Post: #301

(05-12-2017 07:14 PM)king bast Wrote:  The phrase "the benefits outweigh the risks" comes up verbatim far, far too commonly for my liking. That is, its a conditioned phrase that everyone parrots, yet nobody understands.

Actually, you have it exactly backwards. Anyone who does not intuitively understand cost-benefit analysis is an utter moron. Everyone does it countless times every day without thinking. You do it every time you cross a busy street (should I cross now to benefit from the time savings or wait for traffic to thin out to gain the lower risk of getting hit by a vehicle?).

This is not rocket science. It is simply a systematic approach to estimating the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives. The problem is getting people to consciously apply it to decisions regarding political, economic, and health issues -- rather than relying on mindless emotion and ignorance. It really is the difference between blue pill versus red pill thinking. Too many men lack critical thinking skills -- and they think and react like women.

Post: #302

Not sure what you mean I have it backwards. I don't doubt the concept of a cost/benefit analysis, or that people intuitively do them. I'm talking about the use of that exact phrase - "The benefits outweigh the risks" - specifically when used in regards to vaccines.

I just don't believe the overwhelming majority of people who use it have actually conducted a cost/benefit analysis, yet they repeat the phrase like a mantra. This seems to be what you're getting at with this:

Quote:The problem is getting people to consciously apply it to decisions regarding political, economic, and health issues

I certainly believe some people actually look into it, consciously conducting a cost/benefit, and genuinely find that "the benefits outweigh the risks", but I dont belive this is anything more than a small minority. Let's face it, the majority of people dont consciously look into anything, let alone something as taboo as vaccinations. But everyones got an opinion on this, and it's almost always expressed word for word as - "The "benefits outweigh the risks"

The oversue of this phrase just raises a bit of a red flag for me. If I'm trying to find the truth of a story, I don't actualy want it to be too similar. Word for word testimony seems like collusion and a rehearsed story, rather than a genuine individuals recollection of events, or in this case, a genuine conclusion reached through ones own enquiry. I'm not drawing any conclusions from it, but it's just a little thing Ive noticed that has aroused my suspicions.

Post: #303

The only issues that can ever be had with vaccinations is the additives that are added to the serum in addition to the weakened viruses and bacteria.

Additives like Mercury and Squalene.

Post: #304

(05-12-2017 08:31 PM)911 Wrote:  Your cost analysis is off, because you assume that 100% of inoculated kids get hit with a debilitating ailment. This is not the case, it's more like 1% to 5%, and maybe another 10% that get hit with chronic symptoms. The other thing is that pain relief treatments are mostly generic drugs with very small profit margins. So the financial incentive to suppress vaccinations is not there.

Too bad that low severity rate is in large part because vaccines are administered, which also has the effect of lessening the severity when someone does get measles. A larger unvaccinated population base allows a much larger number of severe cases: bigger pond, more fish, stronger fish. This is not rocket science, guys.

Cite your numbers for why it's only 1-5% who get hit with a "debilitating ailment" when vaccines are not suppressing the severity of conditions. Per the CDC -- https://www.cdc.gov/measles/downloads/me...ideset.pdf -- prior to 1963, there were roughly 500,000 measles cases reported annually to CDC.

Of those, 48,000 required hospitalisation. That is, close on 10%. Of those, 4,000 caused encephalitis. That is, close on 1%. There were 450 to 500 deaths annually. Those numbers would be vastly higher if the population of the US were unvaccinated.

I only had to demonstrate the fact that measles alone makes more sense financially for Big Pharma to push non-vaccination. I didn't even have to proceed to mumps and rubella, where the costs are much higher.

"Self-enlightened" people who've had no experience running a business, corporation, or being a shareholder can mumble that it's all explained by corporations being short-sighted if they like; that's an amusing point of view, but also invalid given the said lack of experience. You can't have this both ways: if you're going to accuse Big Pharma of pushing unsafe vaccines on a credulous public, you're going to need an argument just a bit stronger than the standard Illuminati/(((tribal)))/reptilian overlord screed ...

