Topic: Antivaccination propaganda here and there. - page 5. (Read 1317 times)

Members of a population passing organisms from one to another is 'the way it works.'  Always has and always will.  Trying to change that will, I believe, result in more harm than good even if the intent _is_ noble, and I believe that in a lot of cases it is not.

Whatever the cause, or causes, we have a very sick general population in the U.S. now with a majority of both children and adults on prescription meds, and the big pharma laughing all the way to the bank.  You may consider it and accident.  I'm increasingly convinced that it is not.

I think it unlikely that the full text would be "Just Kidding."  It's compelling evidence to me that much progress was made along these lines, and it aligns well with various other of my research into the 'mindset' of the people who are likely to be funding the work.

When I find myself needing to bend over backward to excuse observations, I tend to abandon a hypothesis.  The simplest explanation here is just like I said.  A group of powerful people funded and tried to deploy a sterilization program using the organizations which they brought into existence and more or less control.  They got caught and tried to cover it up.

Again, I see it as very much the same contingent who are now trying to force mandatory vaccinations for all, at gunpoint, down our throats.

These ideas date back at least 100 years and were widely discussed back in those days.  The 'Fabian Socialists' were both on the cutting edge of science at that time, and often the possessors of dynastic wealth derived from the burgeoning industrial revolution (and often farther back yet.)  I suspect that new players entered the game since then, but there would be some direct lineages to trace back.  At least philosophically.

I love the FS logo, BTW:

Again, I get where you are coming from, but that is how living in a society works. You agree to give up certain rights as a cost of living with others. Body autonomy is a strange concept in this context. What if you are no longer classified as a body, but a biohazard after contracting something? You can be imprisoned for owning a vial of rubella, what if its inside of you and not in a vial. I'm not seriously asking these questions, but presenting them for consideration.

You cannot avoid the common cold, but what about if someone gives you HIV? Is that also a, they have a right to do so situation because its their body? Lets change that a bit, so what if someone exposes you to the HIV virus instead of maliciously giving it to you? There is definitely precedent that says infecting people with STIs results in criminal charges. Its one charge to recklessly transmit it, and a worse charge to intentionally pass it along. Why wouldn't the same be true of a disease that is linked to a choice?

If it is your choice whether or not you get vaccinated. But in the event that you end up contracting an otherwise extinct virus, and pass it along, it reasonable to say that you would be at fault. I'd argue a case could be made there.

So I started with this one

Page 220 and 221 found here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC335872/?page=3

Endrometrium biopsies were done to monitor the effects of the modified HCG on female reproductive health. This is preliminary research, not a long term safety study that would need to follow. It stated, here is what we set out to study, these are the results, and here is some safety concerns and what we found, they weren't a concern for our small sample group so it is worth moving onto the next stage of clinical trials. Pretty forthcoming and well documented, I don't see anything wrong with this journal except that its kind of old. I'll look for follow ups to that study.

from this one


I can't get access to the full version of the study. The abstract doesn't really tell you much, so I'll be searching other databases for it.




Their sources are not listed, so I can't review where they are getting any of their information from.

The problem with this logic is that "antivaxxers" are a tiny minority of people. If herd immunity is a real thing, then this tiny minority should have a largely inconsequential effect on the whole. There are some exceptions such as with immuno-suppressed individuals, but they are already in a vulnerable state to begin with. As with any rights, your rights end where my rights begin. I have a right to bodily autonomy. You do not have a right to never be exposed to disease. You are advocating the removal of bodily autonomy in the name of this non-right of being free from exposure to infection. This is nonsense backward utopian type logic.

Of course we should seek to minimize risks for everyone, but the fact that you have to take rights from some to give them to others should be an immediate sign this is not right.

