Topic: Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Guess who is Sicker? - page 20. (Read 45532 times)

''The conclusion is the government is not following the law.'' The conclusion is that the government did not follow the law on that specific case on those specific reports. However, the first argument was ''government doesn't give a shit about safety reports because of this lawsuit'' That's simply not true as shown above. I don't know what your argument is, this thread is about vaccines being bad for you intentionally. Are you sure you know what your position is?

I see you exhibit exactly this behavior yourself. Funny how debate becomes difficult and frustrating when no one is willing to stick to basic intellectually honest standards.

The point shouldn't be the idea of having a little bit of testing of vaccines done. The point should be massive amounts of proof for every vaccine. It seems that just the opposite is true. It seems that the one-worlders are using the medical and the government to reduce the general population any way they can.


The Shocking Lack of Evidence Supporting Flu Vaccines

So that's why you can't post a report about a test:

----------

This is a report of a double-blind vaccine test for xxx-disease, and the effects of xxx1-vaccine.

People tested: 100 men, ages 25 to 45, positive for xxx virus.
Number of men given the actual vaccine: 50.
Number of men given distilled water: 50.

Short Term Results:
30 men xxx virus negative within one week after vaccination.
10 additional men xxx virus negative 2 weeks after vaccination.
5 additional men xxx virus negative 3 weeks after vaccination.
7 additional men xxx virus negative 4 weeks after vaccination.
Short Term Conclusion:
Since 15 of the men that became xxx virus negative in the short term were of the control group, the entire results potentially fall into the area of placebo effect. xxx1 vaccine is inconclusively confirmed to be beneficial.

Long Term Results:
Over the 20 years following the test:
43 of the control group remain in reasonably good health.
45 of the xxx1 group developed ADHD, autism, and/or other auto-immune diseases.
4 of the xxx1 group became shootists who attacked schools.
3 of these 4 shootists are dead from fights with police.
1 of these 4 shootists is in prison, solitary where we can't test him.
3 have gone missing, presumed moved out of the country, where we can't monitor them.
8 are in the hospital with near death symptoms.
None of the xxx1 group has remained in good health.
Long Term Conclusion:
We can't be certain that the xxx1 vaccine did any good. However, it appears that this vaccine is extremely unhealthy, or at least potentially so. We would advise that this and all similar vaccines not be used with the public in general.

----------

Quit playing around, and find us some real test reports that show any amount of anything, with an eye on safety, and how the safety was determined. You jokers who think that tests are all around us, show us one.

This is the problem with these people, even when they are completely wrong and absolute clear evidence is presented, even for the smallest mistakes, they wont EVER admit they were wrong. Tvbcof is just another dishonest liar pushing his own agenda, disgusting.

No need to assume anything.  I'll tell you.

I'll grant you that I don't know if it was technically a 'heart attack' that he had.  Not because I don't have a basic understanding of the mechanics of the various forms of heart attack, but because I did not receive a technical description of his problem.  The information I received was that he was not expected to live.  He did end up living but he lost 80% of his heart function, and that side of the family tends to have weak hearts anyway.  The trigger for the event was said to be inappropriate use of a recently prescribed medicine resulting in a blood chemistry which was incompatible with life.

Stories about of exactly this sort of thing happening all over the United States.  'Death by doctor' is a thing here, and a lot of people know it because a lot of people have had personal experience with it.


No, I just wanted to help you feel better after getting so badly humiliated on this forum is all I meant.

I assume the fact you have stopped arguing about physiology means your Google searches finally confirmed that you are completely wrong. I never claimed to know anything about the patient, I never claimed to known anything about the medication prescribed, and I never defended any pharmaceutical product. All complete strawmen. The fact is you said low salt levels cause heart attacks. That is a blatant lie and finally Google seems to have confirmed that for you.



I'll take that as a "No, I have no source or evidence for my completely made up statistic". Don't worry about it. It happens. Just means you lost the argument. Again.

You don't know the patient or anything about his history or the medical event under question.  You don't know the medicine prescribed so you don't know what instructions should or should not have been given.  You make assumptions that by 'salt' I mean table salt.  Yet you, 'a doctor of 15 years', are perfectly happy go into a great deal of detail about the patient's status.

I've noticed that doctors seem to have ethical clearance to do whatever it takes to defend pharmaceutical products against any and all suggestion of potential problems.  And many of them do.  You are doing back-flips on this thread.


At the very best you got trolled into defending doctors against bogus data by coming up with a argument which doesn't make logical sense.  I'm sure it 'sounded good enough at the time', and it impressed the hell out of the Astargath class of mouth-breathers, but someone was around to make you pay the price.  Don't worry about it.  It happens.

I don't know, did you actually even bother to read it? I did. The lawsuit was only settled because it was a FOIA request, and the documents they requested, which were required to be filed by law, were never filed. As a result it was impossible to comply with the FISA request, resulting in the "settled" status. The conclusion is the government is not following the law. None of your other extremist red herring arguments matter, because I never made those arguments.