... unless of course you want to be a hypocrite for expecting people to be "informed" about vaccines but expect them to just take your one-line characterisation of pharmaceutical company as evil puppetmaster as gospel.

Let me put it another way: I'm guessing most of you also think that Big Pharma is withholding cures for cancer from the world, right? If so, just think about that for a moment in this context.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #305

(05-13-2017 05:28 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  "Self-enlightened" people who've had no experience running a business, corporation, or being a shareholder can mumble that it's all explained by corporations being short-sighted if they like; that's an amusing point of view, but also invalid given the said lack of experience. You can't have this both ways: if you're going to accuse Big Pharma of pushing unsafe vaccines on a credulous public, you're going to need an argument just a bit stronger than the standard Illuminati/(((tribal)))/reptilian overlord screed ...

... unless of course you want to be a hypocrite for expecting people to be "informed" about vaccines but expect them to just take your one-line characterisation of pharmaceutical company as evil puppetmaster as gospel.

Let me put it another way: I'm guessing most of you also think that Big Pharma is withholding cures for cancer from the world, right? If so, just think about that for a moment in this context.

Your baseless assumptions (which you ironically accuse other people of possessing) undermine your own argument.

Your ludicrous assumption dictates that only far-left tin foil hat people can oppose vaccinations, Big Pharma, or anything else related to health. If you knew anything at all about politics you would know that there is a HUGE overlap between the far-right and far-left regarding a variety of health issues. Why? Because the truth is the truth. Like a broken clock that is right twice a day, even the far-left stumbles onto the truth on occasion.

I am pro-business and I have owned several businesses. Just as the vast majority of businesses, car dealers, and attorneys are honest -- with a few bad apples -- there are some multinational corporations without which the world would be far better without (and who some would argue are demonstrably evil). For example, Goldman Sachs in finance and Monsanto in food production.

You doubt that American corporations are short-sighted. Anyone who knows anything about business knows this fact. How do you think that the Japanese auto industry took over market share in the U.S.? To provide a more recent example, how do you think that China locked down natural resources across the world over the past several decades? You seem to know little about business in the U.S.

No, Big Pharma is not withholding cures for cancer from the world. It is too stupid, dogmatic, and short-sighted to develop a cure that should have been discovered long ago. The problem today is not that scientists and doctors cannot understand the science; it's that their dogmatism cannot allow them to accept the truth behind the nature of the disease.

The traditionally held dogma is that cancer is a genetic disease, but what some scientists have discovered is that cancer is really caused by a defect in the cellular energy metabolism of the cell, primarily related to the function of the mitochondria. Read the recent book by Thomas N. Seyfried (Ph.D. in Genetics and Biochemistry), supported by evidence from more than 1,000 scientific and clinical studies, that expands upon Otto Warburg's well-known theory (never disproven) that all cancer is a disease of energy metabolism -- a theory basically ignored by all modern cancer researchers.

So, how can you cure cancer if you are working from a faulty premise? It is this same stupidity and dogmatism that bleeds into the vaccine industry.

https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Metabolic-...0470584920

BTW: One of the many cures for cancer is Ketogenic diet therapy. There are a few threads on the health benefits of such a diet in this forum.

Post: #306

(05-13-2017 03:51 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  The only issues that can ever be had with vaccinations is the additives that are added to the serum in addition to the weakened viruses and bacteria.

Additives like Mercury and Squalene.

While untrue, wouldn't that be enough to dissuade you from getting a vaccine?

In fact, just the flu vaccine can also contain antibiotics, Glyphosate, aluminum, formaldehyde, carbolic acid, the disinfectant betapropiolactone, and ethylene glycol – otherwise known as antifreeze.

http://www.naturalhealth365.com/flu-shot...-1997.html

Or you could just take vitamin D and C, Zinc, and echinacea when you are exposed or feel the very first symptoms. I have not had the flu in nearly ten years by undertaking this natural preventative maintenance.

Post: #307

Well, I never liked how it seems that the government seems to push more and more vaccines on us - just a few years ago almost nobody got that flu vaccine, and now you're almost a freak if you tell the wrong person you don't get them, even if they're free. I also had the chicken pox as a kid and haven't met one person who DIED from it - why not just let the kids get the disease and avoid the vaccine if that's an altogether safer thing to do?

