Guest
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 08:09:19 +0000, Syd Rumpo <usenet@nononono.co.uk>
wrote:
wrote:
Guest
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 08:04:57 -0800 (PST), Wanderer
<wanderer@dialup4less.com> wrote:
we can use? Where's the Doctor when you need him?
<wanderer@dialup4less.com> wrote:
Maybe it's a vortex in the Space/Time Continuum. Anybody have a TARDIS
we can use? Where's the Doctor when you need him?
B
Brian Howie
Guest
In message <n7q3i9$tkn$1@dont-email.me>, Syd Rumpo
<usenet@nononono.co.uk> writes
My money is on the Planet Zog.
Brian
--
Brian Howie
<usenet@nononono.co.uk> writes
My money is on the Planet Zog.
Brian
--
Brian Howie
W
Wanderer
Guest
On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 8:40:43 AM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
Interesting, but I wonder how far out and for how small an object does this apply. Would a ping pong ball with an orbit twice that of Pluto's occult a star? A star is so far away it is just a pin point of light. Does the diameter of the telescope come into play at some point? I know from doing the Foucault test that at the focus of a spherical mirror the knife edge makes the image go uniformly more and more grey. It doesn't just turn on and off. I figure that has to do with the finite size of my pupil. What if there was a Saturn like planet half a light year away and we were watching a star pass through the rings?
Interesting, but I wonder how far out and for how small an object does this apply. Would a ping pong ball with an orbit twice that of Pluto's occult a star? A star is so far away it is just a pin point of light. Does the diameter of the telescope come into play at some point? I know from doing the Foucault test that at the focus of a spherical mirror the knife edge makes the image go uniformly more and more grey. It doesn't just turn on and off. I figure that has to do with the finite size of my pupil. What if there was a Saturn like planet half a light year away and we were watching a star pass through the rings?
M
Martin Brown
Guest
On 21/01/2016 16:04, Wanderer wrote:
The full paper is online and free if you are interested in the details
(although it isn't an easy read)
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/22/pdf
Basically they looked at the orbital elements of a bunch of other
objects out there and found a peculiar correlation which could hint at
another object in a specific orbit. The hunt is on now to find it.
It wouldn't be slow enough to hold position for very long and perhaps
paradoxically if it was an occultation by the disk of a planet or moon
you would see a blip at mid occultation when diffraction effects are
taken into consideration. It was the remarkably bright diffraction blip
of an occultation of Saturns moon Titan that alerted people to the
possibility of a substantial atmosphere on it back in the 1970's.
The expected diffraction blip was there but way brighter than it should
have been because Titan's atmosphere was focusing the light at us.
Looking for possible microlensing events (ie small compact foreground
objects) against the distant stars is a growth industry now that deep
automated sky surveys have become routine.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
The full paper is online and free if you are interested in the details
(although it isn't an easy read)
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/22/pdf
Basically they looked at the orbital elements of a bunch of other
objects out there and found a peculiar correlation which could hint at
another object in a specific orbit. The hunt is on now to find it.
It wouldn't be slow enough to hold position for very long and perhaps
paradoxically if it was an occultation by the disk of a planet or moon
you would see a blip at mid occultation when diffraction effects are
taken into consideration. It was the remarkably bright diffraction blip
of an occultation of Saturns moon Titan that alerted people to the
possibility of a substantial atmosphere on it back in the 1970's.
The expected diffraction blip was there but way brighter than it should
have been because Titan's atmosphere was focusing the light at us.
Looking for possible microlensing events (ie small compact foreground
objects) against the distant stars is a growth industry now that deep
automated sky surveys have become routine.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
M
Martin Brown
Guest
On 22/01/2016 16:38, Wanderer wrote:
The largest stars are about 0.01" arc across most stars we can see are
local to our galaxy and as such subtend angles in the range down to
0.000001" or thereabouts. So taking Pluto as about 40AU at 80AU it would
take an object about 360 miles across to occult a nearby large giant
star and correspondingly less to occult a distant small star.
