Forced Vaccination is Wrong

Tyrathca

New member
Is that right? How come you used Snopes.com and didn't give a review of the facts in the rebuttal I provided? Snopes is a site started by a couple of "nobodies" also.
In CM's defence Snopes while itself not being much of an authority tends to reference reliable sources rather well. So it's not the Snope's people but rather the evidence they cite and reference which is the rebuttal. Snope's has just been kind enough to collate it all in one place for us in this instance and the argument rests on the strength of its citations.

But you ignored the immunologist when we posted her speech and you recently gave me junk science
One immunologist arguing against the entire remainder of her profession. Besides if I'm recalling the same video wasn't she giving a talk to a bunch of chiropractors or some other bunch of anti-science nobodies? Very well respected immunologist they must be....

So you assume and judge because they are skeptics without examining their reasoning? At least I consider your studies and articles...
Are you really trying to put blog posts at even a remotely comparable level to published research? Pull the other one!
 

PureX

Well-known member
You vote with paper. I am a mother of 7 with a wide-ranging influence. I vote by influencing how others play the game of life. I grow things and teach my children to grow things that can feed more than just this family.

Part of being the solution is actually making healthy substitutions for fleeting and undesirable societal customs.

And limiting plastic use.... whatever we can. Our "footprint" is as small per person as a third-worlder. And we are promoting this lifestyle to first worlders in and through our children.
These things are all well and good, but our greatest problem at the moment in this country is the wholesale corruption of our government by a very small but very wealthy elite, that are using their corrupting influence to destroy the nation for their own fun and profit. It has gotten so bad that we can't trust our own government to stop a drug company from KILLING AND MAIMING OUR CHILDREN just to sell more of their expensive vaccines,and make even more money. Do you recognize how serious this is? These people are willing to KILL US to increase their profits. They are willing to take away our homes, our jobs, our healthcare, our health, our children's health, our access to an education, our retirement; anything. They are willing to cause us enormous suffering and even death just so they can make more money. And these are the people who are currently controlling our government: who are choosing our candidates for us, and paying for their campaigns. These are the people who are determining every decision our legislature and our presidents make (regardless of party); and they are destroying our lives and our nation as a result.

It's THAT serious.
I'm not a blamer, I'm an imaginal cell in what looks to be a dying creature. Our children are the future in a society that looks like it has no hope in its current condition.

The name of the game isn't to blame, it's to recognize that we are part of a living organism called humanity. God is making His children in the midst of this organism. So God is here. There are natural checks and balances to all things.
I very much agree, but keep in mind that not everyone recognize this fact of reality through the paradigm of a religion, or theology. This isn't a struggle between the god-believers and the atheists. It's a struggle between plutocracy and socialism. And right now the plutocrats are running the show, big time, and they have been for decades. And their greed and avarice know no limit.

This has to stop, before they kill us all.
I think it's more important to hold office-holders responsible and represent the voice and will of the people to them. I care not who is the president, for example. A good president can be killed or corrupted. A bad one can be held in check by his natural fear of the will of people.
Right now, they have us all turned against each other, so that no one is holding them accountable for anything. And they know it. So they can do as they please. And they are.
It would be easier to investigate and hold them accountable or put them in jail when they break the law. Apathy needs to be a thing of the past, I do agree on that.
But they write the laws, and appoint the judges, so they control the system that's supposed to be holding them accountable. Yet we can still vote, and our votes still do mean something, en masse. But we can't vote en masse when they have us all divided against each other. Which is why every single week we see and hear countless paid media blowhards and lunatic bloggers constantly spewing out hyperbole about the "evil liberals", and the "evil conservatives", and the "evil president", and the "evil congress", and the "evil blacks", and the "evil poor", and how everything is always those "other guy's" fault. Every election we're told the same thing: vote for our lousy, crooked candidate because their lousy, crooked candidate is even worse! And every election we fall for it! Over and over and over again! And the result is an endless succession of lousy, crooked politicians who continue to do whatever their corporate sponsors tell them to do, which is to sell out the general public for their fun and profit.