I don't like the additives in vaccines, it seems pumping that stuff into your body can't be too good for you - but if there's a reason that overrides it (you know, like making sure polio stays dead) it's fine to get them. For the flu, though? I almost never get the flu and am willing to chance getting it in the winter if it means avoiding a vaccine I don't want to get.

Post: #308

(05-13-2017 05:28 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  "Self-enlightened" people who've had no experience running a business, corporation, or being a shareholder can mumble that it's all explained by corporations being short-sighted if they like; that's an amusing point of view, but also invalid given the said lack of experience. You can't have this both ways: if you're going to accuse Big Pharma of pushing unsafe vaccines on a credulous public, you're going to need an argument just a bit stronger than the standard Illuminati/(((tribal)))/reptilian overlord screed ...

... unless of course you want to be a hypocrite for expecting people to be "informed" about vaccines but expect them to just take your one-line characterisation of pharmaceutical company as evil puppetmaster as gospel.

Let me put it another way: I'm guessing most of you also think that Big Pharma is withholding cures for cancer from the world, right? If so, just think about that for a moment in this context.

Throwing the reptilian-tinfoil-illuminati insult is a copout, it's an appeal to normie authority, as if I were arguing in favor of flat earth. You'd expect better on this board at least. Bottom line, you might learn something if you take off your cultural blinders. As well, you're not the only person with decent professional experience on this board.

I've done some research on the subject a while back, not enough to carry on here without investing more time, which I'm not going to do at this point as I'm busy trying to juggle my work and social commitments this weekend.

What I do know however is that the Rockefellers have been instrumental in setting up and shaping big pharma and the healthcare industry, nearly as much as they have with big oil. And their agenda is not always benevolent.

How familiar are you with their influence on big pharma? Or their influence on a wide range of social engineering in the western world, including women's rights, the sexual revolution, and other efforts to undermine traditional family structures?

Post: #309

Why the need for bile on the issue?

I'm guessing most people know the truth is somewhere in between. Most people have a natural skepticism for being injected with stuff unless they feel it's necessary.

And frankly I'm amazed it was 4000 cases of encephalitis. That's just not low enough for something claiming to be a medicine in the 21st century. That doesn't indicate "it's fine just take it", that indicates "let's screen better somehow for kids who can't take this".

On the other hand, the quack stuff like "just take huge quantities of vitamins and it'll cure everything!" hurts the credibility of vaccine skeptics.

Post: #310

This is total layman's opinion on my part, but hopefully some common sense will prevail in this post.

Common childhood diseases most likely wont affect your neurological health any more than it did in the past when you actually got the full dose of the virus and either lived or died. The Mumps or the Measles in of itself probably would not cause autism. So a vaccine with dead virus for your immune system to work on is less likely to cause anything neurological from happening. I would rule out the dosage of the vaccine in of itself.

Given that, I don't believe that we are doing our kids any favors these days on the vaccine front for a few reasons:

1: There is no money in these vaccines. MMR, Polio and Whooping Cough and all of the other childhood ailments are treated by vaccines that were created 60 years ago, and if you cant afford your child's vaccine, the Government pays for it through SCHIP. There is no one in BigPharma who wants to spend money on research for a new vaccine for these diseases if you are forced to be paid the same as something that you came up with 60 years ago. Vaccines are made cheaply today.

2: They are probably getting them earlier than you did and more of it. Most of us did not live in Day care as a toddler. These days the majority of mothers are dropping their children off at daycare as soon as their maternity leave is up. That everyday exposure goes from the occasional grandparents and household family that you and I had to that exposure plus 30 different kids and their families, and the care takers and her family. No doubt that Pediatricians let alone day care centers have accounted for this so that babies get their shots as early as possible so that they can be with the general population. Likewise these kids are probably getting boosters earlier than you and me for the same reason. The schedule that I had is what I plan on using should I have any children.