(assuming my back of the envelope calculation is about right)
Studies like these tend to be done with interferometers rather than
single telescopes. Michelson (of Michelson-Morely) and Pease managed to
determine stellar sizes with a deticated rig on the Mount Wilson 100" in
the 1920's. A trick not repeated until Hanbury-Brown & Twiss perfected
the intensity interferometer at Jodrell Bank in the 1950's. I have a
feeling his (out of print) book about it is online somewhere.
These days there are folk applying radio astronomy techniques to optical
imaging in the near infrared to visible waveband.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_with_resolved_images
CHARA and COAST are competing to bag the brighter large stars.
> What if there was a Saturn like planet half a light year away and we were watching a star pass through the rings?
Too small, but a proto-planetary disk around a star in formation would
show up if another star passed behind it. Curiously the odd wandering
planet has been observed well away from any star. Ejected from its
original system during the violent early stages of star formation.
We live in a golden age of observational astronomy where almost every
waveband has been imaged in high resolution from radio up to X-rays.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
The largest stars are about 0.01" arc across most stars we can see are
local to our galaxy and as such subtend angles in the range down to
0.000001" or thereabouts. So taking Pluto as about 40AU at 80AU it would
take an object about 360 miles across to occult a nearby large giant
star and correspondingly less to occult a distant small star.
(assuming my back of the envelope calculation is about right)
Studies like these tend to be done with interferometers rather than
single telescopes. Michelson (of Michelson-Morely) and Pease managed to
determine stellar sizes with a deticated rig on the Mount Wilson 100" in
the 1920's. A trick not repeated until Hanbury-Brown & Twiss perfected
the intensity interferometer at Jodrell Bank in the 1950's. I have a
feeling his (out of print) book about it is online somewhere.
These days there are folk applying radio astronomy techniques to optical
imaging in the near infrared to visible waveband.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_with_resolved_images
CHARA and COAST are competing to bag the brighter large stars.
> What if there was a Saturn like planet half a light year away and we were watching a star pass through the rings?
Too small, but a proto-planetary disk around a star in formation would
show up if another star passed behind it. Curiously the odd wandering
planet has been observed well away from any star. Ejected from its
original system during the violent early stages of star formation.
We live in a golden age of observational astronomy where almost every
waveband has been imaged in high resolution from radio up to X-rays.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
B
Bill Bowden
Guest
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:n7q136$4k8$1@news.datemas.de...
Here's another interesting space object discovery.
http://newswatch28.com/nasa-discovers-new-planet-covered-with-marijuana/
"NASA discovers new planet covered with marijuana"
NASA has announced this morning that they have discovered a planet
completely covered with marijuana, a discovery that has completely taken
scientists by surprise. Planet X637Z-43, discovered using NASA's Kepler
satellite, would also allegedly be one of the very few planets potentially
habitable according to
NASA experts, who have detected sufficient levels of oxygen and nitrogen to
support human life. The presence of marijuana on other planets could
strongly encourage future generations to take interest in space exploration,
some experts believe.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
news:n7q136$4k8$1@news.datemas.de...
Here's another interesting space object discovery.
http://newswatch28.com/nasa-discovers-new-planet-covered-with-marijuana/
"NASA discovers new planet covered with marijuana"
NASA has announced this morning that they have discovered a planet
completely covered with marijuana, a discovery that has completely taken
scientists by surprise. Planet X637Z-43, discovered using NASA's Kepler
satellite, would also allegedly be one of the very few planets potentially
habitable according to
NASA experts, who have detected sufficient levels of oxygen and nitrogen to
support human life. The presence of marijuana on other planets could
strongly encourage future generations to take interest in space exploration,
some experts believe.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
T
Tom Del Rosso
Guest
Jan Panteltje wrote:
If there can be a large planet way out there, then I think it likely
that there are a dozen more, and maybe a hundred more farther out.