This whole vaccine issue is just another in a long line of trumped up "issues" designed to keep us all fighting with each other, so we won't wake up and start fighting the insidious plutocracy that's slowly and inexorably destroying us all.
What diseases do you think it worked on and what other factors are you willing to give credit to for disease prevention? Whatever advantages vaccination might have given it did so without coercion as a tool. So we should remember that.
I am nearly 60 years old, and have not had to worry about a whole host of diseases that my great grandparents had to fear because of government sponsored and enforcement of public health and safety policies, including childhood vaccinations. So I believe it's safe to assume that at least those that I received all those years ago, did not harm me, and did help prevent a number of diseases.
But some good people are shouldering different responsibilities. My good people just stopped forced vaccination this year. :)
Like I said, good people fool themselves, and get fooled, all the time. And good people have caused all manner of horrors in the past - with all the best of intentions. Because the biggest problem with "good people" is that they never seem to realize that they're not as good as they think they are. And they never seem to realize that they're really no better than anyone else. :think:
 

1PeaceMaker

New member
These things are all well and good, but our greatest problem at the moment in this country is the wholesale corruption of our government by a very small but very wealthy elite, that are using their corrupting influence to destroy the nation for their own fun and profit. It has gotten so bad that we can't trust our own government to stop a drug company from KILLING AND MAIMING OUR CHILDREN just to sell more of their expensive vaccines,and make even more money. Do you recognize how serious this is? These people are willing to KILL US to increase their profits. They are willing to take away our homes, our jobs, our healthcare, our health, our children's health, our access to an education, our retirement; anything. They are willing to cause us enormous suffering and even death just so they can make more money. And these are the people who are currently controlling our government: who are choosing our candidates for us, and paying for their campaigns. These are the people who are determining every decision our legislature and our presidents make (regardless of party); and they are destroying our lives and our nation as a result.

It's THAT serious.
I very much agree, but keep in mind that not everyone recognize this fact of reality through the paradigm of a religion, or theology. This isn't a struggle between the god-believers and the atheists. It's a struggle between plutocracy and socialism. And right now the plutocrats are running the show, big time, and they have been for decades. And their greed and avarice know no limit.

This has to stop, before they kill us all.
Right now, they have us all turned against each other, so that no one is holding them accountable for anything. And they know it. So they can do as they please. And they are.
But they write the laws, and appoint the judges, so they control the system that's supposed to be holding them accountable. Yet we can still vote, and our votes still do mean something, en masse. But we can't vote en masse when they have us all divided against each other. Which is why every single week we see and hear countless paid media blowhards and lunatic bloggers constantly spewing out hyperbole about the "evil liberals", and the "evil conservatives", and the "evil president", and the "evil congress", and the "evil blacks", and the "evil poor", and how everything is always those "other guy's" fault. Every election we're told the same thing: vote for our lousy, crooked candidate because their lousy, crooked candidate is even worse! And every election we fall for it! Over and over and over again! And the result is an endless succession of lousy, crooked politicians who continue to do whatever their corporate sponsors tell them to do, which is to sell out the general public for their fun and profit.

This whole vaccine issue is just another in a long line of trumped up "issues" designed to keep us all fighting with each other, so we won't wake up and start fighting the insidious plutocracy that's slowly and inexorably destroying us all.
I am nearly 60 years old, and have not had to worry about a whole host of diseases that my great grandparents had to fear because of government sponsored and enforcement of public health and safety policies, including childhood vaccinations. So I believe it's safe to assume that at least those that I received all those years ago, did not harm me, and did help prevent a number of diseases.
Like I said, good people fool themselves, and get fooled, all the time. And good people have caused all manner of horrors in the past - with all the best of intentions. Because the biggest problem with "good people" is that they never seem to realize that they're not as good as they think they are. And they never seem to realize that they're really no better than anyone else. :think:

I appreciate your contribution. :e4e: I know it's serious. I just believe I won't be able to save everybody. Hopefully we'll see a few survivors walking through the ashes. I want my children among them.
 

PureX

Well-known member
I appreciate your contribution. :e4e: I know it's serious. I just believe I won't be able to save everybody. Hopefully we'll see a few survivors walking through the ashes. I want my children among them.
Are you looking forward to the collapse of the nation? (With it will go much of the modern world.) I ask because as sad as it is to say, there are some Christians who are. More of them than we realize, I think. Because they believe they are already "saved"; they're actually looking forward to seeing all the rest of we 'fools' who mocked them getting the big 'payback'.
 

1PeaceMaker

New member
Are you looking forward to the collapse of the nation? (With it will go much of the modern world.) I ask because as sad as it is to say, there are some Christians who are. More of them than we realize, I think. Because they believe they are already "saved"; they're actually looking forward to seeing all the rest of we 'fools' who mocked them getting the big 'payback'.

