Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
22 Feb 16
19:33
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 Sep 10
A whole raft of vaccinations have Thiomersal (mercury) used as a preservative? There are other preservatives they could use but since the fifties they have been dosing the population with an element that attacks the blood/brain barrier. Jonas Salk who invented the polio vaccine protested its use. It's been linked with autism and other things to do with the brain - such as lower IQ.
I agree with vaccination as a way of dampening down outbreaks. there has been no measles deaths in ten years. because of mass vaccines. but 109 deaths have been reported in the USA by the CDC linked to the vaccination. its a double edged sword.
a better preservative and more choice to parents should be put forward. To blindly take a substance out of fear is not a wise option. before injecting your children with any medicine some research needs to be done.
i want safe vaccines - there are a lot out there that are safe. just ask to see the ingrediants before application.
I agree with vaccination as a way of dampening down outbreaks. there has been no measles deaths in ten years. because of mass vaccines. but 109 deaths have been reported in the USA by the CDC linked to the vaccination. its a double edged sword.
a better preservative and more choice to parents should be put forward. To blindly take a substance out of fear is not a wise option. before injecting your children with any medicine some research needs to be done.
i want safe vaccines - there are a lot out there that are safe. just ask to see the ingrediants before application.
Show More
I'll never get a flu vaccine (or any other kind), I've looked at the ingredients before and they do contain Thiomersal which has small amounts of mercury that can stay in the blood for long time.
The fact that vaccinations contain attenuated or live viruses also means that you are injecting the illness into your body when you get a flu vaccination. As a result, some people actually develop the disease after being vaccinated.
Of course, there is also the concern of experiencing an allergic reaction to the vaccination, which can cause more damage than the vaccination prevents.
It seems as if the makers of vaccinations have no respect for human life, and the same is true for the government agencies that stand behind them in support of their propaganda.
To many for old people getting alzheimers nowadays, wonder why.
The fact that vaccinations contain attenuated or live viruses also means that you are injecting the illness into your body when you get a flu vaccination. As a result, some people actually develop the disease after being vaccinated.
Of course, there is also the concern of experiencing an allergic reaction to the vaccination, which can cause more damage than the vaccination prevents.
It seems as if the makers of vaccinations have no respect for human life, and the same is true for the government agencies that stand behind them in support of their propaganda.
To many for old people getting alzheimers nowadays, wonder why.
Thiomersal isn't used in childhood EU vaccination.
Vaccinate your children without hesitation.
Vaccinate your children without hesitation.
I get the flu jag every year and will continue to do so.
The amount of mercury is miniscule and of no danger to you.
The amount of mercury is miniscule and of no danger to you.
Please do hesitate and look at both sides of the argument before you vaccinate your children.
Consider that:
The government pays GPs a nice bonus if they can persuade enough parents to vaccinate their children.
2.8 billion dollars has been paid out in the US in vaccine damage compensation payments.
Vaccination programs earn pharmaceutical companies huge sums of money each year.
Pharmaceutical companies make very generous donations to the government.
Vaccinations don’t actually guarantee immunity.
Vaccinations are given to children at 2 months, 3 months, 4 months and 12-13 months but children’s immune systems are not fully developed until they are at least 3 years old. Vaccinations are given so early as it doesn’t allow much time for new parents to research the process and make an informed decision. Get to them before they know the facts!
Although Mercury was removed from vaccines as an additive, aluminium was included in its place and is given in the 2 month vaccine. Remember it is the responsibility of the developers, promoters and enforcers to prove safety and efficacy.
If anyone comes out and says bad things about vaccines with some kind of evidence it doesn’t end well for them. Andrew Wakefield was crucified (it really depends on what you read as to who you believe) and Jeff Bradstreet whose office was raided by US FDA agents and law officials and then died of “apparent” suicide. Both talked about links with autism and vaccinations. Of course it’s not just vaccinations where you have to be careful other alternative practitioners haven’t done too well over the last year (Dr Nicholas Gonzalez, Dr Theresa Sievers etc).
The vaccination process bypasses all the body's outer defenses of the skin, mucous membranes and lymphatic system and injects pathogenic organisms direcly into the bloodstream.
