@TurboDally All we did was exchanged them for different diseases, illnesses and cancers. Would you market a product that people would only need once or market a product that would keep people coming back? People are BIG PHARMA'S bread and butter!
Smallpox=eradicated=win=millions of lives saved. It wasn't a tinker toy infection but a deadly one. There are plenty of diseases out there for evil big pharma to try to treat/eradicate - they don't need to worry about losing out on market opportunites.
Vaccines/medicine? Sure. There are still numerous diseases out there, many of which have pestered humanity for centuries for companies/scientists to focus on. We are at an age where we have great sanitation facilities, the ability to wipe out certain diseases with VACCINES (eek!), antibiotics, better surgery practises, knowledge about healthy food etc which enable us to live past 70 easily. All you want to do is drag us back, no thanks to you or your anti-science propoganda.
@TurboDally RIGHT! Watch "Bill Gates on population reduction" "New vaccines, health care and reproductive services could lower population perhaps by 10 or 15%" I am not anti-science, but PHARM science is bought and paid for! FYI: There is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy!
I don't buy your "vaccines cause sterility" nonsense. I also see no problem with population reduction, we see it when people decide to have fewer children as they don't need to worry as much about infant mortality and poor health.
"I''m not anti science, but pharm science is bought and paid for"
Duh! So is every other science
"FYI there is no Santa" - there is no vaccine conspiracy either.
"New vaccines, health care and reproductive services could lower population perhaps by 10 or 15%"
So vaccines, healthcare & reproductive services are in some "conspiracy" to lower the population. What utter BS. Vaccines don't reduce population, another fearmongering propoganda spread by militant Islamists preventing the polio vaccine from reaching their kids. Look at how you lump vaccines with "reproductive services", go take your dishonesty elsewhere.
I've seen enough children at risk due to people like you lowering the herd immunity to diseases such as pertusis, go screw yourself. And while your at it, you might want to boycott yout computer, internet, electricity etc all due to big corporations.
I know, it must hurt you alot knowing that you are contributing to the health risk towards children by lowering herd immunity & spreading misinformation.
The fact that you think it is funny is a testament to your carelessness - undoing the hard work of biological scientists by allowing diseases to flourish when they should have been eradicated. You laugh now when diseases like smallpox have been eradicated by the vaccines you hate so much.
@TurboDally .So what you think Sodium Fluoride in our drinking water is good for us too? How about MSGs? What about melamine in baby formula? Small Pox Vaccine= Good........name another vaccine that is good?...The polio vaccine that has been admitted to have caused cancer in most who received it?
Or maybe the Gardisil shot?....How about that swine flu shot?...Just wondering where your passion comes from. Do you get paid for commenting? How much experience have you had with vaccines?
As long as the levels are low & the fluoride is the right type.
"Small Pox Vaccine= Good"
A vaccine that can prevent the occurrence of a potentially deadly pathogen.
"Your passion"
I'm for reducing suffering across the world; healthy eating, exercise, healthcare, eradicating diseases etc. I also find it irresponsible when people deliberately lower herd immunity - putting those who genuinely can't receive vaccines (due to allergies/issues etc) at risk.
Delivering them? None. Taking them? Lots. I also study biology at university & have spent some time on immunology – so I know what vaccines are about. I also have contact with various biological scientists & medical staff providing me with all the information I need regarding your "NWO fluoride/vaccine" conspiracy. It's so sad I had to waste some of their research time asking about this BS.
The reason I hear from persons in my circle is they "Do not trust these vaccine's, they do not trust doctors who try to convince them to be vaccinated and they FEAR the government. When you have a fear of a government and other large organizations (AMA) there is a problem. Something has been brewing for over 20 years now.
@sikovit Unfortunately for the anti-vaccine movement there is no actual evidence that supports their claims. There is a risk to being vaccinated (very very very small) and no one denies that but the risk one faces by not getting vaccinated is so much worse. Look at the studies done on vaccines from reputable sources. Anecdotal evidence does not cannot apply as all the other factors are not known. But I have a feeling that this is all falling on deaf ears.
Just as Scientology is gaining because TRUTH CANNOT BE COUNTERED!? Yeah. Any BS can effort can gain publicity with celebrities and money, it doesn't even have to be the truth.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You know, I really don't give a fuck about children diying from any disease and Cancer. I don't care if they are sick in the hospital. Why should I care? it is not my problem and it aint part of my life so there is no reason to care for the children diying from diseases. It is there shit not my shit. I only care about my family and I don't give a fuck if some person that I don't know dies and I don't give a shit about Go Green. Go Green, pssh fuck that shit.
ha ha ha... 8DX, recommend you never miss an opportunity to get a vaccine... ask for extra strength of Thimerosal, and a special dose of Squalene. Tell them the magic hand puppet sent you. LMAO
May as well, since it's been clinically tested on humans at 20,000 times the dosage injected into the bloodstream without any detectable effects whatsoever.
Still, that's only science, so if you'd rather believe internet conspiracy theories I suppose it's up to you. Maybe if you wore a hat made out of tinfoil it would help?
... perhaps you call it science... But you probably also call the studies that the cigarette companies released which concluded that cigarettes are not addictive or carcinogenic.
Instead of debating on youtube regarding subjects you clearly do not know much about, why don't you go research epidemiological studies which use science to prove your assumptions about science and vaccines wrong.
because trying to teach an idiot the fallacy of his arguments is like trying to cure a case of GuillainBarré syndrome caused by vaccination: Futile. If you are not an idiot (a big "if"), then you are operating on blind faith that proper scientific method was used in the studies you worship OR you are simply a shill for big pharma. Either way, I recommend you get a double dose of the swine flu vaccine "while supplies last"!...
>>All medical science and technological achievements to date demonstrate that belief in science is anything but blind faith
ha ha ha... nice try. There is nothing wrong with scientific method. But your blind faith is that scientific method is being used in whatever "studies" you worship. Has it ever occurred to you that people with science degrees are corruptible? Or, does the fact that they have been trained in the scientific method make you think they stay uncorrupted? So gullible...
"Has it ever occurred to you that people with science degrees are corruptible?"
I know for a fact that they are. But what I also know, and you apparently do not, is how the peer review process of the international scientific community always uncovers corruption. There is simply no way to intentionally lie in a paper that won't be found out when other scientists are trying as hard as they can to disprove you.
>>when other scientists are trying as hard as they can to disprove you.
...assuming that the scientists who are participating in the peer review are not employed by any entity which receives any money whatsoever from any big pharma source or network of foundations proven to be directly tied to the pharma companies... I am sure that is what you meant to say. And, of course, this rules out pretty much all paid scientists right?
It's not 'a peer review' or 'the peer review' it's the ongoing process of peer review open to any scientist in the field who can demonstrate an error or an unsound or invalid assumption in the original paper.
The best way for a scientist to make a name for themselves and gain recognition and respect in the scientific community is to prove papers erroneous and publish papers that don't get proven erroneous.
The process of peer review is specifically designed to seek out and destroy bad science, and to be immune from the corruption which can affect individual scientists.
Please at the very least find out what peer review actually is before saying that it does not work. Otherwise you're just making unsupported assumptions to justify your own ignorant prejudice without any basis in fact.
I am very familiar with the peer review process in the scientific community. However, indoctrination and bias are powerful forces to be reckoned with.
