Topic: Fuck your vaccines - page 4. (Read 10229 times)

I am also a supporter of vaccination. I'm sure that to avoid the spread of the epidemic can only be due to vaccination. From vaccines die unit but saved billions. Isn't that right? And no one will convince me otherwise.

^ "useful idiot"

Vaccine is trying to blame all. It is not correct. I did the vaccination and I have not had anything. I did vaccinate my daughter and she also did not hurt. Isn't this proof that vaccination needed?

Nowadays with the rise of the social media and broadband penetration, anyone can spread any sort of conspiracy theory. Dr. Russell Blaylock has not given any proof to back up his claim. According to the research, autism rates are the same for vaccinated and non-vaccinated children.

I cannot blame the government if they are against the Muslim because most of the terrorist that are attacking the government are Muslims, and based on my observation most of the Muslims are brutal, and hurting their wives, well just my opinion because I have seen so many scenario like this. It is not like I'm against them, I'm just saying what I have seen.

I'd differ with you on Wakefield.  His defenses seem to hold up as best I can see.  In particular his co-author had half-a-million to spend in court.  His case was nearly identical and the court overturned the panels decisions, restored the guy's medical credentials, and lambasted the panel for gross negligence.  Long story short, it looks to me a lot more like a case of trying to ruin a doctor/scientist who threatened the public health system's plans and/or the pharma industries profits.  Most of the other authors of the infamous study ducked out and continued on to normal careers in the medical/industrial complex as I read things.  That Wakefield's career trajectory differed is, if anything, a testament to his credibility as I see it.

I'm in complete agreement with the importance of making things transparent and removing the mechanisms which can lead to unscientific pressures.  I, and I think most 'anti-vaxers' are not against vaccines at all.  As long as they are not abused, and especially for profit motives, I don't have all that much against them.  I simply want this problem to be resolved BEFORE they are forced upon the population.  I don't see terrible epidemics in nations which use fewer vaccines than we do (which is nearly all of them) so I don't think there is an overriding need to vaccinate everyone for everything on public health grounds.  Let's just get it right on the oversight front first.

One argument which is at least logically sustainable is that we (the government) needs the private sector to maintain a large capacity in order to meet surprise demand (epidemic, biological warfare, etc.)  Because we are a supposedly 'capitalist democracy', we have to rely on the private sector, and in order to do that we need to give them product liability immunity and a lot of orders.  I call bullshit.  If it is that great a need, then the government itself should build and maintain the facilities in mothball state.  I would much rather see my tax dollars go to this than funding jihadist to destabilize the Middle East.

As for corporate greed vs. genocidal depopulation (or modification), we could easily have both simultaneously.  Or one which could be flipped to the other.  Although it is arguable to some looking at the general state of health here stateside, we've not seen a genocidal program yet.  My point of concern is that I don't trust some of these people (and very bad things could be accomplished with 99% of the _insiders_ not knowing what is going on) and I want there to be circuit breakers.  Transparency and good fail-safe oversight which keeps up with the technology would be sufficient for me.  Mandating a state-dictated vaccine regime is going the opposite direction.

Further, 'depopulation' is not the only threat, and this is particularly true as the pace of technology increases.  CRISPR technology, nano-technology, etc, are bound to continue forward.  I don't want some corp/gov bureaucrat deciding that it is best for the humanity under their charge to have their DNA be altered even if they have, or think they have a good and ethical reason to do so.  Especially with the likes of Elon Musk gingerly floating the idea that people maybe should be fitted with a neural lace in order to interface with the hive mind more efficiently (and thus beat back the evil AI in some nebulous way or some weirdo shit like that.)

(The neural lace idea reminds me of yet another (weak) hypothesis about metallic compounds injected, ingested, etc.  This one is not my own.  The idea is that they could be used as building blocks for structures such as a neural lace.)

no, now it's +3

Thanks for your humble and well thought out reply - it is a refreshing thing on BCT when users respond in an intelligent, rational manner (when so many users on here revert to fallacies and personal attacks).

There is a lot in your post which I will need some time to process, but it does seem as we are venturing into the philosophical/epistemological realms of evidence and its strengths and weaknesses.

