterial was, how it was measured, and how they justified injecting this mystery cocktail into newborns.
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/engerix-b

>another /pol/ tourist thread
why can you fucking drunks not stay on your containment board?

>>16742577
Leave.

>>16742544
From reading just the package insert, these are all the clinical trials sections. If they grew an extra arm, gotten 4th stage ass cancer or started a baby factory, that would have been noted.

>>16742610
Sigh. What's that meme? "Oh, sweet summer child". The naivete. You really think these people are trying to help you. Maybe stop assuming baseless garbage and look at how they structure the inclusion criteria for reported side effects, both categorically and temporally. You might be suprised!

>>16742620
Spill it

>>16742621
Nope. I walked the path on my own. If you don't do the same, it would be meaningless. What good is a transplant? No. It must be grown from seed. Either you care enough to walk the path or you don't. It's your life.

>>16742623
I figured you'd say as much.

>>16742624
Same.