--
If there can be a large planet way out there, then I think it likely
that there are a dozen more, and maybe a hundred more farther out.
--
T
Tom Del Rosso
Guest
Martin Brown wrote:
Rogue planets have been observed?????
--
Rogue planets have been observed?????
--
T
Tom Del Rosso
Guest
Wanderer wrote:
It couldn't be a planet orbiting our sun because the earth's orbit would
cause it to pass out of the line of sight, but a planet orbiting that
other star with a very long orbital period could do it.
--
It couldn't be a planet orbiting our sun because the earth's orbit would
cause it to pass out of the line of sight, but a planet orbiting that
other star with a very long orbital period could do it.
--
M
Martin Brown
Guest
On 24/01/2016 00:45, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Amazingly yes - first one about three years ago at about 100ly distant.
Showing up in the deep IR survey with the VLT. Reported at the time:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20309762
Full article at
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.0305v1.pdf
They may be more common than we thought...
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Amazingly yes - first one about three years ago at about 100ly distant.
Showing up in the deep IR survey with the VLT. Reported at the time:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20309762
Full article at
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.0305v1.pdf
They may be more common than we thought...
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
M
Martin Brown
Guest
On 23/01/2016 23:48, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Ovenden's conjecture (still not proved or even close to being proved)
suggeste that although you can have an infinite series that they have to
be spaced in a very particular way to prevent themselves from being
ejected off towards to infinity in very finite time (ie becoming a rogue
planet). Slightly more in this thread from a while back
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.astro.amateur/2005-05/msg01755.html
Anyone who has played with RK simulations of planetary or larger systems
will know how common it is for stars to be violently ejected allowing
the remaining ones to settle down into a nice cosy pseudo equilibrium.
It isn't all due to defects in the numerical methods.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Ovenden's conjecture (still not proved or even close to being proved)
suggeste that although you can have an infinite series that they have to
be spaced in a very particular way to prevent themselves from being
ejected off towards to infinity in very finite time (ie becoming a rogue
planet). Slightly more in this thread from a while back
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.astro.amateur/2005-05/msg01755.html
Anyone who has played with RK simulations of planetary or larger systems
will know how common it is for stars to be violently ejected allowing
the remaining ones to settle down into a nice cosy pseudo equilibrium.
It isn't all due to defects in the numerical methods.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
P
Phil Hobbs
Guest
On 01/24/2016 04:31 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
Michael Ovenden was a great guy. He was my celestial mechanics /
galactic dynamics prof at UBC, (mumble) years ago. I learned a lot from
him, mostly about numerical methods, asymptotics, and orbital
calculations. Hohmann transfers, eccentric anomaly, Lindblad
resonances, density waves, all that fun classical mechanics stuff.
(He was also a big New Age religion enthusiast, but so was I at the
time, so I don't hold that against him. Of course, I was 20 and he
wasn't.)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
Michael Ovenden was a great guy. He was my celestial mechanics /
galactic dynamics prof at UBC, (mumble) years ago. I learned a lot from
him, mostly about numerical methods, asymptotics, and orbital
calculations. Hohmann transfers, eccentric anomaly, Lindblad
resonances, density waves, all that fun classical mechanics stuff.
(He was also a big New Age religion enthusiast, but so was I at the
time, so I don't hold that against him. Of course, I was 20 and he
wasn't.)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 26/01/16 06:19, Jamie M wrote:
And so it begins. again.
Please think twice before responding to the
content of troll's messages.
And so it begins. again.
Please think twice before responding to the
content of troll's messages.
D
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn
Guest
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 11:01:32 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> Gave us:
trolls' messages.
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> Gave us:
trolls' messages.
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Thursday, 28 January 2016 09:56:09 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
What makes you think that? The vaccine adjuncts seem to much the same across a variety of vaccines, so that aspect of vaccine safety would seem to be pretty predictable.