There is a large amount of labelling and dismissive reporting of anyone who chooses not to vaccinate and anyone who speaks out against it. How they have succumbed to the quackery of alternative thinking that is not based on any rationale but hang on a minute there aren’t any long-term studies that can definitively say that complications in later life may be partially a result of vaccinations. Things like allergies and auto-immune diseases where the persons immune system, which has been tampered with by administering vaccines when it isn’t fully developed ,doesn’t seem to work properly.
So just to clarify vaccinating your children wont give them immunity, vaccinations are carried out from a very young age before the immune system is fully developed, contains toxins and long-term affects are unknown. Oh and all the people who tell you that it is safe, the doctors, government and the pharmaceutical companies who have carried out their research are significantly better off if people are vaccinating. Oh but if you don’t vaccinate then you are a crackpot who is just ignorant and not concerned about their children’s safety.
Ahh yes it’s Western Medicine with its massive ego at its best.
Consider that:
The government pays GPs a nice bonus if they can persuade enough parents to vaccinate their children.
2.8 billion dollars has been paid out in the US in vaccine damage compensation payments.
Vaccination programs earn pharmaceutical companies huge sums of money each year.
Pharmaceutical companies make very generous donations to the government.
Vaccinations don’t actually guarantee immunity.
Vaccinations are given to children at 2 months, 3 months, 4 months and 12-13 months but children’s immune systems are not fully developed until they are at least 3 years old. Vaccinations are given so early as it doesn’t allow much time for new parents to research the process and make an informed decision. Get to them before they know the facts!
Although Mercury was removed from vaccines as an additive, aluminium was included in its place and is given in the 2 month vaccine. Remember it is the responsibility of the developers, promoters and enforcers to prove safety and efficacy.
If anyone comes out and says bad things about vaccines with some kind of evidence it doesn’t end well for them. Andrew Wakefield was crucified (it really depends on what you read as to who you believe) and Jeff Bradstreet whose office was raided by US FDA agents and law officials and then died of “apparent” suicide. Both talked about links with autism and vaccinations. Of course it’s not just vaccinations where you have to be careful other alternative practitioners haven’t done too well over the last year (Dr Nicholas Gonzalez, Dr Theresa Sievers etc).
The vaccination process bypasses all the body's outer defenses of the skin, mucous membranes and lymphatic system and injects pathogenic organisms direcly into the bloodstream.
There is a large amount of labelling and dismissive reporting of anyone who chooses not to vaccinate and anyone who speaks out against it. How they have succumbed to the quackery of alternative thinking that is not based on any rationale but hang on a minute there aren’t any long-term studies that can definitively say that complications in later life may be partially a result of vaccinations. Things like allergies and auto-immune diseases where the persons immune system, which has been tampered with by administering vaccines when it isn’t fully developed ,doesn’t seem to work properly.
So just to clarify vaccinating your children wont give them immunity, vaccinations are carried out from a very young age before the immune system is fully developed, contains toxins and long-term affects are unknown. Oh and all the people who tell you that it is safe, the doctors, government and the pharmaceutical companies who have carried out their research are significantly better off if people are vaccinating. Oh but if you don’t vaccinate then you are a crackpot who is just ignorant and not concerned about their children’s safety.
Ahh yes it’s Western Medicine with its massive ego at its best.
Please do hesitate and look at both sides of the argument before you vaccinate your children.
if you are able to weigh up both sides of the argument, and by that I mean, you have a rudimentary understanding of pathology and epidemiology, the concept of herd immunity, and are able to make decisions correctly weighting uncertainty, please go and weigh up both sides of the argument. you will reach the right decision rather easily and extremely quickly.
if you don't, just f*cking do it.
being contrarian with no logical justification (some wishy washy sh1te you read on the internet is not logical justification) just makes you a vain and dangerous tw@t.
Andrew Wakefield was crucified (it really depends on what you read as to who you believe)
that's an outrageous statement
Andrew Wakefield was rightly crucified. He published unfounded sensationalist claims that indirectly put children's lives at risks. there is no greyscale.
if you are able to weigh up both sides of the argument, and by that I mean, you have a rudimentary understanding of pathology and epidemiology, the concept of herd immunity, and are able to make decisions correctly weighting uncertainty, please go and weigh up both sides of the argument. you will reach the right decision rather easily and extremely quickly.
if you don't, just f*cking do it.
being contrarian with no logical justification (some wishy washy sh1te you read on the internet is not logical justification) just makes you a vain and dangerous tw@t.