3: Children are exposed to people from "foreign" parts before they should be. When I was born, 90% of my family was local and saw me if they wanted to. I had one uncle who was in the military and stationed over seas and did not see until I was a few years old. These days children are exposed to extended family from all over the country and exposed to diseases that were once regional outbreaks. This goes back to point 2 somewhat in that exposure to diseases earlier is an issue that Physicians tend to take into account when administering vaccines. This is assuming that there is no health outbreak in your area or where the kids Grandparents just flew from. You hear a few news stories of Whooping cough, or Measles outbreaks popping up a lot more than before, usually from illegal/refugee immigrant communities, as legal residents are required to have all shots up to date by approved State Department physicians before entering the country. Pediatricians doing their due diligence would need to administer these vaccines earlier than prescribed let alone recommended in a situation like that.

4: They are probably not getting the same vaccines as you did. Your parents got live vaccines and if you are over 35 you may have gotten a few depending on where you lived. SCHIP and universal vaccination came in place after my time to get immunizations so I tend to think that even the dead vaccines that I got had better quality preservatives than what is being administered today. These days most vaccines are mass produced to make it worth their while(see my first point) which means large dead batches of vaccines and preserved for an extended time using the cheapest preservatives that they can get by the FDA. I have no idea if the preservatives used today are too much for a baby that is under one year old, but it is something that I would want to control the intake on any of my kids as much as their sugar intake. I would choose a live virus on anything if I can help it as I think that a live virus does a better job for your immunity. However, since no one produces live virus vaccines any more, it is a moot point.

To conclude, I honestly don't think that any one vaccine will cause autism, nor do I think that a cumulative effect will. That is like saying the pie and Christmas Cookies that you have once a year will give you diabetes when you drank three cokes a day since you were six. The leading drivers of people with autism is still not clearly identified, however, I tend to believe that children born of women in their 30's and 40's is more likely to be the three cokes a day that is driving Autism. But if you have both factors then I can believe that you are running that higher risk that makes the remotely possible not as remote as it once was.

A word to Jenny McCarthy, If she wants to stop bitching and actually do something about this and give her self and nervous parents some piece of mind, I recommend that she can spend her stripper money starting a anti-viral company that produces live vaccines only, like the ones that she had as a child of the 70's. Good luck with the FDA sweetheart, as it takes the FDA forever to shit let alone do anything important. She could also recommend having children in your twenties rather than be on the pages of Playboy.

Post: #311

(05-13-2017 10:39 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  ]Or you could just take vitamin D and C, Zinc, and echinacea when you are exposed or feel the very first symptoms. I have not had the flu in nearly ten years by undertaking this natural preventative maintenance.

A sample group of 1 man is not scientifically valid.

Post: #312

(05-14-2017 10:58 AM)Bluto Wrote:  This is total layman's opinion on my part, but hopefully some common sense will prevail in this post.

Common childhood diseases most likely wont affect your neurological health any more than it did in the past when you actually got the full dose of the virus and either lived or died. The Mumps or the Measles in of itself probably would not cause autism. So a vaccine with dead virus for your immune system to work on is less likely to cause anything neurological from happening. I would rule out the dosage of the vaccine in of itself.

Given that, I don't believe that we are doing our kids any favors these days on the vaccine front for a few reasons:

1: There is no money in these vaccines. MMR, Polio and Whooping Cough and all of the other childhood ailments are treated by vaccines that were created 60 years ago, and if you cant afford your child's vaccine, the Government pays for it through SCHIP. There is no one in BigPharma who wants to spend money on research for a new vaccine for these diseases if you are forced to be paid the same as something that you came up with 60 years ago. Vaccines are made cheaply today.

2: They are probably getting them earlier than you did and more of it. Most of us did not live in Day care as a toddler. These days the majority of mothers are dropping their children off at daycare as soon as their maternity leave is up. That everyday exposure goes from the occasional grandparents and household family that you and I had to that exposure plus 30 different kids and their families, and the care takers and her family. No doubt that Pediatricians let alone day care centers have accounted for this so that babies get their shots as early as possible so that they can be with the general population. Likewise these kids are probably getting boosters earlier than you and me for the same reason.