You're right, vaccinated kids might end up retarded.
The thing is, unvaccinated kids show EXACTLY THE SAME rates of autism, with just as many of them developing autism spectrum disorders at the age they WOULD have been vaccinated (if their parents didn't neglect them out of paranoia and profound ignorance).
Why do you think that is? Do you think? At all? Or do you just repeat whatever sounds most dramatic without checking your facts?
No, Western medicine is science, not religion. People don't take vitamins because they are written in some holy book, but because experimental evidence shows that our bodies need them, and we should take them to compliment our diet.
Things like homeopathy on the other hand - that is religion.
science bought and paid for by sales and marketing. nope no religion there. i suppose it depends on what you think religion is. keep in mind if you work for pepsi don't be drinking coke...those people or vice versa. note: read between the lines whomever you are.
Well that is the problem of a capitalist system. Doctor's don't however buy a substance because of its brand name, but for the chemical substances contained in it, based on clinical trials and effectivity of that substance.
The fact that one brand of vitamins (or vaccine) is twice as expensive but is (perhaps agressively) marketed as better doesn't change the fact that the substances inside are the same.
These things raise the cost, not the principles of Western medicine. A doctor wouldn't prescribe pepsi if coke was bad for you.
you take my words so seriously lol. a commercial break hardly passes without a commercial pharmaceutical that almost always states the risks of side effects ad infinitum for taking their "scientific" medicine. come on whoever you are...i'm afraid the pepsi/coke example went over your head. but whatever...gobble up science at your own risk...have fun. :-)
Um yar no need to be to serious =). Tho science is serious.. what I was trying to point out is exactly what you are talking about: science is one thing and commercial sales of products and advertising is another.
We don't have "commercial pharmaceuticals" here like you in the US (we have cough-drop ads), so I guess you may have more hype over there. But science and scientific medicine saves lives and shouldn't be scoffed at.
i don't really know what goes on "over there" but suffice to say do you notice that disease is hardly cured anymore but rather treated in$tead? also, yes, i agree that medicine can save lives but on the record it also destroys lives. there's no question about that ad infinitum. btw i knew James Randi when i was a kid and I'm still a big fan but science is not always science just because it says so. i think you are a player of this side or that side. that could get you in trouble someday.
No, I don't sorry. The only medicine in my country that doesn't heal people is crackpot "alternative" medicine - homeopathy, acupuncture, fire cupping, laying on of hands etc etc. Both my parents have been provided with life-saving medical care, my father is still alive with healthy cholesterol levels thanks to correctly prescribed medication and diet. He also lives peacefully with the gout.
It's not medicine CAN save lives its medicine DOES save lives. Greed & Stupidity are the killers.
Sorry for the tone again =) it's just I find it so absurd.. western medicine prolongs lifespans by decades and aleviates pain as well as many other problems. It's not a matter of opinion. Make fun of the commercials, of big pharma if you like - science is science and it's the best thing we have =) .. Of course science isn't just "because it says so" - washing powder adverts with whitecoats aren't science. But the washing powder already contains substances discovered to clean clothes be science.
"Sacrificing the health of the children" - First of all, we don't know how effective the vaccine actually is, nor do we have any satisfying info on it's side effects. Before anyone runs out to "save" the children, he should calculate the pros and cons.
Swine-flu has been inflated by the media, portraying it as the beast from hell. Well, swine-flu is just another influenza, that's all.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To the parents who refuse to even consider whether or not vaccinations may be dangerous for children - you won't worry a single bit about it and you shouldn't anyhow. Natural Selection will weed out bloodlines which poison themselves with mercury, so have all the fun you want pumping mercury into your children's brains. Since we can't seem to implement change ourselves we'll just have to sit back and let nature do it for us.
"so have all the fun you want pumping mercury into your children's brains"
Why aren't you campaigning against seafood ? That contains more mercury in a form that is bioavailable.
How do you explain the fact that 20,000 times the amount of ethyl mercury had no detectable effect when injected into volunteers? Or the fact that autism occurs at exactly the same rate in children who aren't vaccinated? Or the fact that the only study to claim a link was proved fraudulent?
Are you joking? Do you understand the different in cellular intake of food you ingest vs. injection into the blood stream? It's amazing how sheep fall for such non sequitur.
"the different in cellular intake of food you ingest vs. injection into the blood stream?"
So your point is that bioavailable substances you eat don't get into your bloodstream?
The main difference is that mercury in seafood is already in a highly bioavailable form specifically targeted to be absorbed into cells through oral ingestion (that's how it got into the fish in the first place) whereas thimerosal is in a ethyl compound which the body can easily filter and excrete.
@m3141592 I agree completely. In addition, it seems that no one is even paying attention to the very fact that the medical community has both improved its methods of diagnosing children as autistic and have increased what it means to be autistic - the very term now is more an umbrella term for several similar disorders. Geez, if you increase your diagnosing effectiveness AND add more illnesses to the term, obviously you will have more children diagnosed with autism. Its common sense.
They say that no matter how stubborn a refusing parent is, the anti-anti-vaccination group must be willing to work with them for the health of the child. I can see it happening if they own up to the following facts:
1. Vaccinations contain mercury.
2. Rational parents won't want to pump mercury into the veins and brains of their children.
3. So many vaccinations are mandatory.
4. To work with us stubborn people, you must be willing to stop the state from using mercury and other toxins.
You might want to watch some more of the videos in this series, because they explain that 1: (in the US) vaccines do not contain mercury thanks to the efforts of the anti vac people getting the particular suspension agent that contained it outlawed, and 2: the particular suspension solution contained a form of mercury that was not harmful in the concentrations that is was used in that solution.
That's true, hence you basing your beliefs on a single flawed study by someone who was found guilty of gross scientific misconduct and fraud, and ignoring hundreds of valid and rigorous studies which show not link whatsoever.
There is no evidence whatsoever of what you're claiming, and overwhelming evidence that the opposite is true.
>>There is no evidence whatsoever of what you're claiming, and overwhelming evidence that the opposite is true.
Yes, when facts try to penetrate the big pharma "fact" checking propaganda machine... you are correct... there has never been a single person in the world harmed by any vaccine... ever. And, if you believe this, please ask for a triple dose of swine flu this year... since it's 100% guaranteed to be safe and has been double-blind tested for very long-term side effects. Yeah, right.
I think that your beliefs are an expression of your emotional state. You feel a particular way about the world, and life in general, so you look for an argument which best matches and retrospectively justifies that emotional state.
I don't think it has anything to do with facts or the reality of the situation. I'm curious what other conspiracy theories you believe in? All of them or just this one?
Ha ha ha... "conspiracy theory"? You have been trained well little sheepy. Perhaps you think the SEC are all conspiracy theorists for alleging that Maddoff has other "conspirators" in his little Ponzi scheme. Or, perhaps you would suggest that those who currently believe that certain scientists having the credentials you've been trained to worship, paid by cigarette companies, fudged their findings are all conspiracy theorists? Yes, stay asleep and get your flu shot... make it a double.
I wouldn't know about that. I guess it's an american thing.
"cigarette companies, fudged their findings"
Their scientific fraud and misconduct was proven by the peer review of the international scientific community. Though frankly anyone with a decent understanding of the method could have spotted it, and there were papers already in the literature (from 40 years ago) which soundly refuted their bullshit.
"That's interesting since they were able to get away with it for so long."
