Topic: Fuck your vaccines - page 6. (Read 10190 times)

I think that vaccines against these terrible diseases have been invented, but the government is not profitable to promote their

None of you 'safe and effective' propaganda victims can figure it out, eh?

Here's one:  People may get sick from certain select things (e.g., pertussis) at a somewhat higher rate without vaccine regimes.  That means that they will be treated, and sometimes the treatment will consists of antibiotics.  The higher the rate of antibiotics treatment, the higher the incidence of drug resistance.

Back in the age of real science such hypotheses would be explored and modeled, the risks would be weighed, potential resolution schemes would be analysed, and a practical policy which benefited the population would be selected.  Now in the propagandized pseudo-science age the major considerations seem to be the medical/industrial complex's bottom line and the social engineer's need to construct a population with attributes that please their sponsors.

Was a mechanism for this described?  I can think up a plausible one rather easily but I'll leave it to the reader to test their understandings of the science here rather than explore it.

One cannot keep cattle alive long enough to fatten up for slaughter when you cram them together into a feed-lot unless you dose the shit out of them.  Same goes for people.  That's a good argument for not stack-n-packing them into 200 ft^2 micro-dwellings in 'human habitat megacenters'.  But the new-age globalists are dead set on doing just that since it is what the plan calls for.  I suspect that this is one of the major driving forces behind having corp/gov take over management of people's immune systems.

Vaccines are not yet available for the most serious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, and Ebola. Even the existing medications and vaccines are losing their healing power, due to drug resistance. And certain groups of people refusing to get vaccinated is being cited as one of the main reasons for the prevalence of drug resistance.

You need to take a little time to understand the basics of what a guy says before casting aspersion on his/her 'logic'.  Otherwise it's a strawman.  Obviously nobody is saying that all vaccinations have any particular effect.

What a lot of us are saying is that we may not be getting a complete and honest story about some of the things that some of the injection regimes are designed to achieve.  Here's another article with the same basic concerns.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/is-the-un-using-vaccines-to-secretly-sterilize-women-all-over-the-globe/5413599

I have zero difficulty believing that such programs exist, and only slightly less believing that the development effort would not have been undertaken without and intent to deploy it.  Only slightly less than that in believing that attempts at deployment have been undertaken from time to time here and there.

While a lot of people who, years later, ended up on bitcointalk.org were reading Ayn Rand I was reading Garrett Hardin's 'Lifeboat Ethics'.  I do have a better than par understanding of the ethical considerations associated with population.  Indeed, when nearly forced to pick from a list of about 200 'charities' to donate to 30 years ago, I choose 'Zero Population Growth.'  I have an understanding of how some people consider 'scientific' means of controlling population to be more ethical than, say, war or starvation, and I don't even necessarily disagree with them in principle.

I also understand how any means of population control be it laissez-faire or engineered can be parlayed into accumulation of wealth as long as it is at least predictable.  I've come to believe that those at the seats of power can and do use any and all of the generally possible population control methods for personal enrichment even while a vast majority probably do earnestly believe that they are using their unique wisdom and capabilities for the 'betterment' of humanity (or more generally, of the planet.)

Currently we have a situation where utter hog-wash 'scientific' arguments like 'global climate change' and spiritual feelings used as bedrock cornerstones are being sold to (aka, implanted) in the public mind to justify eugenics programs.  This makes me believe that the motives are at least as much about obtaining power and control as they are 'ethical' in an abstract manner.  It also contorts any operational efforts which will likely lead to a bad outcome.

Most people still rely on their generational line for security in old age.  Covertly sterilizing people is 'evil' for a lot of reasons, but one of the main ones is that it robs them of this potential.  The globalist new-agers might justify this in a belief that they are going to 'end poverty by 2030 world-wide' but it is entirely unclear that they will be able to achieve this.  OTOH, it is crystal clear to any thinking person that the only possible way to do this would be to massively de-populate the planet down to the 1/2 to 1 billion mark that their leaders love to toss around.  Anyone who actually believes this 'agenda-2030' hype is either to stupid to understand what is going on (most of them), or does see the big-picture and welcomes it.