3: Children are exposed to people from "foreign" parts before they should be. When I was born, 90% of my family was local and saw me if they wanted to. I had one uncle who was in the military and stationed over seas and did not see until I was a few years old. These days children are exposed to extended family from all over the country and exposed to diseases that were once regional outbreaks. This goes back to point 2 somewhat in that exposure to diseases earlier is an issue that Physicians tend to take into account when administering vaccines.

This is assuming that there is no health outbreak in your area or where the kids Grandparents just flew from. You hear a few news stories of Whooping cough, or Measles outbreaks popping up a lot more than before, usually from illegal immigrant communities, as legal residents are required to have all shots up to date by approved State Department physicians before entering the country. Pediatricians doing their due diligence would need to administer these vaccines earlier than prescribed let alone recommended in a situation like that.

4: They are probably not getting the same vaccines as you did. Your parents got live vaccines and if you are over 35 you may have gotten a few depending on where you lived. SCHIP and universal vaccination came in place after my time to get immunizations so I tend to think that even the dead vaccines that I had had better quality preservatives than what is being administered today. These days most vaccines are mass produced to make it worth their while(see my first point) which means large dead batches of vaccines and preserved for and extended time using the cheapest preservatives that they can get by the FDA.

I have no idea if the preservatives used today are too much for a baby that is under one year old, and I think that only people as sick as Dr. Mengele would do an active test. Having said that if I have a choice, I would prefer to have live virus vaccines. With the caveat that I know that sometimes that is not possible in emergencies, and if there is an epidemic of small pox, then I am going to get whatever they have that works.

To conclude, I honestly don't think that any one vaccine will cause autism, nor do I think that a cumulative effect will. That is like saying the pie and Christmas Cookies that you have once a year will give you diabetes when you drank three cokes a day since you were six. I tend to think that a lot of vaccines early on to a baby is not good however. What worked with me is what I would want with my kids.

The leading drivers of people with autism is still not clearly identified, however, I tend to believe that children born of women in their 30's and 40's is more likely to be the three cokes a day that is driving Autism.

A word to Jenny McCarthy, If she wants to stop bitching and actually do something about this and give her self and nervous parents some piece of mind, I recommend that she can spend her stripper money starting a anti-viral company that produces live vaccines only, like the ones that she had as a child of the 70's. Good luck with the FDA sweetheart, as it takes the FDA forever to shit let alone do anything important. She could also recommend having children in your twenties rather than be on the pages of Playboy.

I'm going to repeat what I wrote on the previous page:

the current rate of autism is 1 in 40. This is equivalent to 250 out of every 10,000.

Old mother's age explains the increase from 14 out of 10,000 to 31 out of 10,000. This is a very well-documented factor because it is extremely easy to measure and control for. It does not explain the far more massive increase from 31 to 250 out of every 10,000, not even close. You'd be off by a factor of 800%, there is no way. Even if you did not major in STEM, you should be able to understand this by now, if you've read this paragraph.

There is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence pointing to vaccines, based on the first hand experience of nurses administrating the shots and parents, their testimonies have been completely dismissed by the media and scientific establishment.


Second point: Jenny McCarty. When you have people like her getting elevated as the spokesmen for the cause, it's no coincidence. You want the least credible figure being the face of a cause that the media wants to destroy, so you get a bimbo (albeit a well-meaning one here) be that face, instead of someone like Dr. Andrew Wakefield or well-spoken people like Del Bigtree. This is also the same reason you see a walking PR disaster like Richard Spencer becoming the face of the alt-right.

You also have media suppression like the banning of the documentary Vaxxed, and marginalization of people going against the official version, through things like weaponized vocabulary ("vaxxer").

Post: #313

(05-14-2017 11:10 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 10:39 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  ]Or you could just take vitamin D and C, Zinc, and echinacea when you are exposed or feel the very first symptoms. I have not had the flu in nearly ten years by undertaking this natural preventative maintenance.

A sample group of 1 man is not scientifically valid.

Kind of a random comment, considering the fact that I made no claim that my own personal experience was scientifically valid. I just stated what works for me. Having said that, there are many people who use a similar protocol to avoid colds and the flu.