Definitely not!
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Is that right? How come you used Snopes.com and didn't give a review of the facts in the rebuttal I provided? Snopes is a site started by a couple of "nobodies" also.
Those "nobodies" have more journalistic integrity than many of the main stream news sources. They are very good and finding information to either support or refute a story. That is more than can be said for bloggers with an agenda. Tell us, did you follow the link to Snopes and actually read what wax there?

I hope your engineering is better than your review of the facts in this case. :think:
You are not qualified to judge that.

But you ignored the immunologist when we posted her speech and you recently gave me junk science; that "study" harvesting information from one insurance agency that provided mixed numbers, conflating two types of vaccines, MMR and monovalent?
I didn't ignore her, I found your not to be credible. I have no doubt that she, and others, know people who have had severe reactions to vaccinations. As has been repeatedly pointed out by me, it is known that vaccinations are not without risk. She started to say stuff that is not supported by actual research.


So you assume and judge because they are skeptics without examining their reasoning? At least I consider your studies and articles...
What they assert is not supported by research. It's one thing to advise people as to the actual risks associated with vaccinations. It is something else entirely to spread lies about those risks.

Like who?
i'll ask my daughter. She just finished here paper on thus.



What's this... an ad hominem about anticipating ad hominem? :rotfl:
an ad hominem fallacy means that I attacked you instead of your arguments. You will note that I actually addressed your points before offering an observation about your conduct during this thread. As such, my response is not an ad hominem fallacy.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
You wanna know who sounds like a paranoid kook right now?

You do! :kook:
Interesting. You consider those who check the owners of a web site to be paranoid kooks. Is that why you don't check?

BOLCATS couldn't possibly be Dolo because he doesn't share theology. It would be pretty wacky of you to imagine that he changed his theology to fool you about who he was on a vaccine debate. Have you even SEEN Dolo on a vaccine debate???
okay

And you look nuts for another reason in this post, too. All the organizations you can find online pander in some way or are financially supported in their mission.
True. Which makes the mission statement critical in determining the integrity of a source. That is why the CDC will always be a better source than a blogger with an agenda.

So what is interesting is where the establishment big-money is. And the money is on the booming vaccine industry. People like Barbara Fisher and others started what they did after bad experiences with the sacrosanct medical protocols promoted in your fav websites.
Yes, they dud. and they dis so without the integrity to do peered review research to support their hypothesis.
 
Last edited:

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
You wanna know who sounds like a paranoid kook right now?

You do! :kook:


And you look nuts for another reason in this post, too. All the organizations you can find online pander in some way or are financially supported in their mission.

So what is interesting is where the establishment big-money is. And the money is on the booming vaccine industry. People like Barbara Fisher and others started what they did after bad experiences with the sacrosanct medical protocols promoted in your fav websites.


Health impact news has an untrustworthy rating for making misleading and unethical claims.
https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/healthimpactnews.com

Also see: Some Online Journals Will Publish Fake Science, For A Fee

I would say based on where you got your information from, you are the one who is nuts.
 

1PeaceMaker

New member
True. Which makes the mission statement critical in determining the integrity of a source. That is why the CDC will always be a better source than a blogger with an agenda.

Then why was a Paul Thorson, author of the "Danish Study" used to "refute" the autism connection, CDC director of autism research caught redirecting funds away from getting information to buying mansions? Can you really trust the CDC to do proper autism research with characters like these at the helm? We aren't talking about just any type of fraud, this is fraud by those researching vaccine safety.

Meanwhile, B.L. Fisher is heading a non-profit and doing research.

If Thorson is a thief, why don't you suspect he's a liar, too?
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Then why was a Paul Thorson, author of the "Danish Study" used to "refute" the autism connection, CDC director of autism research caught redirecting funds away from getting information to buying mansions? Can you really trust the CDC to do proper autism research with characters like these at the helm? We aren't talking about just any type of fraud, this is fraud by those researching vaccine safety.
Yes, he can still be trusted. The fact that he got greedy and started to steal does not change the fact that any research coming out if the CDC is peer reviewed and held to high standards. Peer reviewed means that the whole study us reviewed including methods. The science remains solid.

Meanwhile, B.L. Fisher is heading a non-profit and doing research.
Well, let's see the peer reviewed studies published in a medical journal. The research is not complete until the research is reviewed and the comments of the reviewers addressed.

If Thorson is a thief, why don't you suspect he's a liar, too?
In regards to matters of personal finance, yes. In regards to the work he did, no. Look up the peer review process to understand why.
 

1PeaceMaker

New member
Yes, he can still be trusted. The fact that he got greedy and started to steal does not change the fact that any research coming out if the CDC is peer reviewed and held to high standards. Peer reviewed means that the whole study us reviewed including methods. The science remains solid.