Going by your logic, the human race should have been extinct long back. Vaccination was first invented in 1796. And now, the vaccination coverage is close to 99% of the world population. If your post was true, then 99% of the world population should have been infertile by now. But as per the latest stats, the human population in the world is increasing by some 10 million individuals per annum.

I may go along with that AFTER there is complete transparency in the entire process (research, manufacture, testing, oversight, etc) AND adversarial analysis adjudicated in a transparent manner.  NOT before.

As long as corporations can shroud their 'technology' behind a shield of 'intellectual property' and 'trade secrets' law, and as long as corporations can hire the 'public service' oversight personnel after their 'service', no thanks.  That is begging for trouble and we see plenty of it peeking through in spite of the propaganda veil.

I am in favor of people being able to hand over their immune systems to corp/gov, and even that of their children to a lesser degree, to entities who they, for whatever reason, choose to trust.  I am very opposed to FORCING others to do so.

I have zero interest in muzzling people who question things.  That is a totalitarian nightmare scenerio on a lot of fronts.  The political Left is rapidly losing their support precisely because they are, as of fairly recently, cheerleaders for such totalitarian principles.  Goodbye and good residence, and if it is TPTB vaccination regimes which does the deed, at least they are good for something.

Vaccines Can Cause Infertility
https://vactruth.com/2013/07/20/vaccines-can-cause-infertility/

I also think that vaccines are more than good than evil. There are certain basic vaccinations, which should be binding. The rest - at the discretion of parents

lack of knowledge is not a crime anywhere in this world.Why would anyone want a particular religion males to be infertile .The fakers who spread these sort of fake news should be prosecuted.

This would be a gross misunderstanding of Darwin's theory of evolution.  'Powerful' (or even 'strong') has nothing to do with it.  It's all about being adapted to an environment, and most of the time being 'weak' is a better strategy on the inter-species level.  The basic reason for this is related to thermodynamics.  Being 'powerful' burns more precious energy which can be difficult to find consistently.

Within a species especially in the higher vertebrates grades there is a tendency for sexual dimophism and displays of 'strength'.  The purpose is to impress a potential mate as an individual who is capable enough to exploit an environment and produce a surplus (to be burnt on bigger tail-feathers, corvettes, etc.)

Blind faith in a leadership and their propaganda organs can cut both ways for humans.  It strengthens a group and lets them dominate other groups.  But when domination of other groups is no longer possible (because it has been achieved, for instance) or a goal, a society starts to eat it's tail as competition within the group replace outward domination as primary driving force.  At that point the leaders might try to weaken or kill off the followers and vice-versa.  The Fabian Socialists understood these fairly basic dynamics rather well...and they were/are not big fans of 'democracy'.

Dinosaurs were a big group, consisting of giants such as Argentinosaurus and Spinosaurus, as well as midgets such as Microraptor and Compsognathus. All of them became extinct, regardless of whether they were powerful or not.

Well, Darwin was wrong. For example the powerful dinosaurs extinct and weak species survived. 

I agree that the pharma cartel is exploiting poor people, by selling certain type of medications. That said, I believe that the vaccinations do more good than bad for the humans. 99% of the vaccines are harm-free.

It's not just vaccies that are a problem, the food supply is severely messed up. I've taken to using Himalayan sea salt instead of the standard stuff. It's a bit more expensive, but it contains iodine and some other minerals. Most people are iodine deficient these days. It used to be used in the manufacure of bread, but those days are long gone, now most bread is just a deficient pappy mass unless you can find a decent baker.

I still have some difficuty in thinking of sea salt being found in the mountains.

Even if some vaccines might be useful. Im an open minded person. We should leave the space to informed parents about unnecessary vaccines. I would cross out many of them that I know that having some disease are useful to have naturally and wont kill me or my children.

Why not leave the option to cross out certain types of vaccines. Lets have one vaccine like against polio or such. One vaccine would not be enough to destroy a persons life. I wouldnt mind even paying a fee for some greedy bastards. Let them have their money.