Just to elaborate further, until I began using this protocol (after extensive research) I always contracted multiple cases of colds and flu every winter, just like the rest of the population. So, I know 100% that it works for me. My point is that if there is a natural way to prevent colds and the flu, then why risk exposing yourself to flu vaccines that are scientifically linked to Alzheimer's and other diseases.

In this case, I did make a scientific claim, so here is some support:

Quote:Consider what Hugh Fudenburg, (http://www.nitrf.org/fudenberg.html), the world's leading geneticist with hundreds of original publications, has to say about the flu vaccine: "We have found that clinically normal individuals aged 60-65 who receive influenza vaccine three or four times during a five-year period, will five years later have an incidence of Alzheimer's disease 10-fold greater than age-matched individuals who did not receive it."

https://www.secondopinionnewsletter.com/...ugs-Do.htm

Post: #314

I'm surprised no one has pointed out the large number of pesticides in our environment as the possible cause for neurological disorders.

Post: #315

I think he means "statistically significant". But I don't think statistics is important. It's the lazy man's science. It's where we get the saying "correlation doesn't imply causation".

The only thing that implies causation is causation. Unless someone can show me clear casual links between things I'll view any statistical hints with assumption of bullshit. We don't need statistics on "cars percent that kill people if they hit them", we just need understanding of the nature of cars and people to know you shouldn't step in front of a car.

That aside, I don't think I've met anyone who's mentioned having a flu vaccine. That stuff is clearly shit, and I assume it's just an American thing to use it like tips and ancient measurements and other retarded shit. But I've met plenty of people who've had tetanus vaccines and rabies vaccines.

So I still don't see how this is an ideological argument employing political sounding language. It's not. It's a question of cost benefit on a case by case basis and I'm guessing people just want to agro for the sake of it.

Post: #316

(05-15-2017 01:46 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  That aside, I don't think I've met anyone who's mentioned having a flu vaccine.

That is amazing. I was tempted to ask whether you live on a deserted island. I suspect that this is simply something that, like ambient background noise, you simply tune out during the course of your day.

This past flu season, almost every grocery store and pharmacy that I encountered had signs -- and even staffed tables -- pushing low cost flu shots. Hell, even the local public library had a table advertising FREE flu shots. People were herded into this stuff like cattle. The flu vaccine is pushed hard. Really hard. It is especially pernicious because it targets low-income seniors, many of whom are not as educated as the rest of the population -- and who may not even own a computer (where they could perform some research, even if they were so inclined).

Post: #317

(05-15-2017 01:36 PM)TheWhiteWolf Wrote:  I'm surprised no one has pointed out the large number of pesticides in our environment as the possible cause for neurological disorders.

That is certainly one of many causes of not only neurological disorders, but also auto-immune diseases and other ailments. I am not sure that it is pertinent to this thread, unless you are arguing that environmental toxins are solely responsible for the health problems suspected of vaccines.

BTW: I spent last year slowly replacing my personal hygiene products and home cleaning products with more natural products with less toxins. You can use this web site to compare and evaluate such products. I wish it was a little simpler to use. You need to search for the various categories. Here is the one for shampoo:

https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/browse/shampoo/

Cleaning products:

http://www.ewg.org/guides/cleaners

Post: #318

Redacted

Post: #319

Andrew Wakefield and Del Bigtree talk about their movie "Vaxxed" and the subject of the MMR vaccine, a lot of parallels with the global warming narrative:





the link in autistic children between gastro-intestinal diseases and autism is an interesting angle here.

Post: #320

Here's some food for thought: squalene, a shark-based protein used as an adjuvant in many vaccines, often administered for military personnel, along with aluminum hydroxide, can store in your cerebellum and at the top of your spinal cord and can cause neurological disorders later in life like ALS / MS / Parkinsons etc. These are metals designed to deliver the serum to your blood faster, and as such, sometimes it is too powerful. Why do you think hundreds of people died from ALS at young ages back in the mid 90s during desert storm? It was the anthrax vaccine, and there is still no responsibility claimed for this heinous treachery of chemical testing on young Americans by big pharma.