The well-known defects of the American legislative system let them do that - it saves them the price of buying insurance against what seem to be rare adverse reactions, but it can be argued that the communities that get the public health benefits of adequate vaccination coverage should cover the costs of the occasional adverse reaction to vaccination.
You blithely ignore the toxic effects of getting cervical cancer, which is what the vaccination is intended to protect against. I shouldn't need to have to spell this out, but you aren't either clever or well-informed, so the train of logic goes like this.
Most cervical cancers are a side effect of a sexually transmitted human papillomavirus infection. If you immunise enough teenage girls against this virus infection, not only do you make it much less likely that they will get the virus infection, but you also make it less likely that they will pass it on to their sexual partners, who will - in turn - be less likely to pass it on to their sexual partners (who may not have been immunised).
If you immunise enough of the population, the breed of virus you immunise against virus will die out completely. We've managed this with small-pox, and are close to it with polio, but a bunch of religious nutters, who seem to be just as silly as you are, are making it difficult to vaccinate enough of the kids in the last hold-out areas.
The argument is perfectly logical. Your problem is that you don't know enough of the fact involved to be able to follow the logic.
One giveaway is that you never mention the incidence of "adverse side-effects" which is typically rather low, at least for anything worth worrying about.
https://www.tga.gov.au/alert/gardasil-human-papillomavirus-vaccine
Anaphylactic shock comes in at 2.6 per million. The consequent incidence of demyelinating disorder such as multiple sclerosis, which have been blamed on the vaccine, isn't significantly different from the incidence in the unvaccinated population. People have got multiple sclerosis after being vaccinated, but the statistics suggest that they would have got it even if they hadn't been vaccinated (which isn't the way the data is presented on the anti-vaccination web-sites).
Your "logic" has holes in it.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
What makes you think that? The vaccine adjuncts seem to much the same across a variety of vaccines, so that aspect of vaccine safety would seem to be pretty predictable.
The well-known defects of the American legislative system let them do that - it saves them the price of buying insurance against what seem to be rare adverse reactions, but it can be argued that the communities that get the public health benefits of adequate vaccination coverage should cover the costs of the occasional adverse reaction to vaccination.
You blithely ignore the toxic effects of getting cervical cancer, which is what the vaccination is intended to protect against. I shouldn't need to have to spell this out, but you aren't either clever or well-informed, so the train of logic goes like this.
Most cervical cancers are a side effect of a sexually transmitted human papillomavirus infection. If you immunise enough teenage girls against this virus infection, not only do you make it much less likely that they will get the virus infection, but you also make it less likely that they will pass it on to their sexual partners, who will - in turn - be less likely to pass it on to their sexual partners (who may not have been immunised).
If you immunise enough of the population, the breed of virus you immunise against virus will die out completely. We've managed this with small-pox, and are close to it with polio, but a bunch of religious nutters, who seem to be just as silly as you are, are making it difficult to vaccinate enough of the kids in the last hold-out areas.
The argument is perfectly logical. Your problem is that you don't know enough of the fact involved to be able to follow the logic.
One giveaway is that you never mention the incidence of "adverse side-effects" which is typically rather low, at least for anything worth worrying about.
https://www.tga.gov.au/alert/gardasil-human-papillomavirus-vaccine
Anaphylactic shock comes in at 2.6 per million. The consequent incidence of demyelinating disorder such as multiple sclerosis, which have been blamed on the vaccine, isn't significantly different from the incidence in the unvaccinated population. People have got multiple sclerosis after being vaccinated, but the statistics suggest that they would have got it even if they hadn't been vaccinated (which isn't the way the data is presented on the anti-vaccination web-sites).
Your "logic" has holes in it.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
J
Jamie M
Guest
On 1/25/2016 10:59 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
vaccination is designed to prevent.
Hi,
Vaccine manufacturers didn't even seem to test the vaccine, which would
seem to be a sensible precaution before their widespread use. At the
same time they lobbied successfully for removing liability to any
damaging effects from vaccine injury.