They 'got away with it' in commerce, the media, and public opinion specifically because those arenas are largely ignorant of the method and the process of peer review.
They did not 'get away with it' in the scientific community because they had been proven wrong 40 years before.
Though you don't realize it, your statement is a perfect example of why you should be listening to peer review rather than word of mouth.
I think a lot of the problem with that statement is the fact that you don't actually know how science works. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that everything claimed as science by the media and industry is actually real science.
It is most certainly not. The only way to identify real science is to learn the Method and keep up with the peer review process.
Of course you may not have the time or critical faculties to do that, so an acceptable alternative is reputable sources.
How is that any more ariesine that repeating things that you hear from fox news or scientifically illiterate rumour peddlers on internet forums?
I'd suggest that it is less so, since sheep are characterised by their unthinkingly following the herd, rather than choosing their own path based on the available options.
>>I think that your beliefs are an expression of your emotional state
Then I hope you understand that I am laughing at the gullible nature of so many people. There is so much "cigarette" science which has corrupted many issues so deeply that it is simply unpopular to question them. How many times has a drug been recalled after passing all levels of peer review and made it through to public consumption only to later find that the rushed scientific studies were "flawed"?
Can you prove that they are? Unless you have solid proof that they are, there's no reason to believe that it does.
Seriously, there are few things in this would that have saved more lives than vaccines. It's people like you that have taken for granted their important to the health of our society. For every 1000 children you "think" you're saving from so called carcinogins or autism causing agents, you've effectively killed a lot of them to brutal diseases like measles or the mumps
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Thanks for enlightening me! Who cares about proving that something doesn't cause cancer, most of us are going to die from it anyway thanks to these Eugenicists who took over the medical Industry like the Rockefeller family.
Are the "eugenicists" also randomly giving the other eukaryotes on this planet cancer as well? Plants and wild animals get it too, after all. Are plant cancers part of the Rockefeller's plans as well?
If you have evidence that someone "runs" "the medical industry" (as though it were in any way monolithic) please feel free to enlighten us. Otherwise, you really shouldn't expect anyone to believe you.
As FairCogent already said, cancer exists within pretty much all animal groups, and cancer-like tumours can form in plants too.
Your baseless claims can easily be refuted by anyone with the following abilities:
To use logic
To smell - in particular - BULLSHIT!
To Google
When people have the ability to do each of these simultaneously, then your spiel has very little chance of survival, other than in your own tiny little mind.
Argument from ignorance. You must prove your own claims first. If we have to by default prove you incorrect, that requires first assuming that you are correct even though you have not established your position as being such - this is also known as "guilty until proven innocent".
If you are going to claim that the vaccines are carcinogenic, back yourself up. If not, then do not argue from ignorance and shift the burden of proof.
Can you prove that the dents on my car bonnet were not made by pink unicorns stepping on it, when it was used as an obstacle in the bi-annual unicorn steeple derby?
Read up on Russell's Teapot, and as Setar rightly pointed out, check out the concept of "Burden of Proof", before going around scattering your seeds of ignorance, across the fields of knowledge.
Of the 86 children who have died since the new swine flu arose last spring, 43 deaths have been reported in September and early October alone, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. That's a startling number because in some past winters, the CDC has counted 40 or 50 child deaths for the entire flu season — and no one knows how long this swine flu outbreak will last.
Look at how many people believe some idiot in the Vatican who claims AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse.
It's difficult to change a mindset. It's difficult to resist propaganda when it has some catchy phrases. Education and willingness to learn don't come easy.
The problem could be, that there are some people who for biological reasons can't have the vaccine. They count on the rest of us having it so the disease is less likely to hit them. Makes sense to me. In places where the vaccine is free, there is no excuse not to have it, (unless you have a health problem that forbids it, of course).
Often when the media releases correlative data they skew it and do it incorrectly. When it comes to statistics I don't but much in what a non science article says about it.
By refuse do they mean not taking it themselves? Whats the sample size? What issues do they have against it? Have they raised their concerns with the manufacturer CSL? Is it political?
That number 1/2 means nothing, still, even after you semi cited it.
I should clarify when i say the doctors aren't taking it themselves, might be for the same reason I have never bothered with the flu vaccination. Mostly not that serious, deal with it when I get it.
H1N1 variable mutation through large population infection is the only real concern. But since this is free I might take it anyway, a large enough population does need to take it. If we all said no to it... Well that would defeat the purpose of it.
So what I mean to say is yes I know of 2 off the top of my head, one was in Africa a few decades ago to do with not HIV but I can't remember what, but I know it was not HIV. And a very controversial one which was recently done on the HIV vaccine. Only a month or so ago.
btw, when someone refers to Barack Obama as the president of the united states do you also ask for sources? Or maybe you ask for his birth certificate.
When something is common knowledge in the world of educated and informed people do they have to justify it everytime a guy like you shows-up? Just asking.
Yes... It's common knowledge to people outside of France that 1/2 doctors refuse to inoculate for hte H1N1 vaccine. If you consider that common knowledge your definition of common needs reconsidering.
In Australia no complaints, no news coverage other than CSL and the fact that everyone can be inoculated and for free, if they choose.
I don't know who the french president is either. Do you know the prime minister of Australia?
I happen to know it, but if I didn't and you were to state him, I wouldn't ask your source, if I had a doubt I would do my own research and certainly not call you a liar : )
I forgot that for many people what isn't in their language doesn't exsit.
For your information, it is also the case for british, german doctors, you might be able to check that one out.
And I am really sorry but le monde is one of the top european newspapers.
watch?v=33Ly-zaJ2jY&feature=related translation in info box
If your statement about european doctors is true, why doesn't ECDC note this in its flu reports and updates? A newspaper, as we are all finding out right now, is not a credible source for information of this kind. If so many doctors refused vaccination, ECDC would list this as one of the obstacles to the vaccination program. That would be credible information.
Again it's a newspaper. Most people don't understand statistical data. I in all honesty doubt someone with an arts degree understands what the statistics means.
"Science proves A results from B". Where as what the data says is "Given C, under conditions D, we not a high correlation between A and B with a p value of .03, making the result statistically significant."
youtube won't let me put the exact urls, but basically it as been writen in all the most respectable french newspapers and broadcasted by tv stations as well. For example, you can still find the article on the "le monde" website or put "un medecin sur deux refuse" in your favorite search engine and you'll find the endless list of references. Hope it help.
Is it common knowledge for everyone to be able to read a French newspaper? Your citing sources that aren't even published in an English language science/medicine journal. Why would anyone who concerns themselves with the subject of immunology care?
Next time consider citing a journal with an impact factor greater than 10.
"A team of researchers led by Paul Chan from the Chinese University of Hong Kong surveyed over 8,500 doctors, nurses, and other health professionals working at 31 hospital departments in Hong Kong."
"This study provides important information on barriers to vaccination," the authors conclude.
"Campaigns to promote vaccination should consider addressing the knowledge gap of staff and the specific target groups for intervention."
You only referred to that when I commented about the situation as seen by me in Australia. Had you perhaps posted something similar to the SBS report. Even a translated version of the French article citing their sources.
My overall point is, when scientific minded people start to behave like religious fanatics and take all truth as holy then there is no hope left for humanity.
Scientific minded ppl dont take all truth as holy. They take all info, analyze it, submit it for peer review, test it over and over again and then if it has proven itself it is introduced as truth. So they take all truth as true period.