I understand the argument and agree somewhat. On one hand individual health shouldn't be something that is mandated. On the other hand, its not just individual health that is effected. Back in the good ole days, if you caught a dangerous infectious disease, your house, belongings, and person were just burned to prevent infection from spreading to others. That is frowned upon nowadays. Its hard to propose a better method for how an individual will take responsibility for the result of their actions, when their actions are a self medical choice. If you make life choices that leads to diabetes, thats completely on you. We don't need to make people take care of themselves, because diabetes isn't going to spread to others, that isn't the case with infectious diseases. If you spread the plague to your neighbor, should you be responsible for their treatment? Should you be charged with manslaughter if it kills them? None of that makes much sense, but it becomes something that you need to consider if a choice is what caused the proliferation of an extinct disease. If you expose someone to something they absolutely wouldn't have been exposed to otherwise, why wouldn't you be held accountable. That brings up what do we define as unavoidable, common colds, etc, as well as a lot of other issues, but the point stands that you aren't just playing with your own health.

As a side note, I'm using the plague as an example because I refuse to use measles as an example. While I don't agree with antivaxxers, I'm just as annoyed by what I'll call the super pro vaxxers. Misleading information published by irresponsible "studies" are what cause plenty of these issues. I saw a "study" that showed that people who were vaccinated were less likely to have autism, which is also nonsense.

What is stopping a future Dr. Evil from killing us all with vaccines? Nothing really, its just that as it is now, the FDA/USDA/CDC are in charge of vaccinations at least in the U.S. They have a vested interest in keeping us alive, and if that changes, I'm sure they could figure out a more effective way than vaccines to take everyone out.



Reading these and their affiliated studies now.

If a famous doctor used a newish therapy, and he paid the media to advertise that it worked if it did or didn't, and he covered up the failures via the media, and most of the people who were fellow doctors sided with him for money, who would be able to speak out against the coverup?

Now that testing is being done by various independent labs, we are finally finding that the vaccines aren't as effective as they were touted to be, that they haven't been long-term safety tested, and that most of them are short-term detrimental in a variety of ways.

Oh, you mean someone like the renown vaccine developer Dr. Stanley Plotkin?

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXYoh0sFZQg

  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1600-0897.1996.tb00024.x

  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/813223

These are just from a quick web search based on the now-defunct links from the 'bad blood in the Philippines' article I've mentioned earlier:

  https://www.pop.org/bad-blood-in-the-philippines/

When I first ran across the article some years ago I followed the links and read the material and the links were not circular.  More and more the Internet is becoming filled with memory holes.  Lot's of us have predicted just such a thing and have witnessed it in a fairly big way of late.  Indeed, politicians are now calling for the large tech companies to do it.

For me, when one side of an argument relies on outlawing and burying any information, and in particular the information which their adversaries use, it's pretty much a sure sign that they are not to be trusted.


I don't see a lot of light between the groups who've been caught doing shady stuff and lying, and the groups pushing hard on the mandatory vaccination bandwagon.  Thus, I don't have any confidence in the data that this group (and broad coalition of corp, gov, academia, media) produce.

On the other hand, nobody has much to gain personally from being 'anti-vax'.  On the contrary, they have a hell of a lot to lose.  I have a lot more confidence in the information and the analysis that this group presents.  Many of them are medical doctors and scientists and their analysis makes a great deal of sense to me.

I am glad you brought up this distinction, because it is often overlooked and dismissed. Most people who would be labeled "antivaxxers" are simply resistant to the idea that they be legally mandated or compelled to vaccinate themselves or their children. That... is pretty much it. Now you can get into a wide subject of debates as to why they would want to do so, but to my mind the question is more along the lines of , do we want to legally compel people to accept unwanted medical treatments? What will be the long term implications of setting this precedent?

What is stopping a future Dr. Evil from abusing this situation even if one currently does not exist? Lets not pretend like cruel medical experimentation and genocide are unknown to humanity... and vaccines would after all make a perfect vector for such a plan. Removing ones ability to use their own judgement to make that choice for themselves and their family sets a very dangerous precedent.

Would you mind pointing me in the direction of a reliable source that talks about hCG for use as a sterilent being put in tetanus vaccines?

I am under the impression that we are mixing two different issues here. 1) Being whether vaccines are a safe medical technology, and 2) Whether some shady organization has abused them in some way or another.

If Dr. Evil puts anthrax in vaccines, that doesn't mean vaccines are bad, that means Dr. Evil is bad. Like I said, I'm just looking for where any of this information is coming from. I've found plenty of info about the deaths from vaccines from anaphylaxis and complications with pre existing auto immune disorders. I've yet to see any studies done that showed anything else though.