I guess your idea of taking precautions only applies when profit
of multinational corporations aren't at risk, however I am glad
the scientists who wrote this study think otherwise, and identified
neurological damage from a dangerous vaccine, which is supposed
to prevent an STD virus, HPV, yet for some reason the vaccine
manufacturers have lobbied politicians to make it a mandatory vaccine
for 11 year old's to enter school:
http://cervicalcancer.healthdiaries.com/executive-order-gardasil-mandatory-in-texas.html
This law didn't last very long but it shows you that the vaccine
manufacturers, who didn't even test the toxic effects of this
vaccine properly, attempt to mandate it just for profit.
So your precaution argument, as with your other biased
arguments, is illogical.
cheers,
Jamie
a whole lot less damaging than the results of the infection which the
vaccination is designed to prevent.
Hi,
Vaccine manufacturers didn't even seem to test the vaccine, which would
seem to be a sensible precaution before their widespread use. At the
same time they lobbied successfully for removing liability to any
damaging effects from vaccine injury.
I guess your idea of taking precautions only applies when profit
of multinational corporations aren't at risk, however I am glad
the scientists who wrote this study think otherwise, and identified
neurological damage from a dangerous vaccine, which is supposed
to prevent an STD virus, HPV, yet for some reason the vaccine
manufacturers have lobbied politicians to make it a mandatory vaccine
for 11 year old's to enter school:
http://cervicalcancer.healthdiaries.com/executive-order-gardasil-mandatory-in-texas.html
This law didn't last very long but it shows you that the vaccine
manufacturers, who didn't even test the toxic effects of this
vaccine properly, attempt to mandate it just for profit.
So your precaution argument, as with your other biased
arguments, is illogical.
cheers,
Jamie
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Thursday, 28 January 2016 15:26:08 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
What's a "depression" symptom in a mouse? Your crap about autism and schizophrenia seems to come from a long-discredited study by a guy who ended up disbarred because of the nature of the mistakes he made. This doesn't stop half-wits like you screaming "cover-up", but it does discourage rational observers from taking you seriously.
In mice. Some millions of women have been vaccinated with the product, and while quite a few of them are nuts, some of them only showing symptoms since vaccination, the connection between their going nuts and them getting vaccinated isn't statistically significant.
It happens, but calling it a "common pattern" is nonsense. It wouldn't be news if it were "a common pattern".
Antidepressants have to change the nervous system to work at all. Vaccines have no direct effect on the nervous system. You have this theory that they can, sometimes, but if it does happen it seems to be too rare to show up as statistically significant.
You want to block a vaccination program that can prevent quite a few cervical cancers because there's a statistically insignificant risk of nerve damage that you fevered imagination has deduced from a few people who went nuts after they'd been vaccinated, when Occam's Razor suggests that they would have gone nuts whether they'd been vaccinated or not.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
What's a "depression" symptom in a mouse? Your crap about autism and schizophrenia seems to come from a long-discredited study by a guy who ended up disbarred because of the nature of the mistakes he made. This doesn't stop half-wits like you screaming "cover-up", but it does discourage rational observers from taking you seriously.
In mice. Some millions of women have been vaccinated with the product, and while quite a few of them are nuts, some of them only showing symptoms since vaccination, the connection between their going nuts and them getting vaccinated isn't statistically significant.
It happens, but calling it a "common pattern" is nonsense. It wouldn't be news if it were "a common pattern".
Antidepressants have to change the nervous system to work at all. Vaccines have no direct effect on the nervous system. You have this theory that they can, sometimes, but if it does happen it seems to be too rare to show up as statistically significant.