And yeah people should be able to sue the producents of vaccines. They need to know who produce what and when. That would teach people to not mess around and try better.

People should find the solution to please everyone. By making argues over an internet we achieve the sittuation that the media has the last word. And thats just wrong.

P.S I have some remark about the conspiracy of people "at the top". Usualy I have tendency to weed all of the possible solution before trying to find some super malicious ones. Zbigniew Brzezinski is clearly writing in his books about the society on which people would be divided into two cathegorys. Those who can afford modern medicine and those who dont. I dont believe Brzezinski have the intelectual capability to plan on a world scale personally.

It seems pretty suspicious to me that the medical/industrial complex is so intent on giving at least one shot on the first day of life.  Especially that it is Hep-B which 1) protects against a disease almost exclusively associated with shooting up illegal drugs and having unprotected sex, and 2) wears off before the kid reaches an age where they are at risk of such behavior anyway.  It looks to me suspiciously like an excuse for something else.

(My own personal hypothesis is that there is a desire to get a dose of metal into people as soon as possible, and especially into the brain, so that electromagnetic radiation could be more impactful.  Vaccines do seem to be designed to open the blood-brain barrier, and aluminum from shots is known to infuse into brain tissue.  Shaw & Tomljenovic and UBC have done a fair bit of what I find fairly convincing research on this (Al in the brain.)  Of course they are roundly attacked by such 'fake science' sites like metabunk.)

Back in 'our day' pregnant women were not even supposed to take so much as an aspirin.  Actually I (around age 50) might be in a different category since in slightly earlier times there was a problem with thalidomide and everyone was gun-shy.  Be that as it may, it's been recognized for some time the sensitivity of a developing fetus.  Until fairly recently giving shots to pregnant women was tantamount to malpractice as I understand things.  Now pregnant women are implored to get flu shots by some of the most hard-core advertising campaigns I've seen.  And these pharmacy flu shots are the multi-dose kind which are still preserved with mercury.

Even the CDC admits that mercury in gestation can cause tics, but they say it's no big deal because they usually wear off.  My feeling is that tics are instinctively creepy to others because they indicate a neurological dysfunction and, again instinctively, a person who is not a good partner for mating with or for anything else.  One way or another, even if the tics wear off by, say, age 10, ten years of having them and getting teased in school and so on is vastly worse than having the flu for a week.

As for the flu, I personally welcome it.  I feel that it exercises the immune system and is a good thing.  If I go more than two years without getting the flu I might actually be sick enough for one day to lay around in bed when I finally do.  It's not fun, but it's not a bid deal.  Yes, some people 'die' while they have it, but it's not from the flu.  Basically these people were on the edge already and the flu tipped them over it.  If it wasn't the flu it would have been something else fairly soon anyway in most cases.

Vaccinating a healthy baby is one of the worst things you can do. You mess up its developing immune system, and you condemn it to a life of dependance on destructive drugs. Imaging the guilt a mother must feel when she realises that she was the cause of her baby's ill health.

feel like some vaccines are needed but most like yearly flu vaccinations are pure garbage.
I imagine babies do need to get certain vaccinations. This is probably why the government wants everybody to be vaccinated.
Because Each vaccine means money

Wow! So much misinformation, and misconception in this thread.
I'm 74, and very healthy, I don't take any drugs - prescription or recreational, and I haven't had any vaccinations since I was a kid. Vaccines have changed over 70 years, and modern ones are extremely damaging, as they destroy the natural immune system of the body. At best, giving a healthy baby a vaccination weakens its immune system, and its ability to adjust to the rapid changes in modern infections, at worst, it damages the body and brain of the child. The immune system needs to work, and if it is frustrated, then it starts to invent all sorts of new jobs - this is one of the causes of the rise in alergic reactions.

The 'flu vaccine is madness - who really believes that infecting a person with an out-of-date virus will help them build a resistance to the latest viruses. You wouln't install anti-virus software for Windows 98 on your Windows 10 computer, so why do it to your body. Your body should have the ability to create anti-virus protection for all the latest threats - don't destroy that mechanism, and leave yourself unprotected.