In an ideal world, I agree with you all the way. But you'll realise that they more than often don't these days. The best example is right here. I am bringing a fact on the table, but because it disturbs some scientific minded people's mind sets, then they trigger an intifada against me. As always they start to laugh, then get angry, and finally will cry. I am not defending any cause, I am not pro nor anti h1n1 vaccination, I am just passing on some news and they shoot the messenger.
In addition to your source bieng in a language I cannot understand. It is at the end of the day an unreliable media report portraying often incorrectly science and statistics.
SBS and the ABC are one of the few (with shows like catalyst) newsources that report science topics well. But they are mainly governmentally run. I would not consider The Age or the Herald Sun a good source (Australias two major newspapers).
I've never bothered with a flu vaccine because I'm just willing to get the flu, because I know I'll survive after a few weeks of great annoyance. That said I'm now in contact with mutagens on a weekly basis, so I probably should.
I'm sure jenny mc-bimbo thinks it's cute to stand behind not vaccinating, but if she knew how unsexy measles, mumps, rubella, and let's not forget polio was maybe she'd stop being so crazy
Why bother to help the anti-vax movments children? The reason science has been able to march on and conquer the world is because those who govern their life after reason and science survive and those who govern their life after supersticion dies off. If the conspiracy nuts gets to be too many they will kill us all and then themselves.
Why bother to help the anti-vax movments children?
Are you serious? If compassion for children (who don't yet fully understand the reasons for vaccination) having to possibly pay a high price for their parent's ignorance isn't persuasive, how about the fact that multitudes of un-vaccinated children can be wonderful little incubators for lovely little variations on already dangerous illnesses?
The problem is the likely response is going to be a law for forced vaccinations which is going to incite an already distrusting public. The gov has become so corrupt that nobody trusts them anymore. The better response would be a public education program. Maybe we can counter J McCarthy's message with stories of children with polio and other diseases that are prevented with vaccines. All the hoopla of forced N1H1 vaccination laws are really riling up the public.
Vaccinations not only protect the recipient, but the population as a whole. Thus, the need for all to receive the vaccination, to make it as effective as possible.
Usually, individual actions have much more impact on the population than one might first think.
The anti-vax movement got all the characteristics of a conspiracy theory. And against those there has not been a vaxine discovered yet. Both silence about it and the will to explain everything seem to be the wrong choice and strengthen the believers in it. One fact that is not really denyable is usually enough - in this case it is about pharma concerns drooling for the next epidemic because it means easy money for them.
So, they are thinking along the lines of sacrificing health of the children, and how to get that message out there. That argument doesn't work for anti vaccine believers. Because they think they are sacrificing the health of their children with vaccines.
This has been flagged as spam show
I'M WILLING TO SHOW MY TITS
causeandmistake 1 year ago
I have met plenty of people aware of the vaccine scare who sided with science.
Don't underestimate the outreach of your blogs!
nicolaswirth 1 year ago
Vaccines effected the HEALTH of our children, that is why WE WOKE UP!!!
1jtbt1 1 year ago
@1jtbt1
Yeah, they decreased the likelihood of contracting certain dangerous diseases.
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally All we did was exchanged them for different diseases, illnesses and cancers. Would you market a product that people would only need once or market a product that would keep people coming back? People are BIG PHARMA'S bread and butter!
1jtbt1 1 year ago
@1jtbt1
Smallpox=eradicated=win=millions of lives saved. It wasn't a tinker toy infection but a deadly one. There are plenty of diseases out there for evil big pharma to try to treat/eradicate - they don't need to worry about losing out on market opportunites.
TurboDally 1 year ago
Comment removed
1jtbt1 1 year ago
@TurboDally Exactly, for THEY are the ones who create them! Watch "The Marketing of Madness" 1-18 or "Drugging our Children" 1-13
1jtbt1 1 year ago
@1jtbt1
Vaccines/medicine? Sure. There are still numerous diseases out there, many of which have pestered humanity for centuries for companies/scientists to focus on. We are at an age where we have great sanitation facilities, the ability to wipe out certain diseases with VACCINES (eek!), antibiotics, better surgery practises, knowledge about healthy food etc which enable us to live past 70 easily. All you want to do is drag us back, no thanks to you or your anti-science propoganda.
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally RIGHT! Watch "Bill Gates on population reduction" "New vaccines, health care and reproductive services could lower population perhaps by 10 or 15%" I am not anti-science, but PHARM science is bought and paid for! FYI: There is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy!
1jtbt1 1 year ago
@1jtbt1
I don't buy your "vaccines cause sterility" nonsense. I also see no problem with population reduction, we see it when people decide to have fewer children as they don't need to worry as much about infant mortality and poor health.
"I''m not anti science, but pharm science is bought and paid for"
Duh! So is every other science
"FYI there is no Santa" - there is no vaccine conspiracy either.
TurboDally 1 year ago
"New vaccines, health care and reproductive services could lower population perhaps by 10 or 15%"
So vaccines, healthcare & reproductive services are in some "conspiracy" to lower the population. What utter BS. Vaccines don't reduce population, another fearmongering propoganda spread by militant Islamists preventing the polio vaccine from reaching their kids. Look at how you lump vaccines with "reproductive services", go take your dishonesty elsewhere.
TurboDally 1 year ago
@1jtbt1
I've seen enough children at risk due to people like you lowering the herd immunity to diseases such as pertusis, go screw yourself. And while your at it, you might want to boycott yout computer, internet, electricity etc all due to big corporations.
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally TRUTH HURTS! LMAO
1jtbt1 1 year ago
@1jtbt1
"TRUTH HURTS! LMAO"
I know, it must hurt you alot knowing that you are contributing to the health risk towards children by lowering herd immunity & spreading misinformation.
The fact that you think it is funny is a testament to your carelessness - undoing the hard work of biological scientists by allowing diseases to flourish when they should have been eradicated. You laugh now when diseases like smallpox have been eradicated by the vaccines you hate so much.
TurboDally 1 year ago
@TurboDally .So what you think Sodium Fluoride in our drinking water is good for us too? How about MSGs? What about melamine in baby formula? Small Pox Vaccine= Good........name another vaccine that is good?...The polio vaccine that has been admitted to have caused cancer in most who received it?
Or maybe the Gardisil shot?....How about that swine flu shot?...Just wondering where your passion comes from. Do you get paid for commenting? How much experience have you had with vaccines?
sikovit 1 year ago
"Sodium Fluoride...drinking water"
As long as the levels are low & the fluoride is the right type.
"Small Pox Vaccine= Good"
A vaccine that can prevent the occurrence of a potentially deadly pathogen.
"Your passion"
I'm for reducing suffering across the world; healthy eating, exercise, healthcare, eradicating diseases etc. I also find it irresponsible when people deliberately lower herd immunity - putting those who genuinely can't receive vaccines (due to allergies/issues etc) at risk.
TurboDally 1 year ago 2
@TurboDally ....And what kind of fluoride is safe?...haha
sikovit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sikovit
".And what kind of fluoride is safe?...haha"
And what kind of sodium is safe? ...haha.
Don't forget to take concentration/levels into account.
...haha
TurboDally 1 year ago
@sikovit The dose makes the poison silly.
soulinite 1 year ago
@sikovit
"Paid for commenting?"