Andrew Wakefield was crucified (it really depends on what you read as to who you believe)
that's an outrageous statement
Andrew Wakefield was rightly crucified. He published unfounded sensationalist claims that indirectly put children's lives at risks. there is no greyscale.
DStyle - Get your Jab in First!
[ This image is no longer available. ]
[ This image is no longer available. ]
It appears that we disagree DStyle which is fair enough however I will try to refrain from being patronising, abusive and dismissive as it appears you were in your post. It does, however quite eloquently highlight what tends to happen to people who are opposed to conventional childhood vaccinations when they divulge their stance on this subject.
I don’t understand why I have to understand the concept of herd mentality (I do understand what it is by the way). The statement was in relation to whether you vaccinate your children. As a parent it just comes down to one simple question. What do I feel is in my child’s best interest? Just to clarify you talk about making decisions correctly weighing uncertainty and reaching the right decision. But how do you weigh up something that is uncertain. Can you tell me the percentage likelihood of my child picking up an ailment later on in life directly as a result of vaccination and the percentage likelihood that my child will pick up an infectious disease that he definitely wouldn’t have got if he was vaccinated. Of course not because it comes down to what you believe in. Am I a vain and dangerous tw@t if I believe in something that you don’t even if you can’t prove me wrong. Am I not entitled to this belief.
Likewise you state that I am being contrarian but I thought that I had mentioned about considering both sides of the argument. I personally do not believe that vaccinating a child is in the child’s best interest, but if someone takes the time looks at the information and believes that it is in their child’s best interest then fine, that’s their decision. I am just saying that rather than just going along with what you are told, have a look into it and decide for yourself.
With regards to Andrew Wakefield there are two sides like I said even if you don’t like one side of the argument it is still there.
It’s the side that points out John Walker-Smith (Andrew Wakefield’s co-Author) won his appeal against the UK’s General Medical Council regulatory body that ruled against him in the Lancet MMR paper. The justice ruling on the appeal said the GMC’s conclusions were based on “inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion”.
It’s the side that talk about long-time Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USA) Dr William Thompson saying that CDC concealed a possible link between a common childhood vaccine and autism.
It’s the side that says there was a massive smearing and spin campaign by people who had so much to lose unless they could completely discredit this man.
Just out of curiousity you state that he put childrens lives at risk but Andrew Wakefield believed at that time that instead of the MMR vaccine the vaccinations should be split and given as single vaccines not that you shouldn’t vaccinate your children. At the time single vaccines were licensed in the UK and freely available to the British public. Although MMR vaccination uptake fell there was a reciprocal increase of the single measles vaccine. It was only 6 months later the British government withdrew the option of single vaccines.
The MMR vaccine was introduced to the UK in 1988 and of course was thoroughly tested and proven to be safe before it was given to the public. But 2 of the 3 brands were removed 4 years later as it was then found to be unsafe.
Whilst there is the argument of wishy-washy contrarians just trying to be different there is also the argument of people trying to conceal the truth because it would be to their huge financial detriment.
Let me ask a purely HYPOTHETICAL question to anyone who wants to answer. Say someone found proof that there was a link between vaccines and say a fairly significant ailment later on in life. How do you think the government and major pharmaceutical companies would act. With a completely unbiased attempt to replicate any study? Accepting their mistakes and try to rectify the situation as speedily as possible at whatever the cost for the health of the people? Spin and smearing campaigns and counter arguments? Or something else? Remember it’s just a hypothetical question.
I don’t understand why I have to understand the concept of herd mentality (I do understand what it is by the way). The statement was in relation to whether you vaccinate your children. As a parent it just comes down to one simple question. What do I feel is in my child’s best interest? Just to clarify you talk about making decisions correctly weighing uncertainty and reaching the right decision. But how do you weigh up something that is uncertain. Can you tell me the percentage likelihood of my child picking up an ailment later on in life directly as a result of vaccination and the percentage likelihood that my child will pick up an infectious disease that he definitely wouldn’t have got if he was vaccinated. Of course not because it comes down to what you believe in. Am I a vain and dangerous tw@t if I believe in something that you don’t even if you can’t prove me wrong. Am I not entitled to this belief.