''reporting laws FOR YEARS'' Of specific reports. If they filed 100 reports but 2 of them weren't filed, would that mean they are faking the whole thing? Shit happens, the lawsuit was settled, wasn't it? Just because they didn't file those reports, it doesn't mean they didn't take cafe of the safety of the vaccines. Pointing out they didn't file those specific reports accomplishes nothing, what's the conclusion from that?

But you clearly were not just referring to the article, you were also referring to the ruling that the government has been in violation of reporting laws FOR YEARS. Sorry, if you don't like me pointing out your disingenuous arguments, don't make them.

Then don't quote me when we are talking about the article that badecker posted because thats the debate, mate, maybe you should learn how to read. His point was that because they did not file some reports they have been lying for 30 years which is simply not true as shown above. He keeps saying there are no safety reports/tests which is again simply not true.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/del-bigtree-vaccine-safety-complaints-hhs-responds/

I don't know what your point is. Yes they did NOT file the required reports of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 but they have done all the required work to make sure vaccines are safe.

I didn't defend the article, I defended the facts. If any of the statements I made were not factual, please do enlighten me.

''This means that the US Department of Health and Human Services and all vaccine makers have been lying to the American people for over 30 years about the effectiveness and safety of vaccines'' That's what his shitty ass article says, it's simply not true, it doesn't mean they were lying and it doesn't matter that it was required by law, shit happens, don't you think? It wasn't proved that it was systematically breaking the law, it wasn't proved that they hid or destroyed the reports.

This also doesn't mean they were lying for 30 years because we have thousands of other safety reports.

You are once again drifting from facts you know to be true. This wasn't "a vaccine case once", this was the government not following its own reporting requirements, as required by law. This is not an injury suit, this is an issue of systematic breaking of the law regarding safety reporting. Keep your arguments intellectually honest or I will again return to whup your ass with facts, and I am a way better at debating than these guys.

1. So that's why you can't even post a link to one of them.

2. Of course vaccines are tested. Look at all the side effects listed on the government sites. The side effects are listed because of the testing. If there weren't any testing, the side effects wouldn't have been found out. Next, lets examine how the tests were done. Oh yes... they were done by administering unsafe vaccines to people who later complained until government put up warning sites. Testing on the general public is a good idea. Why? Because most of the really bad effects will never come out until many people have died, right?

3. Doctors have to make their money, too. Since the agenda of the one-worlders is to reduce populations, doctors don't need to know what they are doing... even though most of them and the nurses do know.

Here you are, promoting lack of safety... at the expense of the lives and health of the world public. What kind of a monster are you?

1. No specific tests of some specific reports. However you can see and check all the other thousands of safety reports, linked in the same website I posted.

2. The case was settled by law, in no way it means vaccines aren't tested  not even close lmao.

3. A bunch of bullshit by anti-vaxxers to push their agenda because the US settled a vaccine case once, ignoring the hundreds of thousands of other safety reports.

Get yourself new reading glasses. Your link agrees with the things said in the case won against government. What are those things? Basically three of them:
1. No test reports shown;
2. Under reporting as required by law;
3. A bunch of blabber to cover up this fact.

The point isn't really the winning of the law suit. Rather, it is the safety. So far, we are still in the dark regarding actual safety reports... the reports including the tests being done, and how they confirmed safety.

On top of that, there are warnings on the "bottle" about how unsafe vaccines and other medicine can be, and these reports are even listed on government websites. Simply Google "government site showing side effects of medicine" to see thousands of them (some not government).

When you Google "government site showing medicine safety" do any of the sites show safe test reports?... not just some blabber that suggests that the tests were done and showed safety... but the actual test reports that show how the test was done and the various actual results from the test?

For something as important as this, we aren't finding any actual test reports that show safety.

You seriously can't accept the fact that a doctor of 15 years might understand human physiology more than your frantic Google searches?

The salts most associated with arrhythmias are potassium, magnesium and calcium. The salt your uncle wasn't told to eat contains sodium and chloride. These are very rarely associated with arrhythmias. Regardless, the arrhythmia associated with clot formation is atrial fibrillation. At the level of hyponatremia required to induce AF, your uncle would have been suffering from seizures, encephalopathy and potentially in a coma. Not something you and his doctors wouldn't notice. Even if those symptoms were ignored, AF causes clots to form in the left atrium. These clots cause strokes. They do not cause heart attacks. So you are still wrong.

You don't realise just how silly you sound to anyone who actually understand the words you are using. See: Dunning–Kruger effect.



If your definition of "getting spanked" is not responding to a completely made up statistic, then there is even less point in talking to you than I thought.


I would continue to systematically deconstruct your Google searches, but honestly, your continued posting is making a far better case for not listening to word you say than I ever could.