Not a penny.
"How much experience have you had with vaccines?"
Delivering them? None. Taking them? Lots. I also study biology at university & have spent some time on immunology – so I know what vaccines are about. I also have contact with various biological scientists & medical staff providing me with all the information I need regarding your "NWO fluoride/vaccine" conspiracy. It's so sad I had to waste some of their research time asking about this BS.
TurboDally 1 year ago 2
Who is the young guy on the panel that does most of the talking?
kwraiks 1 year ago
i am pro anti-anti-anti-vax. check out what's in the vaccines!
scythefencer 1 year ago
I'm willing to see him shirtless.
cryingsoftly 2 years ago
The reason I hear from persons in my circle is they "Do not trust these vaccine's, they do not trust doctors who try to convince them to be vaccinated and they FEAR the government. When you have a fear of a government and other large organizations (AMA) there is a problem. Something has been brewing for over 20 years now.
nineteenEcho 2 years ago
The ANTI VACCINE effort is gaining because...TRUTH can not be COUNTERED!
sikovit 2 years ago
@sikovit seriously... caps are worse than "lols"
CzDavid42 2 years ago
@sikovit Unfortunately for the anti-vaccine movement there is no actual evidence that supports their claims. There is a risk to being vaccinated (very very very small) and no one denies that but the risk one faces by not getting vaccinated is so much worse. Look at the studies done on vaccines from reputable sources. Anecdotal evidence does not cannot apply as all the other factors are not known. But I have a feeling that this is all falling on deaf ears.
kwraiks 1 year ago
@sikovit
Just as Scientology is gaining because TRUTH CANNOT BE COUNTERED!? Yeah. Any BS can effort can gain publicity with celebrities and money, it doesn't even have to be the truth.
TurboDally 1 year ago
Is it just me or is the music at the start of the video very similar to the one used for the TEDtalks videos?
Joe22c 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You know, I really don't give a fuck about children diying from any disease and Cancer. I don't care if they are sick in the hospital. Why should I care? it is not my problem and it aint part of my life so there is no reason to care for the children diying from diseases. It is there shit not my shit. I only care about my family and I don't give a fuck if some person that I don't know dies and I don't give a shit about Go Green. Go Green, pssh fuck that shit.
angelsssssssssssss 2 years ago
lol.
m3141592 2 years ago
What you guys need is a good slogan... you know, something like:
"Sure, your kid might wind up retarded, but at least he won't have the particular flu strain included in this batch."
Or...
"Just shut up and take your shot. Our big pharma masters have jet payments to make"
magichandpuppet 2 years ago
@magichandpuppet
What you mean like the Anti-Vax slogan?
>>
"Listen to idiots like magichandpuppet, who from hearsay, rumour and conspiracy theorists, knows vaccines are very very bad for you."
8DX 2 years ago
ha ha ha... 8DX, recommend you never miss an opportunity to get a vaccine... ask for extra strength of Thimerosal, and a special dose of Squalene. Tell them the magic hand puppet sent you. LMAO
magichandpuppet 2 years ago
"ask for extra strength of Thimerosal"
May as well, since it's been clinically tested on humans at 20,000 times the dosage injected into the bloodstream without any detectable effects whatsoever.
Still, that's only science, so if you'd rather believe internet conspiracy theories I suppose it's up to you. Maybe if you wore a hat made out of tinfoil it would help?
m3141592 2 years ago
>>that's only science
... perhaps you call it science... But you probably also call the studies that the cigarette companies released which concluded that cigarettes are not addictive or carcinogenic.
Instead of debating on youtube regarding subjects you clearly do not know much about, why don't you go research epidemiological studies which use science to prove your assumptions about science and vaccines wrong.
magichandpuppet 2 years ago
"But you probably also call the studies that the cigarette companies released which concluded that cigarettes are not addictive or carcinogenic."
No, I don't. It'd been clinically proven for 40 years before the tobacco companies were forced to admit it.
"you clearly do not know much about"
Pot, kettle, black.
"research epidemiological studies which use science to prove your assumptions about science and vaccines wrong."
Name a single peer reviewed study which supports your claims.
m3141592 2 years ago
"assumptions about science"
Ignorant hypocrite.
You have no idea about the Method, and apparently have no inclination to find out.
If you're so sure your claims are scientifically valid, why don't you answer my points?
m3141592 2 years ago
>>why don't you answer my points?
because trying to teach an idiot the fallacy of his arguments is like trying to cure a case of GuillainBarré syndrome caused by vaccination: Futile. If you are not an idiot (a big "if"), then you are operating on blind faith that proper scientific method was used in the studies you worship OR you are simply a shill for big pharma. Either way, I recommend you get a double dose of the swine flu vaccine "while supplies last"!...
magichandpuppet 2 years ago
"then you are operating on blind faith that proper scientific method was used in the studies you worship OR you are simply a shill for big pharma."
All medical science and technological achievements to date demonstrate that belief in science is anything but blind faith.
What is your basis for believing internet rumors and media scare stories?
Your position is basically unassailable because you class anything which doesn't support your paranoid fantasy as a lie or a conspiracy.
m3141592 2 years ago
>>All medical science and technological achievements to date demonstrate that belief in science is anything but blind faith
ha ha ha... nice try. There is nothing wrong with scientific method. But your blind faith is that scientific method is being used in whatever "studies" you worship. Has it ever occurred to you that people with science degrees are corruptible? Or, does the fact that they have been trained in the scientific method make you think they stay uncorrupted? So gullible...
magichandpuppet 2 years ago
"whatever "studies" you worship. "
That is not what worship means.
"Has it ever occurred to you that people with science degrees are corruptible?"
I know for a fact that they are. But what I also know, and you apparently do not, is how the peer review process of the international scientific community always uncovers corruption. There is simply no way to intentionally lie in a paper that won't be found out when other scientists are trying as hard as they can to disprove you.
m3141592 2 years ago
>>when other scientists are trying as hard as they can to disprove you.
...assuming that the scientists who are participating in the peer review are not employed by any entity which receives any money whatsoever from any big pharma source or network of foundations proven to be directly tied to the pharma companies... I am sure that is what you meant to say. And, of course, this rules out pretty much all paid scientists right?
magichandpuppet 2 years ago
"participating in the peer review"
It's not 'a peer review' or 'the peer review' it's the ongoing process of peer review open to any scientist in the field who can demonstrate an error or an unsound or invalid assumption in the original paper.
The best way for a scientist to make a name for themselves and gain recognition and respect in the scientific community is to prove papers erroneous and publish papers that don't get proven erroneous.
m3141592 2 years ago
The process of peer review is specifically designed to seek out and destroy bad science, and to be immune from the corruption which can affect individual scientists.
Please at the very least find out what peer review actually is before saying that it does not work. Otherwise you're just making unsupported assumptions to justify your own ignorant prejudice without any basis in fact.
m3141592 2 years ago
I am very familiar with the peer review process in the scientific community. However, indoctrination and bias are powerful forces to be reckoned with.
magichandpuppet 2 years ago
"I am very familiar with the peer review process in the scientific community. "
No you aren't. A few comments ago you thought it was like a committee of a few scientists hired by whoever wanted a paper published.
So either you learned about it in the last day or so, or you're lying to cover your ignorance and make your conspiracy theories seem more convincing.