Likewise you state that I am being contrarian but I thought that I had mentioned about considering both sides of the argument. I personally do not believe that vaccinating a child is in the child’s best interest, but if someone takes the time looks at the information and believes that it is in their child’s best interest then fine, that’s their decision. I am just saying that rather than just going along with what you are told, have a look into it and decide for yourself.
With regards to Andrew Wakefield there are two sides like I said even if you don’t like one side of the argument it is still there.
It’s the side that points out John Walker-Smith (Andrew Wakefield’s co-Author) won his appeal against the UK’s General Medical Council regulatory body that ruled against him in the Lancet MMR paper. The justice ruling on the appeal said the GMC’s conclusions were based on “inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion”.
It’s the side that talk about long-time Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (USA) Dr William Thompson saying that CDC concealed a possible link between a common childhood vaccine and autism.
It’s the side that says there was a massive smearing and spin campaign by people who had so much to lose unless they could completely discredit this man.
Just out of curiousity you state that he put childrens lives at risk but Andrew Wakefield believed at that time that instead of the MMR vaccine the vaccinations should be split and given as single vaccines not that you shouldn’t vaccinate your children. At the time single vaccines were licensed in the UK and freely available to the British public. Although MMR vaccination uptake fell there was a reciprocal increase of the single measles vaccine. It was only 6 months later the British government withdrew the option of single vaccines.
The MMR vaccine was introduced to the UK in 1988 and of course was thoroughly tested and proven to be safe before it was given to the public. But 2 of the 3 brands were removed 4 years later as it was then found to be unsafe.
Whilst there is the argument of wishy-washy contrarians just trying to be different there is also the argument of people trying to conceal the truth because it would be to their huge financial detriment.
Let me ask a purely HYPOTHETICAL question to anyone who wants to answer. Say someone found proof that there was a link between vaccines and say a fairly significant ailment later on in life. How do you think the government and major pharmaceutical companies would act. With a completely unbiased attempt to replicate any study? Accepting their mistakes and try to rectify the situation as speedily as possible at whatever the cost for the health of the people? Spin and smearing campaigns and counter arguments? Or something else? Remember it’s just a hypothetical question.
herd immunity, not herd mentality........
do you know what that is?
no googling.
do you know what that is?
no googling.
and the bit about Walker-Smith is confused.
His being struck off was about whether lumbar punctures and colonoscopies were needed from a research basis, (absolutely not, which is why he was originally struck off), or whether they were needed from a treatment basis (they may have been, which was why the decision was overturned).
It has absolutely nothing to do with the fabricated horseshit in Wakefield's original paper, which EVERYBODY KNOWS, except the anti-vaccination brigade, is completely unfounded.
Seriously, where are you doing your reading....
His being struck off was about whether lumbar punctures and colonoscopies were needed from a research basis, (absolutely not, which is why he was originally struck off), or whether they were needed from a treatment basis (they may have been, which was why the decision was overturned).
It has absolutely nothing to do with the fabricated horseshit in Wakefield's original paper, which EVERYBODY KNOWS, except the anti-vaccination brigade, is completely unfounded.
Seriously, where are you doing your reading....
Once upon a time there was a village in a forest.
For thousands of years, the dangerous wild animals in the forest had crept into the village and attacked the weakest members: the children, the frail and the elderly. Everyone knew someone who had died, or lost a child or been handicapped for life as a result of being attacked.
Then suddenly someone had an idea. Let's put a fence up around the village. And so it was decided: every household in the village would be given wood to build a fence and would be responsible for their bit of fence, and soon enough the entire perimeter of the village was protected.
Yes, the animals still came, but now they couldn't get into the village, and so the fence had its desired effect: no-one got attacked by animals any more. This went on for decades.
After a while, people forgot about the threat from the wild animals because they'd stopped coming.
Children still got ill, as children do, and some children were born different. But this had always happened.
Then some f*cking crazy people said that the children were getting ill, in the ways children had always gotten ill, because the chemicals in the fence were making them ill. They had no evidence for this because there was no evidence, but when people told them they were wrong, they told them they were only saying that because they were working for the people who sold them the wood to build the fence. They weren't, but this didn't matter to the f*cking crazy people.
F*cking crazy people eh?