You want to block a vaccination program that can prevent quite a few cervical cancers because there's a statistically insignificant risk of nerve damage that you fevered imagination has deduced from a few people who went nuts after they'd been vaccinated, when Occam's Razor suggests that they would have gone nuts whether they'd been vaccinated or not.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
J
Jamie M
Guest
Really this is the only line you need to read to at least have some
doubt on vaccine safety:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26778424
"To date most human vaccine trials utilize aluminum (Al) adjuvants as
placebos despite much evidence showing that Al in vaccine-relevant
exposures can be toxic to humans and animals."
doubt on vaccine safety:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26778424
"To date most human vaccine trials utilize aluminum (Al) adjuvants as
placebos despite much evidence showing that Al in vaccine-relevant
exposures can be toxic to humans and animals."
J
Jamie M
Guest
On 1/27/2016 6:42 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
communities that get the public health benefits of adequate
vaccination coverage should cover the costs of the occasional adverse
reaction to vaccination.
or well-informed, so the train of logic goes like this.
that they will get the virus infection, but you also make it less
likely that they will pass it on to their sexual partners, who will - in
turn - be less likely to pass it on to their sexual partners
(who may not have been immunised).
nutters, who seem to be just as silly as you are, are making it difficult
to vaccinate enough of the kids in the last hold-out areas.
in the unvaccinated population. People have got multiple sclerosis after
being vaccinated, but the statistics suggest that they would have got
it even if they hadn't been vaccinated (which isn't the way the data is
presented on the anti-vaccination web-sites).
Hi,
There are links to the immune system function with autism and
schizophrenia both now, related to neural pruning, and vaccines
including gardasil cause neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions,
probably pruning neurons in the brain among many other side effects
of the vaccine. This caused measurable depression symptoms in the
mice that were given gardasil as compared to placebo.
"It appears that Gardasil via its Al adjuvant and HPV antigens has the
ability to trigger neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions, further
leading to behavioral changes"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26778424
It is a common pattern that industry funded studies produce
good results for drugs and vaccines, and it is only from
common sense and later unbiased studies that the truth comes
out. For example:
"Anti depressants double the risk of aggression and suicide"
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-01-antidepressants-aggression-suicide-children.html
"This is because of the poor design of clinical trials that assess
these antidepressants, and the misreporting of findings in published
articles."
cheers,
Jamie
what seem to be rare adverse reactions, but it can be argued that the
communities that get the public health benefits of adequate
vaccination coverage should cover the costs of the occasional adverse
reaction to vaccination.
I shouldn't need to have to spell this out, but you aren't either clever
or well-informed, so the train of logic goes like this.
against this virus infection, not only do you make it much less likely
that they will get the virus infection, but you also make it less
likely that they will pass it on to their sexual partners, who will - in
turn - be less likely to pass it on to their sexual partners
(who may not have been immunised).
small-pox, and are close to it with polio, but a bunch of religious
nutters, who seem to be just as silly as you are, are making it difficult
to vaccinate enough of the kids in the last hold-out areas.
blamed on the vaccine, isn't significantly different from the incidence
in the unvaccinated population. People have got multiple sclerosis after
being vaccinated, but the statistics suggest that they would have got
it even if they hadn't been vaccinated (which isn't the way the data is
presented on the anti-vaccination web-sites).
Hi,
There are links to the immune system function with autism and
schizophrenia both now, related to neural pruning, and vaccines
including gardasil cause neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions,
probably pruning neurons in the brain among many other side effects
of the vaccine. This caused measurable depression symptoms in the
mice that were given gardasil as compared to placebo.
"It appears that Gardasil via its Al adjuvant and HPV antigens has the
ability to trigger neuroinflammation and autoimmune reactions, further
leading to behavioral changes"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26778424
It is a common pattern that industry funded studies produce
good results for drugs and vaccines, and it is only from
common sense and later unbiased studies that the truth comes
out. For example:
"Anti depressants double the risk of aggression and suicide"
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-01-antidepressants-aggression-suicide-children.html
"This is because of the poor design of clinical trials that assess
these antidepressants, and the misreporting of findings in published
articles."
cheers,
Jamie