The fact remains, you criticize things without knowing what they are. Therefore your claims are not valid.
m3141592 2 years ago
>>few comments ago you thought
You have no idea what I thought. Give it up.
magichandpuppet 2 years ago
"You have no idea what I thought."
I'm sorry, I just assumed that when you said something you believed it.
But as you point out, those aren't the same. I should have realized because you do lie a lot.
m3141592 2 years ago
Especially in the anti-inoculation group.
MelissiaBlackheart 2 years ago
""Sure, your kid might wind up retarded"
You're right, vaccinated kids might end up retarded.
The thing is, unvaccinated kids show EXACTLY THE SAME rates of autism, with just as many of them developing autism spectrum disorders at the age they WOULD have been vaccinated (if their parents didn't neglect them out of paranoia and profound ignorance).
Why do you think that is? Do you think? At all? Or do you just repeat whatever sounds most dramatic without checking your facts?
m3141592 2 years ago
here is some fodder for you sheep to chew on... I am sure you will get a big laugh:
watch?v=4mevomZ--uY
magichandpuppet 2 years ago
"sheep"
F.U.D. If that's your 'evidence' there's no way you can be convinced. 'Hypothetically', if vaccines were safe, what would convince you of that?
If you don't trust the government, why do you trust the media scare stories and internet rumors?
The only way you could be certain is to find out the actual facts for yourself.
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine.
m3141592 2 years ago
I think you should do some self-reflecting with Mr. Paine's quote.
magichandpuppet 2 years ago
"I think you should do some self-reflecting with Mr. Paine's quote. "
So the debate has devolved to the level of "I'm rubber you're glue". Oh dear.
m3141592 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
medicine is like religion. who has really go the THE truth?
carehappens 2 years ago
@carehappens
No, Western medicine is science, not religion. People don't take vitamins because they are written in some holy book, but because experimental evidence shows that our bodies need them, and we should take them to compliment our diet.
Things like homeopathy on the other hand - that is religion.
8DX 2 years ago
as you wish
carehappens 2 years ago
science bought and paid for by sales and marketing. nope no religion there. i suppose it depends on what you think religion is. keep in mind if you work for pepsi don't be drinking coke...those people or vice versa. note: read between the lines whomever you are.
carehappens 2 years ago
Well that is the problem of a capitalist system. Doctor's don't however buy a substance because of its brand name, but for the chemical substances contained in it, based on clinical trials and effectivity of that substance.
(cont)
8DX 2 years ago
(cont)
The fact that one brand of vitamins (or vaccine) is twice as expensive but is (perhaps agressively) marketed as better doesn't change the fact that the substances inside are the same.
These things raise the cost, not the principles of Western medicine. A doctor wouldn't prescribe pepsi if coke was bad for you.
8DX 2 years ago
you take my words so seriously lol. a commercial break hardly passes without a commercial pharmaceutical that almost always states the risks of side effects ad infinitum for taking their "scientific" medicine. come on whoever you are...i'm afraid the pepsi/coke example went over your head. but whatever...gobble up science at your own risk...have fun. :-)
carehappens 2 years ago
Um yar no need to be to serious =). Tho science is serious.. what I was trying to point out is exactly what you are talking about: science is one thing and commercial sales of products and advertising is another.
We don't have "commercial pharmaceuticals" here like you in the US (we have cough-drop ads), so I guess you may have more hype over there. But science and scientific medicine saves lives and shouldn't be scoffed at.
8DX 2 years ago
i don't really know what goes on "over there" but suffice to say do you notice that disease is hardly cured anymore but rather treated in$tead? also, yes, i agree that medicine can save lives but on the record it also destroys lives. there's no question about that ad infinitum. btw i knew James Randi when i was a kid and I'm still a big fan but science is not always science just because it says so. i think you are a player of this side or that side. that could get you in trouble someday.
carehappens 2 years ago
No, I don't sorry. The only medicine in my country that doesn't heal people is crackpot "alternative" medicine - homeopathy, acupuncture, fire cupping, laying on of hands etc etc. Both my parents have been provided with life-saving medical care, my father is still alive with healthy cholesterol levels thanks to correctly prescribed medication and diet. He also lives peacefully with the gout.
It's not medicine CAN save lives its medicine DOES save lives. Greed & Stupidity are the killers.
=8)-DX
8DX 2 years ago
Sorry for the tone again =) it's just I find it so absurd.. western medicine prolongs lifespans by decades and aleviates pain as well as many other problems. It's not a matter of opinion. Make fun of the commercials, of big pharma if you like - science is science and it's the best thing we have =) .. Of course science isn't just "because it says so" - washing powder adverts with whitecoats aren't science. But the washing powder already contains substances discovered to clean clothes be science.
8DX 2 years ago
"Sacrificing the health of the children" - First of all, we don't know how effective the vaccine actually is, nor do we have any satisfying info on it's side effects. Before anyone runs out to "save" the children, he should calculate the pros and cons.
Swine-flu has been inflated by the media, portraying it as the beast from hell. Well, swine-flu is just another influenza, that's all.
armelix73 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To the parents who refuse to even consider whether or not vaccinations may be dangerous for children - you won't worry a single bit about it and you shouldn't anyhow. Natural Selection will weed out bloodlines which poison themselves with mercury, so have all the fun you want pumping mercury into your children's brains. Since we can't seem to implement change ourselves we'll just have to sit back and let nature do it for us.
RLore18 2 years ago
"so have all the fun you want pumping mercury into your children's brains"
Why aren't you campaigning against seafood ? That contains more mercury in a form that is bioavailable.
How do you explain the fact that 20,000 times the amount of ethyl mercury had no detectable effect when injected into volunteers? Or the fact that autism occurs at exactly the same rate in children who aren't vaccinated? Or the fact that the only study to claim a link was proved fraudulent?
m3141592 2 years ago 14
>> Why aren't you campaigning against seafood ?
Are you joking? Do you understand the different in cellular intake of food you ingest vs. injection into the blood stream? It's amazing how sheep fall for such non sequitur.
magichandpuppet 2 years ago
"the different in cellular intake of food you ingest vs. injection into the blood stream?"
So your point is that bioavailable substances you eat don't get into your bloodstream?
The main difference is that mercury in seafood is already in a highly bioavailable form specifically targeted to be absorbed into cells through oral ingestion (that's how it got into the fish in the first place) whereas thimerosal is in a ethyl compound which the body can easily filter and excrete.
m3141592 2 years ago
@m3141592 I agree completely. In addition, it seems that no one is even paying attention to the very fact that the medical community has both improved its methods of diagnosing children as autistic and have increased what it means to be autistic - the very term now is more an umbrella term for several similar disorders. Geez, if you increase your diagnosing effectiveness AND add more illnesses to the term, obviously you will have more children diagnosed with autism. Its common sense.
101Amethyst 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Answer you will get:
Conspiracy. Conspiracy. Conspiracy. Conspiracy. Conspiracy. Conspiracy. Conspiracy. Conspiracy. Conspiracy.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
They say that no matter how stubborn a refusing parent is, the anti-anti-vaccination group must be willing to work with them for the health of the child. I can see it happening if they own up to the following facts:
1. Vaccinations contain mercury.
2. Rational parents won't want to pump mercury into the veins and brains of their children.
3. So many vaccinations are mandatory.
4. To work with us stubborn people, you must be willing to stop the state from using mercury and other toxins.
RLore18 2 years ago
You might want to watch some more of the videos in this series, because they explain that 1: (in the US) vaccines do not contain mercury thanks to the efforts of the anti vac people getting the particular suspension agent that contained it outlawed, and 2: the particular suspension solution contained a form of mercury that was not harmful in the concentrations that is was used in that solution.