How can you say that research coming out of them is held to high standards? What sort of high standards (for example) do you imagine? What data are they working with in a totally transparent, non-game-able way?

The CDC is riddled with conflicts of interest. There is no way that would allow for integrity when eliminating scientific compromise means eliminating whole massive income streams.

Well, let's see the peer reviewed studies published in a medical journal. The research is not complete until the research is reviewed and the comments of the reviewers addressed.

You said she lacked the integrity to follow-through and do a study. Now you can see you spoke too soon. Just own up to the fact that you didn't expose a lack of integrity.

A desire to protect other children from the damage her's suffered from the DTap does not equal a lack of integrity. Can you see that?

In regards to matters of personal finance, yes. In regards to the work he did, no. Look up the peer review process to understand why.

WASHINGTON — A new report finds that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did a poor job of screening medical experts for financial conflicts when it hired them to advise the agency on vaccine safety, officials said Thursday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/health/policy/18cdc.html?_r=0

How can the process be any good when the kinds of people staffing the CDC are this messed up? Smart criminals are famous for scamming and gaming complex systems. This would not require a giant conspiracy, it just requires morally compromised individuals working on a given task to sell everyone on the safety of a popular product.
 

BOLCATS

BANNED
Banned
Why is it so many of us trust Government institutions wholesale? Has anyone seen the massive chicanery going on at the IRS to punish the tea party and other conservative groups? What about the closing of some lanes in NYC on the GW bridge to punish political opponents? Why do some of us not see the same possibility in the CDC? When government regulates, those from whom it regulates lobby and pour money into campaign coffers to keep their businesses from suffering from regulations. So studies are done to determine the safety of vaccines? Suppose a study comes out that finds a serious issue in some vaccines? Sometimes, papers are not even given the peer review process. Just look at Global Warming. The skeptic papers are not even given the time of day...straight to the trash....way too much is at stake for them to be given serious consideration. You don't think the peer review process at the CDC is any less vulnerable to corruption? The papers that are not even given review are where the real data is at...not in the ones who go through peer review. It is not wonder that you will only find pro vax papers in the journals.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
How can you say that research coming out of them is held to high standards? What sort of high standards (for example) do you imagine? What data are they working with in a totally transparent, non-game-able way?
Instead of offering these thinly veiled assertions that sound compromising but are actually emotional pleas, why don't you pick some stupidities and discuss the standards that were used to produce the study. Go get the data that was developed during the study and review it. Don't just hide behind your key board crying about how bad the CDC is, go get the data and support your point.

The CDC is riddled with conflicts of interest. There is no way that would allow for integrity when eliminating scientific compromise means eliminating whole massive income streams.
This statement is false. There are researchers that have either real or apparent conflicts of interest, but the CDC itself has a stated mission and carries it out fairly well. The peer review process helps to weed out the conflicts of interest.

You said she lacked the integrity to follow-through and do a study. Now you can see you spoke too soon. Just own up to the fact that you didn't expose a lack of integrity.
As soon as she produces a study, submits it for peer review and has it published, I will. Until then what I have said remains accurate.

A desire to protect other children from the damage her's suffered from the DTap does not equal a lack of integrity. Can you see that?
Lets see, if I go back through this thread I remember somebody saying that vaccines are not with out risk. Who said that? Oh yea, me. It is one thing to say my child suffered a negative reaction to a vaccination and these are the questions you should ask when considering vaccinations for your children. It is quite another to say that vaccines cause autism when there is no truth to that statement.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/health/policy/18cdc.html?_r=0

How can the process be any good when the kinds of people staffing the CDC are this messed up? Smart criminals are famous for scamming and gaming complex systems. This would not require a giant conspiracy, it just requires morally compromised individuals working on a given task to sell everyone on the safety of a popular product.
I see you have not taken the time to read up on the peer review process. Because you have not, you post things like that reveal your deep ignorance regarding the scientific process.
 

1PeaceMaker

New member
Instead of offering these thinly veiled assertions that sound compromising but are actually emotional pleas, why don't you pick some stupidities and discuss the standards that were used to produce the study. Go get the data that was developed during the study and review it. Don't just hide behind your key board crying about how bad the CDC is, go get the data and support your point.

This statement is false. There are researchers that have either real or apparent conflicts of interest, but the CDC itself has a stated mission and carries it out fairly well. The peer review process helps to weed out the conflicts of interest.