At the moment, I'm sitting at a table in McDonalds, and on the table opposite is a kid of about 6, who appears to have severe mental problems. My belief is that this was probably caused by forced, and untested, medication when he was a baby. I think any "doctor" who injects poisons or disease into a young child should be struck off and imprisoned. At best the kid will have to live with an impaired immune system for the rest of his life, at worst, society will have to support a child who could have been a useful and productive member of society, and who has now become a burden.

Many/most of these people seem to be Lucifarians.  Their idea is that the same basic entity that caused mankind to eat the forbidden fruit from the tree of life thus allowing us to 'see good and evil' and 'be like gods' is the one who they consider the 'light bearer.'

You are considered a slave to your God because you wallow in your own ignorance.  You cling to simplistic principles in a dogmatic manner.  That's why you cannot accept and in fact welcome abortion, eugenics, etc.  Also probably why you are not rich.

For my part I'll say 'keep doing' my friend.   I've caught a fleeting glimpse of both sides, and as a general tendency I'll throw in with your team.

Of course He has. It's just not as great as the wisdom of some others. But it is way greater than the wisdom of yet some others.

Psalm 14:1:

That's about the size of it.  The 'light bearer' has not touched you and given you 'wisdom.'

I haven't read all of this thread, but I would just point out that vaccinating babies increases the incidence of SID ( sudden infant death ), and the countries with the highest rates of vaccinations have the worst health in their populations ( ignoring famine victims of course ). You have to dig through the stats to find these facts, and big pharma tends to suppress them. Alternatively, you can just look around you if you live in one of these countries.

Since I'm not smart enough to be rich, I'm probably not smart enough to really KNOW if the herds need culling or not, right?

Would you object to:

 - R&D was done to lace tetanus vaccines with hCG in order to act as an abortofacient and/or sterilent in human females?

 - The United States state department circulated a paper describing population reduction in resource rich 'least developed countries' as a high priority national security threat which needs urgent action?

 - A variety of global organizations have put a great deal of effort and money into solving what they feel to be pressing overpopulation problems?

 - The tetanus vaccination protocols used most recently in Kenya were a better match for the research described as necessary for fertility control than for the scourge of tetanus?

 -  The WHO and other organizations who funded the hCG development would feel ethically bound not to employ the creation that they funded?

Since it is well established that the technique of making women allergic to the hormone necessary to achieve and maintain pregnancy and to do so with tetanus as the carrier, what do you suppose was the overall plan to actually employ this technique?  Or do you think that they did the development work just for fun and never had any intention of using it?

---

For my part I simply find it a vastly stronger hypothesis that these people developed this sterilization technique with every intention of using it, and probably planned on using it covertly from day one.

They did use it on several occasions (with a long-ish break after being caught.)

When caught they did a full court press to cover their asses using all of the (vast) resources at their disposal since almost any normal decent person from almost any culture would find it to be an appalling crime.

I don't think that most of the people who work at the top levels of the U.S. government or the World Health Organization would find it a crime.  They are 'enlightened'.  Just managing their flocks, so to speak, and 'protecting national security' (e.g., their power structure and the efficiency of it's operation.)  But they will be completely aware of how such a program would 'go down' among the normies and it is a giant problem for them.

As a matter of fact this is not by a mile the most unethical thing these people have done.  One of the arguments they use among themselves (so I've heard) is that 'war' is an even less ethical way of culling the herds.  I cannot say that I would even disagree with that.  My main beef is that I'm unconvinced that the herds need culling badly enough to engineer either technique...but then I don't have a vested monetary and control interest in the population density issue.  Nor do I believe that there are so many people that most ecosystems are under enormous threat.

I just looked through 436 articles on PubMed about Vaccine Infertility and found no relevant results, which is why I figured I'd ask here. I'll take a look at the other thread, but I'm not interested in any articles that don't follow proper research format.

*edit* link in the OP you were talking about is showing as Page not Found, but I'll keep searching.

There are a ton of links in the 'Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Guess who's sicker?' thread.  Including BADecker's original post.

A lot of the links to various studies which tie together the 'pieces of the puzzle' are on PubMed.  Surprisingly enough.  They will host the likes of Shaw et-al's research into aluminum effects in baby mice and stuff like that.