ReeseTora 2 years ago 2
some people will believe anything
magichandpuppet 2 years ago
"some people will believe anything "
That's true, hence you basing your beliefs on a single flawed study by someone who was found guilty of gross scientific misconduct and fraud, and ignoring hundreds of valid and rigorous studies which show not link whatsoever.
There is no evidence whatsoever of what you're claiming, and overwhelming evidence that the opposite is true.
m3141592 2 years ago
>>There is no evidence whatsoever of what you're claiming, and overwhelming evidence that the opposite is true.
Yes, when facts try to penetrate the big pharma "fact" checking propaganda machine... you are correct... there has never been a single person in the world harmed by any vaccine... ever. And, if you believe this, please ask for a triple dose of swine flu this year... since it's 100% guaranteed to be safe and has been double-blind tested for very long-term side effects. Yeah, right.
magichandpuppet 2 years ago
I think that your beliefs are an expression of your emotional state. You feel a particular way about the world, and life in general, so you look for an argument which best matches and retrospectively justifies that emotional state.
I don't think it has anything to do with facts or the reality of the situation. I'm curious what other conspiracy theories you believe in? All of them or just this one?
m3141592 2 years ago
Ha ha ha... "conspiracy theory"? You have been trained well little sheepy. Perhaps you think the SEC are all conspiracy theorists for alleging that Maddoff has other "conspirators" in his little Ponzi scheme. Or, perhaps you would suggest that those who currently believe that certain scientists having the credentials you've been trained to worship, paid by cigarette companies, fudged their findings are all conspiracy theorists? Yes, stay asleep and get your flu shot... make it a double.
magichandpuppet 2 years ago
"SEC .... Maddoff"
I wouldn't know about that. I guess it's an american thing.
"cigarette companies, fudged their findings"
Their scientific fraud and misconduct was proven by the peer review of the international scientific community. Though frankly anyone with a decent understanding of the method could have spotted it, and there were papers already in the literature (from 40 years ago) which soundly refuted their bullshit.
m3141592 2 years ago
>>Though frankly anyone with a decent understanding of the method could have spotted it...
That's interesting since they were able to get away with it for so long.
By the way, ever found a double-blind study of long-term affects from squalene? I didn't think so.
magichandpuppet 2 years ago
"That's interesting since they were able to get away with it for so long."
They 'got away with it' in commerce, the media, and public opinion specifically because those arenas are largely ignorant of the method and the process of peer review.
They did not 'get away with it' in the scientific community because they had been proven wrong 40 years before.
Though you don't realize it, your statement is a perfect example of why you should be listening to peer review rather than word of mouth.
m3141592 2 years ago
I think a lot of the problem with that statement is the fact that you don't actually know how science works. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that everything claimed as science by the media and industry is actually real science.
It is most certainly not. The only way to identify real science is to learn the Method and keep up with the peer review process.
Of course you may not have the time or critical faculties to do that, so an acceptable alternative is reputable sources.
m3141592 2 years ago
"little sheepy. "
How is that any more ariesine that repeating things that you hear from fox news or scientifically illiterate rumour peddlers on internet forums?
I'd suggest that it is less so, since sheep are characterised by their unthinkingly following the herd, rather than choosing their own path based on the available options.
m3141592 2 years ago
>>I think that your beliefs are an expression of your emotional state
Then I hope you understand that I am laughing at the gullible nature of so many people. There is so much "cigarette" science which has corrupted many issues so deeply that it is simply unpopular to question them. How many times has a drug been recalled after passing all levels of peer review and made it through to public consumption only to later find that the rushed scientific studies were "flawed"?
magichandpuppet 2 years ago
"How many times has a drug been recalled after passing all levels of peer review"
Surely you understand that FDA approval isn't the same as peer review? What do you mean 'levels' of peer review?
I recommend that you find out what something is before you criticize it, otherwise you're just speaking out of ignorance.
m3141592 2 years ago
watch?v=QkBdwoI702g
thousands of DOCTORS and PARENTS....
CHOOSE FOR YOURSELF!
sikovit 2 years ago
Pro vaccine?
centrino105 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Can any of you pro-vac ppl prove that vaccines aren't carcinogenic?
DaInfoMan11 2 years ago
Can you prove that they are? Unless you have solid proof that they are, there's no reason to believe that it does.
Seriously, there are few things in this would that have saved more lives than vaccines. It's people like you that have taken for granted their important to the health of our society. For every 1000 children you "think" you're saving from so called carcinogins or autism causing agents, you've effectively killed a lot of them to brutal diseases like measles or the mumps
jonbob0008 2 years ago 2
Since when do we go around "proving" that things "aren't"?
FairCogent 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thanks for enlightening me! Who cares about proving that something doesn't cause cancer, most of us are going to die from it anyway thanks to these Eugenicists who took over the medical Industry like the Rockefeller family.
DaInfoMan11 2 years ago
Are the "eugenicists" also randomly giving the other eukaryotes on this planet cancer as well? Plants and wild animals get it too, after all. Are plant cancers part of the Rockefeller's plans as well?
If you have evidence that someone "runs" "the medical industry" (as though it were in any way monolithic) please feel free to enlighten us. Otherwise, you really shouldn't expect anyone to believe you.
FairCogent 2 years ago 3
Da(mis)InfoMan11
A penchant for conspiracy theories perhaps?
As FairCogent already said, cancer exists within pretty much all animal groups, and cancer-like tumours can form in plants too.
Your baseless claims can easily be refuted by anyone with the following abilities:
To use logic
To smell - in particular - BULLSHIT!
To Google
When people have the ability to do each of these simultaneously, then your spiel has very little chance of survival, other than in your own tiny little mind.
bettySwollox 2 years ago
Argument from ignorance. You must prove your own claims first. If we have to by default prove you incorrect, that requires first assuming that you are correct even though you have not established your position as being such - this is also known as "guilty until proven innocent".
If you are going to claim that the vaccines are carcinogenic, back yourself up. If not, then do not argue from ignorance and shift the burden of proof.
Setar 2 years ago
Da(mis)InfoMan11
Can you prove that the dents on my car bonnet were not made by pink unicorns stepping on it, when it was used as an obstacle in the bi-annual unicorn steeple derby?
Read up on Russell's Teapot, and as Setar rightly pointed out, check out the concept of "Burden of Proof", before going around scattering your seeds of ignorance, across the fields of knowledge.
bettySwollox 2 years ago 7
Of the 86 children who have died since the new swine flu arose last spring, 43 deaths have been reported in September and early October alone, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. That's a startling number because in some past winters, the CDC has counted 40 or 50 child deaths for the entire flu season — and no one knows how long this swine flu outbreak will last.
mynameisbobtoo 2 years ago
Michael Goudeau threatens to show his tits? Noooo, I'm to young to die! xD
leporidus 2 years ago
Joseph Albietz is really cute.
oraclecrank 2 years ago
this is totally unrelated, but my nips get so hard when im excitd
mariamakenzie287 2 years ago
Was it the silent bob looking dude that did it for you?
preachingsin 2 years ago
Look at how many people believe some idiot in the Vatican who claims AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse.