But then the f*cking crazy people went one step further, and decided not to keep the fence up around their house.
Now the wild animals had long since stopped bothering to come to the village because of the fence, so they didn't come and the f*cking crazy people felt smug. Not only were their children not being exposed to chemicals in the fence (because there weren't any illness causing chemicals in the wood, so it was impossible), but the wild animals weren't getting their children either.
Win, win eh?
A lot of people in the forest were annoyed with the f*cking crazy people, because they understood that their astonishing stupidity was putting the entire village at unnecessary risk.
But the f*cking crazy people said they were only saying that as they hadn't read all the important books written on the subject of illness causing wood. The annoyed people said they had, and that they were written by other f*cking crazy people, had no basis in fact, and that infinitely more books had been written showing that wood does not make people ill.
The ****g crazy people ignored them, secretly suspecting that the wood in their fences had made the annoyed people gullible.
And so, tragically, as time went on and the f*cking crazy people shouted louder and louder, (as f*cking crazy people are wont to do), more people thought, hell, why take the risk with the fence, I don't want to expose my children to the chemicals in the fence, even though they're probably aren't any. And besides, they're my children, and it's my belief that matters.
Eventually there were quite a lot of holes in the fence and a pack of hungry mountain lions made their way into the village and killed lots of people. Sure some people were strong enough to defend themselves and some people had built fences around their houses as well as the perimeter, but the mountain lions went after the very young and the old, and they ate very well.
But at least the f*cking crazy people's kids hadn't gotten ill from the non-existent threat in the wood used in the fences.
And if definitely wasn't their fault. After all they were only doing what was best for their children.
For thousands of years, the dangerous wild animals in the forest had crept into the village and attacked the weakest members: the children, the frail and the elderly. Everyone knew someone who had died, or lost a child or been handicapped for life as a result of being attacked.
Then suddenly someone had an idea. Let's put a fence up around the village. And so it was decided: every household in the village would be given wood to build a fence and would be responsible for their bit of fence, and soon enough the entire perimeter of the village was protected.
Yes, the animals still came, but now they couldn't get into the village, and so the fence had its desired effect: no-one got attacked by animals any more. This went on for decades.
After a while, people forgot about the threat from the wild animals because they'd stopped coming.
Children still got ill, as children do, and some children were born different. But this had always happened.
Then some f*cking crazy people said that the children were getting ill, in the ways children had always gotten ill, because the chemicals in the fence were making them ill. They had no evidence for this because there was no evidence, but when people told them they were wrong, they told them they were only saying that because they were working for the people who sold them the wood to build the fence. They weren't, but this didn't matter to the f*cking crazy people.
F*cking crazy people eh?
But then the f*cking crazy people went one step further, and decided not to keep the fence up around their house.
Now the wild animals had long since stopped bothering to come to the village because of the fence, so they didn't come and the f*cking crazy people felt smug. Not only were their children not being exposed to chemicals in the fence (because there weren't any illness causing chemicals in the wood, so it was impossible), but the wild animals weren't getting their children either.
Win, win eh?
A lot of people in the forest were annoyed with the f*cking crazy people, because they understood that their astonishing stupidity was putting the entire village at unnecessary risk.
But the f*cking crazy people said they were only saying that as they hadn't read all the important books written on the subject of illness causing wood. The annoyed people said they had, and that they were written by other f*cking crazy people, had no basis in fact, and that infinitely more books had been written showing that wood does not make people ill.
The ****g crazy people ignored them, secretly suspecting that the wood in their fences had made the annoyed people gullible.
And so, tragically, as time went on and the f*cking crazy people shouted louder and louder, (as f*cking crazy people are wont to do), more people thought, hell, why take the risk with the fence, I don't want to expose my children to the chemicals in the fence, even though they're probably aren't any. And besides, they're my children, and it's my belief that matters.
Eventually there were quite a lot of holes in the fence and a pack of hungry mountain lions made their way into the village and killed lots of people. Sure some people were strong enough to defend themselves and some people had built fences around their houses as well as the perimeter, but the mountain lions went after the very young and the old, and they ate very well.
But at least the f*cking crazy people's kids hadn't gotten ill from the non-existent threat in the wood used in the fences.
And if definitely wasn't their fault. After all they were only doing what was best for their children.