As soon as she produces a study, submits it for peer review and has it published, I will. Until then what I have said remains accurate.

Lets see, if I go back through this thread I remember somebody saying that vaccines are not with out risk. Who said that? Oh yea, me. It is one thing to say my child suffered a negative reaction to a vaccination and these are the questions you should ask when considering vaccinations for your children. It is quite another to say that vaccines cause autism when there is no truth to that statement.



I see you have not taken the time to read up on the peer review process. Because you have not, you post things like that reveal your deep ignorance regarding the scientific process.

1. It's a lack of integrity for you to say she lacks it when she's in the midst of the very action you said she lacked integrity for supposedly not doing. She's not wrong to help set up compensation for families like hers and spearhead an organization dedicated to uncovering the truth and doing research. That's the opposite of what you claim about her.

2. You are the one who is revealing his deep ignorance regarding the business of science. I have posted already enough information that reasonable people can see the conflict of interest. Even our political leaders have sounded a warning about the danger they see.

3. Pharma has already been demonstrably shown to be dangerously dishonest in passing certain drugs through the approval process. I say the burden rests on you now to prove otherwise to protective parents.

4. Fisher's children demonstrated repeated sensitivity, known in science as the challenge-rechallenge - when done purposefully it's called a method. But revisiting vaccinations that hurt a child and seeing more damage is just as effective as an intentional experiment. For example, if you have a serious reaction to bees more than once, you know it's not a coincidence. She knows that only a few children will be damaged like hers, but that doesn't make her wrong for helping those families like hers and discussing the real risks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenge–dechallenge–rechallenge
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
1. It's a lack of integrity for you to say she lacks it when she's in the midst of the very action you said she lacked integrity for supposedly not doing. She's not wrong to help set up compensation for families like hers and spearhead an organization dedicated to uncovering the truth and doing research. That's the opposite of what you claim about her.
Time will tell.

2. You are the one who is revealing his deep ignorance regarding the business of science. I have posted already enough information that reasonable people can see the conflict of interest. Even our political leaders have sounded a warning about the danger they see.
You have posted many emotional pleas but very little in the way of actual evidence.

3. Pharma has already been demonstrably shown to be dangerously dishonest in passing certain drugs through the approval process. I say the burden rests on you now to prove otherwise to protective parents.
Consider the stupidity of what you just said. It is not in the best interest of Pharmacy companies to recklessly release drugs that are known to be unsafe for the sake of financial gain. Can you say lawsuit? Go look up the Ford Pinto case to see what happens to a large company when they know of a deadly flaw and choose to ignore it.

I recent years there have been drugs that have passed all the required testing and been released only to be recalled because they caused death is some cases. Now do some research into statistics to understand that drugs are tested on a representative population. Turns out there is no way to accurately represent an entire population using small sample size.

Were these drugs released maliciously? The answer appears to be no given no criminal chargers were filed.

4. Fisher's children demonstrated repeated sensitivity, known in science as the challenge-rechallenge method. She knows that only a few children will be damaged like her, but that doesn't make her wrong for helping those families like hers and discussing the real risks.
I didn't say she was wrong for pointing out that vaccines are not risk free. She is wrong if she states that vaccines cause autism.
 

1PeaceMaker

New member
Time will tell.

And time gave you no excuse to say that about her in the first place.

You have posted many emotional pleas but very little in the way of actual evidence.
Not credible coming from the guy who didn't even understand live viruses in the MMR until my husband explained it to you with facts galore. Remember the measles party thread? You really learned few things there, didn't you? And Anna's thread, and we learned ya some more on Nori's thread.... You are learning from us and it seems to me you typically don't show evidence of reviewing our facts and articles, unless you are pushed into it.

You didn't even read my healthimpactnews article refuting the snopes article you gave, did you?

Consider the stupidity of what you just said. It is not in the best interest of Pharmacy companies to recklessly release drugs that are known to be unsafe for the sake of financial gain.
....

Were these drugs released maliciously? The answer appears to be no given no criminal chargers were filed.

You haven't compared the penalties to the profits, have you? And when men should go to jail, it's widely understood they don't. Remember this thread?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108843

I didn't say she was wrong for pointing out that vaccines are not risk free. She is wrong if she states that vaccines cause autism.

Tell that to the parents, like her, who had non-autistic kids until the shot, smiling, talking, and making eye-contact - until the shots stole them piece by piece. Each time having a worse reaction.

You acknowledge risks and the limits of studies yet insult the parents who have seen adverse reaction nightmares leading to neurological disorders in otherwise healthy children.
 
Top