I also don't spend much time on the "metaphysical hypotheses", my example was just to demonstrate the problems when we claim "the evidence is hard/impossible to obtain, therefore the hypothesis may have scientific merit". I realize the real life implications of that claim are far more complex, when we are discussing effects which are relatively well documented and follow the general laws of established physics, such as the effects of vaccines.

I just wish we could escape some of the pseudoscience related to the more controversial aspects of vaccines, eg the misinformation that Andrew Wakefield perpetuated and still is popular today among certain groups. I do think that Big Pharma should be more transparent in their research/deployment of drugs and vaccines, because they are certainly corrupt in many ways and making money is very high on their priority list.

A serious problem that should be addressed is certain pharmaceutical companies suppressing studies that claim their drug is ineffective: Case in point - studies that showed that Tamiflu was fairly inneffective were suppressed by Roche Pharmaceuticals, and governments around the world spent millions stockpiling a drug which in most cases is nearly useless! But I see that as a company being corrupt for monetary gain, dissimilar to a company planning to market a dnagerous drug/vaccine to depopulate/control the masses through physiological means.

However this doesn't mean that every drug or vaccine produced is necessarily dangerous or ineffective. We just need to be careful and attempt to find as much unbiased research as possible on drugs and vaccines (unbiased being the tricky one haha).

Thanks for your critique.  It's cumbersome to document complex philosophical framework prior to each use of the word 'believe'.  I do try to use the word carefully and mostly stand by my use though I was not careful and it could be read from one of my sentences that I believe 'all' people in positions of power blah, blah, blah.  That was a mistake on my part.  Other than that I stand by my writings.

In logical analysis I use the method of testing the null hypothesis liberally when possible.  Basically, if a null hypothesis is absurd, I tend to assign high weight to a hypothesis and sometimes shift it to a 'fact' or 'near fact' which I can legitimately 'believe'.

The null hypothesis of hCG laced tetanus vaccines being developed is that they were not.  In this case the null hypothesis is that in spite of documented scientific literature and lack of denials of such a program, it never existed.  That nearly impossible to sustain so I 'believe' that such developments were almost certainly undertaken.  There is an outside possibility that the evidence for them was fabricated for some unknown reason, but that is very difficult to believe.  Especially in light of corroborating observations.  By far the simplest explanation was that such developments occurred, and there are abundant reasons to believe that there were means, motive, and opportunity to do just that.

---

As for metals in the body interacting with electromagnetic radiation, like I said from the start it is a 'weak' hypothesis.  Just something I thought up to match against the observation that there seems to be a strong desire to inject them in to humans early and often.  Other hypothesis which are stronger exist including that big brother loves us all, wants the best for us, and will brow-beat the fuck out of anyone who goes against their will.

The observation that some metals (such as iron) tend to be better conductors than others (such as Al) can be weighted against the hypothesis but does not kill it.  In part this is because the hypothetical electromagnetic methods are not known and probably don't even exist at all (which directly applies to the strength of the hypothesis and which is why I consider it 'weak'.  It's filed away, however, because if evidence of electromagnetic population management operations do strengthen, so does the hypothesis about injections.  I would note that in the study of electromagnetism, it is noted that elemental forms of metals behave differently than those found as constituents of more complex molecules like hemoglobin.

---

I tend to not spend much time on metaphysical hypothesis (e.g., Christ died to save sinners, or dark matter and alien consciousness control us all) for the same reason I don't drive my car into a bog where it is certain I'll get stuck.  The world is chalk full of more tangible areas of exploration where real progress can be made.

The systematic favoritism/discrimination related to 'evidence' (and more generally, theories/hypotheses) is a different matter all together.  If questioning the official dogma about, say, polio and our hero scientists involved with it leads to loss of employment and any 'evidence' against it is banished from 'scientific' journals, then I consider limited 'evidence' to be explainable by mechanisms outside of the hypothesis I seek to explore.