Hello there DStyle. With regards to John Walker-Smith you seem to be missing my point. John Walker-Smith was involved in something that the government and pharmaceutical companies didn’t like. John Walker-Smith was subject to an investigation by the GMC that resulted in him being stuck off. The decision to strike him off was unlawful. It goes back to the point of what you think happens when an individual takes on the government and pharmaceutical companies.
Strange analogy lots of flaws in it, along with swear words. I really thought about replying but not sure what it would accomplish as I know I won’t change your mind as much as you know you wont change mine.
I just think people should consider the situation and make their own decisions rather than blindly following what they are told to do. Whether it’s to vaccinate, not vaccinate, look at alternatives options, vaccinate later when their children are older, just consider it first. Like you mentioned before if it’s so blindingly obvious then everyone will make the decision that you want them to anyway.
Call me what you will, which you have already done and may well continue to do, but there are certain aspects of western medicine that I think are flawed and just don’t like. Just as another example have a quick look at the Merck MMR vaccine lawsuit if you are not familiar with it.
Strange analogy lots of flaws in it, along with swear words. I really thought about replying but not sure what it would accomplish as I know I won’t change your mind as much as you know you wont change mine.
I just think people should consider the situation and make their own decisions rather than blindly following what they are told to do. Whether it’s to vaccinate, not vaccinate, look at alternatives options, vaccinate later when their children are older, just consider it first. Like you mentioned before if it’s so blindingly obvious then everyone will make the decision that you want them to anyway.
Call me what you will, which you have already done and may well continue to do, but there are certain aspects of western medicine that I think are flawed and just don’t like. Just as another example have a quick look at the Merck MMR vaccine lawsuit if you are not familiar with it.
ok last go:
Hello there DStyle. With regards to John Walker-Smith you seem to be missing my point.
John Walker-Smith was involved in something that the government and pharmaceutical companies didn’t like.
and something most sane normal people don't like either: The possibility that he subjected children to extremely unpleasant procedures when there was no medical need for it.
John Walker-Smith was subject to an investigation by the GMC that resulted in him being stuck off.
yep, because it was thought that he was being hurting children when he didn't need to.
The decision to strike him off was unlawful.
and it got reversed on appeal because the arguments were nuanced and it could have been construed that the procedures he carried out were part of a treatment.
let's look at this earlier post:
It’s the side that points out John Walker-Smith (Andrew Wakefield’s co-Author) won his appeal against the UK’s General Medical Council regulatory body that ruled against him in the Lancet MMR paper. The justice ruling on the appeal said the GMC’s conclusions were based on “inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion”.
no doubt c&p from an anti-vax website. can you see what they've done here. They've phrased it in such a way that strongly implies that the "wrong conclusion" and "superficial reasoning" relates that the decision to discredit the MMR paper, when in fact it does no such thing.
The GMC's ruling had nothing to do with the MMR paper, it was the fact that he may have been hurting children when he didn't need to.
By the time of the JWS's original hearing, he had already removed his name from the paper.
It goes back to the point of what you think happens when an individual takes on the government and pharmaceutical companies.
i'm not sure that was what JWS was doing. or Andrew Wakefield.
Andrew Wakefield was making stuff up and had huge conflict of interests with the legal companies representing the parents of the children with autism.
There's the conspiracy. But we'll ignore that one.
Strange analogy lots of flaws in it, along with swear words.
is there something wrong with swear words. did mother tell you only stupid people have to swear....
and of course you find it strange, given that you have no idea what herd immunity is
I really thought about replying but not sure what it would accomplish as I know I won’t change your mind as much as you know you wont change mine.
please don't ascribe me with your level of cognitive dissonance. present the evidence, the peer reviewed evidence, and i'll change my mind, unlike you.
I just think people should consider the situation and make their own decisions rather than blindly following what they are told to do. Whether it’s to vaccinate, not vaccinate, look at alternatives options, vaccinate later when their children are older, just consider it first. Like you mentioned before if it’s so blindingly obvious then everyone will make the decision that you want them to anyway.
do you have the same dilemma every time you cross a bridge, worried that it will fall down and instead choose to push your car through the water instead, laughing at the sheep who risk their family's lives as they blithely cross the bridge without the worry that it fall down at any moment. you know this to be true because you read some old tut on a website.
WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN
Call me what you will, which you have already done and may well continue to do
i don't know if you have kids, so all this is hypothetical, but if you do, i feel justified in pointing out your digraceful actions using the strongest language i can muster, in the same way that i'd call anyone who neglected their children, as well as endangering the immunocompromised sections of our population, horrible names as well.
, but there are certain aspects of western medicine that I think are flawed and just don’t like.
that's lovely, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
Just as another example have a quick look at the Merck MMR vaccine lawsuit if you are not familiar with it.
what's the judge and jury's findings here. oh wait, it hasn't even gone to court yet, has it, and yet you're taking the side you want to before you even know the evidence.
what a fitting way to finish you post.
Hello there DStyle. With regards to John Walker-Smith you seem to be missing my point.
John Walker-Smith was involved in something that the government and pharmaceutical companies didn’t like.
and something most sane normal people don't like either: The possibility that he subjected children to extremely unpleasant procedures when there was no medical need for it.
John Walker-Smith was subject to an investigation by the GMC that resulted in him being stuck off.
yep, because it was thought that he was being hurting children when he didn't need to.
The decision to strike him off was unlawful.
and it got reversed on appeal because the arguments were nuanced and it could have been construed that the procedures he carried out were part of a treatment.
let's look at this earlier post:
It’s the side that points out John Walker-Smith (Andrew Wakefield’s co-Author) won his appeal against the UK’s General Medical Council regulatory body that ruled against him in the Lancet MMR paper. The justice ruling on the appeal said the GMC’s conclusions were based on “inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion”.
no doubt c&p from an anti-vax website. can you see what they've done here. They've phrased it in such a way that strongly implies that the "wrong conclusion" and "superficial reasoning" relates that the decision to discredit the MMR paper, when in fact it does no such thing.
The GMC's ruling had nothing to do with the MMR paper, it was the fact that he may have been hurting children when he didn't need to.
By the time of the JWS's original hearing, he had already removed his name from the paper.
It goes back to the point of what you think happens when an individual takes on the government and pharmaceutical companies.
i'm not sure that was what JWS was doing. or Andrew Wakefield.
Andrew Wakefield was making stuff up and had huge conflict of interests with the legal companies representing the parents of the children with autism.
There's the conspiracy. But we'll ignore that one.
Strange analogy lots of flaws in it, along with swear words.
is there something wrong with swear words. did mother tell you only stupid people have to swear....
and of course you find it strange, given that you have no idea what herd immunity is
I really thought about replying but not sure what it would accomplish as I know I won’t change your mind as much as you know you wont change mine.
please don't ascribe me with your level of cognitive dissonance. present the evidence, the peer reviewed evidence, and i'll change my mind, unlike you.
I just think people should consider the situation and make their own decisions rather than blindly following what they are told to do. Whether it’s to vaccinate, not vaccinate, look at alternatives options, vaccinate later when their children are older, just consider it first. Like you mentioned before if it’s so blindingly obvious then everyone will make the decision that you want them to anyway.
do you have the same dilemma every time you cross a bridge, worried that it will fall down and instead choose to push your car through the water instead, laughing at the sheep who risk their family's lives as they blithely cross the bridge without the worry that it fall down at any moment. you know this to be true because you read some old tut on a website.
WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN
Call me what you will, which you have already done and may well continue to do
i don't know if you have kids, so all this is hypothetical, but if you do, i feel justified in pointing out your digraceful actions using the strongest language i can muster, in the same way that i'd call anyone who neglected their children, as well as endangering the immunocompromised sections of our population, horrible names as well.
, but there are certain aspects of western medicine that I think are flawed and just don’t like.
that's lovely, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
Just as another example have a quick look at the Merck MMR vaccine lawsuit if you are not familiar with it.
what's the judge and jury's findings here. oh wait, it hasn't even gone to court yet, has it, and yet you're taking the side you want to before you even know the evidence.
what a fitting way to finish you post.
Such anger and hatred within you towards someone who has a different belief to you it’s a shame. It’s one of the flaws that humans have and you see it across so many cultures and so many walks of life. It’s not a trait I enjoy and realise that I do not need to expose myself to it unnecessarily. I shall leave you with whatever thoughts you have and know that they are your issues to resolve. Don’t fill yourself with anger, I wish you peace.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539