Post: #321

The other issue that no one has addressed in this thread is that the U.S. Congress has specifically addressed the harm caused by vaccines and has not only established a special fund, but also a special "vaccine court" to hear vaccine harm cases. So, Congress itself has acknowledged the harm caused by vaccines. The problem is that the court does not work as designed, as cited in this news article.

Quote:At the same time, Congress recognized that immunizations eliminating many diseases put some individuals at risk. So lawmakers set up the no-fault system of recovery for injury or death, with relaxed rules of evidence. Most liability is shifted to the government, with damages capped. Plaintiffs can’t pursue a claim in a regular federal court until they’ve exhausted efforts in the vaccine court. Compensation is paid out of a $3.5 billion fund built from a 75-cent-per-dose tax on vaccines.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...court-test

Post: #322

(05-15-2017 05:21 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 01:46 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  That aside, I don't think I've met anyone who's mentioned having a flu vaccine.

That is amazing. I was tempted to ask whether you live on a deserted island. I suspect that this is simply something that, like ambient background noise, you simply tune out during the course of your day.

This past flu season, almost every grocery store and pharmacy that I encountered had signs -- and even staffed tables -- pushing low cost flu shots. Hell, even the local public library had a table advertising FREE flu shots. People were herded into this stuff like cattle. The flu vaccine is pushed hard. Really hard. It is especially pernicious because it targets low-income seniors, many of whom are not as educated as the rest of the population -- and who may not even own a computer (where they could perform some research, even if they were so inclined).

Yes, turns out that the planet has places on it that aren't America, and don't do things the same way as Americans.

(05-16-2017 09:53 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  The other issue that no one has addressed in this thread is that the U.S. Congress has specifically addressed the harm caused by vaccines and has not only established a special fund, but also a special "vaccine court" to hear vaccine harm cases.

/thread-34230...#pid944224
/thread-34230...pid1524985

Post: #323

I think this was mentioned above, but I'll just add this visual in:



A pilot study of 666 homeschooled six to 12-year-olds from four American states published on April 27th in the Journal of Translational Sciences, compared 261 unvaccinated children with 405 partially or fully vaccinated children, and assessed their overall health based on their mothers' reports of vaccinations and physician-diagnosed illnesses. What it found about increases in immune-mediated diseases like allergies and neurodevelopmental diseases including autism

http://info.cmsri.org/the-driven-researc...-is-sicker

Post: #324

Delete

Post: #325

(05-16-2017 11:56 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 05:21 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 01:46 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  That aside, I don't think I've met anyone who's mentioned having a flu vaccine.

That is amazing. I was tempted to ask whether you live on a deserted island. I suspect that this is simply something that, like ambient background noise, you simply tune out during the course of your day.

This past flu season, almost every grocery store and pharmacy that I encountered had signs -- and even staffed tables -- pushing low cost flu shots. Hell, even the local public library had a table advertising FREE flu shots. People were herded into this stuff like cattle. The flu vaccine is pushed hard. Really hard. It is especially pernicious because it targets low-income seniors, many of whom are not as educated as the rest of the population -- and who may not even own a computer (where they could perform some research, even if they were so inclined).

Yes, turns out that the planet has places on it that aren't America, and don't do things the same way as Americans.

My assumption was that this was a mosty-U.S. discussion, because the vaccine issue really is not a problem unless the government forces you to take vaccines. The only reason that I care about vaccines at all is that the collectivists in the U.S. seek mandatory vaccinations. Even people from other countries acknowledge the heavy hand of the USG:

Quote:The only “compulsory” vaccine for many countries worldwide, is Yellow Fever. Most others are “recommendations” only, doctors might attempt to persuade you otherwise. USA is a law unto itself, and likes to attempt to “require” everything.

http://www.beyondconformity.co.nz/FAQRet...x?ID=32327

Even in those relatively few nations with mandatory vaccination schemes, the laws are not enforced nor are people prosecuted:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3216445/


OK, I acknowledge that you previously raised the issue that the U.S. Congress has specifically addressed the harm caused by vaccines. I searched the thread using the term "Congress" and found nothing, but I was not about to search thirteen pages of posts.