The Central Mechanism By Which Vaccines Induce Autism - Dr. Russell Blaylock Lecture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS0ioiB0_oY

Due to this thread I ran across another presentation about polio from a person who I have developed a good deal of respect for (for reasons I won't go into in the interest of brevity.)  For those who would like to consider some information from something other than the medical/industrial complex's party line, here you go:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rrb1XwI2_JA

Likely this will be labeled 'fake news' and banned by our rapidly expanding Chinese inspired censorship programs here in the U.S. pretty soon if we stay on the present trajectory.  So, see it while you can.

ok, counting... sheeple +3

 

ok, counting... sheeple +2

That is the problem. Both Pakistan and Nigeria are among the top contributors of immigrants in the European Union. I am afraid that these people will bring back diseases such as polio, which have been successfully eradicated from the EU.

No surprise there. Africa has been a waste dumping site for the world and their lack of education and extremistic views on religion can bring things like this. Same goes for Pakistan. It's their choice not to get vaccines but it's other peoples problem that those same people can contribute to wider spread disesases.

People are spreading their lies and religious propaganda here, and here are the results:

https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/166956-Two-new-cases-cripple-hopes-of-polio-free-Pakistan

http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Polio-back-in-Nigeria-despite-having-been-declared-no-more/440808-3467146-jg6th1z/

Religious extremists are prohibiting parents from administering polio vaccination to their children, claiming that doing so will reduce their fertility. And as a result, polio is still around despite vaccines available for the last 100 years.

I agree that to "believe" a hypothesis is a nonsense phrase, but in your previous posts you seem to say that you do in fact believe hypotheses (bolded by me):


As for your "electromagnetic radiation" hypothesis, well you're right in saying that if it were true then there's a good chance that the program's details could be leaked, that's one good argument against it. Another would be that aluminium isn't very magnetic, so would seem like a poor choice of metal to have any effect on external EM radiation. The iron in a person's blood would be more susceptible to this sort of thing, no? Another argument still would be that there is no evidence of any actual method or apparatus that could perform these kind of effects, or even any process by which it could occur (in the realm of publically available scientific literature).

Yes, I agree with you that the evidence for certain hypotheses is "limited in quality/quantity", and therefore it makes sense to at least consider them. But that doesn't mean that they should be given any sort of scientific merit, just because the evidence is limited and/or hard to get.

As an example, I could formulate a hypothesis that everyone on Earth is being controlled by a being from an alternate dimension, through some sort of dark energy radiation that is undetectable by any equipment on Earth. Just because the evidence for this hypothesis is probably impossible to acquire, that doesn't give the hypothesis any scientific merit whatsoever.

As far as I can see, this totally refutes your claim "If there are mechanisms by which evidence is limited in quality then it makes no sense to reject a hypothesis by virtue of lack of evidence."

Well I'm bored to read the whole thread and count, but can someone give me a aproximate breakdown of sheeple/brainwashees here? It's interesting to know.

I assume you are at least somewhat familiar with 'agenda 2030', right?  Do you know that they have 'set themselves the goal' of 'between now and 2030, to end poverty and hunger everywhere'?  Does that sound fairly practical to you?  Ideas on how it might be achieved?

Since you are aware enough to critique my thought patterns (even as you leave out a critical line in my quote) I have to assume that you are also familiar with the Georgia Guidestones.  Particularly rule number one which states (in 14 languages or whatever) that population should be maintained below 1/2 billion.

Defenders of the guidestones claim that the author(s) were just talking about if something unpredicted happens:



Hard to know exactly who pulls what strings in the (totally made up) 'elite' classes, but Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, feels strongly enough about us 'useless eaters' to utter:


I don't know about you but I don't find it very confidence inspiring as it relates to the guy's concern for my health.  Perhaps if I had royal blood it would be a different story.

---

Ya, all of these things are hypothesis and paranoia (seriously) but I'm pretty sure of one thing:  If there were some sort of 'event' which plays out somewhat along the lines of the so described, a lot of people (who remain among the living) will be looking back and saying 'Wow, how did we not see that coming?!?'

Wait what... why are you saying tptb uses vaccines to make the population infertile then and why are you talking about mind control programms?
Did i missed the joke? Flat earth much?
This is what you worte on the last page:


Just tell me the truth which drugs do you take? Someone here might be able to help you.
Or do you have some brain related disease?