It's difficult to change a mindset. It's difficult to resist propaganda when it has some catchy phrases. Education and willingness to learn don't come easy.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
History recalls how great the fall can be
While everybody is sleeping the boats put out to sea
Borne on the wings of time
It seemed the answers were so easy to find
Too late, the prophets [profits] cry
The island is sinking let us take to the sky
Ventura Sheehan Perot Paul
Nader McKinney Kucinich Kaptur
Grayson Gravel Gonzalez Clemente
Choate Carter Baldwin Anderson
ryanshaunkelly 2 years ago
I can't imagine people putting their own children at risk for no reason. Just a tiny bit of research would be sufficient.
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
give evolution a helping hand, if you think that a vaccine is a bad idea because an unqualified tv personality says so, dont have one.
PoisonedAntidote 2 years ago
The problem could be, that there are some people who for biological reasons can't have the vaccine. They count on the rest of us having it so the disease is less likely to hit them. Makes sense to me. In places where the vaccine is free, there is no excuse not to have it, (unless you have a health problem that forbids it, of course).
Hereticbooks 2 years ago
again, One in two doctors in France are refusing to have the h1n1 vaccin inoculation themselves.
Funnily enough it is even in the french website that informs people about the flu,
3 double you dot contre-la-grippe dot c o m
What next you'll show me as a spam because the news I am bringing to you disturbs you in your comfort zone?
RibbitAfterMe 2 years ago
Often when the media releases correlative data they skew it and do it incorrectly. When it comes to statistics I don't but much in what a non science article says about it.
By refuse do they mean not taking it themselves? Whats the sample size? What issues do they have against it? Have they raised their concerns with the manufacturer CSL? Is it political?
That number 1/2 means nothing, still, even after you semi cited it.
daymyth 2 years ago
I should clarify when i say the doctors aren't taking it themselves, might be for the same reason I have never bothered with the flu vaccination. Mostly not that serious, deal with it when I get it.
H1N1 variable mutation through large population infection is the only real concern. But since this is free I might take it anyway, a large enough population does need to take it. If we all said no to it... Well that would defeat the purpose of it.
daymyth 2 years ago
Fuck'em. Release smallpox in Hollywood. Show them how it works.
Godsrot 2 years ago
Are there any double blind-placebo studies on the effectiveness of flu vaccines?
thelineofmypeople 2 years ago
I don't think that's legal anymore...
daymyth 2 years ago
So what I mean to say is yes I know of 2 off the top of my head, one was in Africa a few decades ago to do with not HIV but I can't remember what, but I know it was not HIV. And a very controversial one which was recently done on the HIV vaccine. Only a month or so ago.
daymyth 2 years ago
And there are also great sites like Stop Jenny and Jenny McCarthy Body Count.
mjr256 2 years ago
tits
or
gtfo
HandsupLX 2 years ago
One in two doctors in France are refusing to have the h1n1 vaccin inoculation themselves. It's a simple fact. Everyone can make what he wants of it.
RibbitAfterMe 2 years ago
cite your sources:
torpol 2 years ago
Cite, or it did'nt happen?
GumbaMasta 2 years ago
5 out of 7 people post untrue random statistics without citing a source.
daymyth 2 years ago 4
I just given my sources, where are yours?
RibbitAfterMe 2 years ago
mine was a joke comment. Hyperbole I think it is, or is it ironical?
daymyth 2 years ago
btw, when someone refers to Barack Obama as the president of the united states do you also ask for sources? Or maybe you ask for his birth certificate.
When something is common knowledge in the world of educated and informed people do they have to justify it everytime a guy like you shows-up? Just asking.
RibbitAfterMe 2 years ago
Yes... It's common knowledge to people outside of France that 1/2 doctors refuse to inoculate for hte H1N1 vaccine. If you consider that common knowledge your definition of common needs reconsidering.
In Australia no complaints, no news coverage other than CSL and the fact that everyone can be inoculated and for free, if they choose.
I don't know who the french president is either. Do you know the prime minister of Australia?
daymyth 2 years ago
I happen to know it, but if I didn't and you were to state him, I wouldn't ask your source, if I had a doubt I would do my own research and certainly not call you a liar : )
I forgot that for many people what isn't in their language doesn't exsit.
For your information, it is also the case for british, german doctors, you might be able to check that one out.
And I am really sorry but le monde is one of the top european newspapers.
watch?v=33Ly-zaJ2jY&feature=related translation in info box
RibbitAfterMe 2 years ago
If your statement about european doctors is true, why doesn't ECDC note this in its flu reports and updates? A newspaper, as we are all finding out right now, is not a credible source for information of this kind. If so many doctors refused vaccination, ECDC would list this as one of the obstacles to the vaccination program. That would be credible information.
Stromatolite577 2 years ago
Again it's a newspaper. Most people don't understand statistical data. I in all honesty doubt someone with an arts degree understands what the statistics means.
"Science proves A results from B". Where as what the data says is "Given C, under conditions D, we not a high correlation between A and B with a p value of .03, making the result statistically significant."
daymyth 2 years ago
source?
karausu 2 years ago
youtube won't let me put the exact urls, but basically it as been writen in all the most respectable french newspapers and broadcasted by tv stations as well. For example, you can still find the article on the "le monde" website or put "un medecin sur deux refuse" in your favorite search engine and you'll find the endless list of references. Hope it help.
RibbitAfterMe 2 years ago
Is it common knowledge for everyone to be able to read a French newspaper? Your citing sources that aren't even published in an English language science/medicine journal. Why would anyone who concerns themselves with the subject of immunology care?
Next time consider citing a journal with an impact factor greater than 10.
daymyth 2 years ago
check sbs australia /news/article/1077837/Health-workers-refuse-H1N1-vaccine
RibbitAfterMe 2 years ago
Had you posted this
"A team of researchers led by Paul Chan from the Chinese University of Hong Kong surveyed over 8,500 doctors, nurses, and other health professionals working at 31 hospital departments in Hong Kong."
"This study provides important information on barriers to vaccination," the authors conclude.
"Campaigns to promote vaccination should consider addressing the knowledge gap of staff and the specific target groups for intervention."
You would have been less flamed
daymyth 2 years ago
That was one of the source I posted when asked.
RibbitAfterMe 2 years ago
You only referred to that when I commented about the situation as seen by me in Australia. Had you perhaps posted something similar to the SBS report. Even a translated version of the French article citing their sources.
daymyth 2 years ago
My overall point is, when scientific minded people start to behave like religious fanatics and take all truth as holy then there is no hope left for humanity.
RibbitAfterMe 2 years ago
Scientific minded ppl dont take all truth as holy. They take all info, analyze it, submit it for peer review, test it over and over again and then if it has proven itself it is introduced as truth. So they take all truth as true period.
religionOFFENDSme 2 years ago
In an ideal world, I agree with you all the way. But you'll realise that they more than often don't these days. The best example is right here. I am bringing a fact on the table, but because it disturbs some scientific minded people's mind sets, then they trigger an intifada against me. As always they start to laugh, then get angry, and finally will cry. I am not defending any cause, I am not pro nor anti h1n1 vaccination, I am just passing on some news and they shoot the messenger.
RibbitAfterMe 2 years ago
The problem is your source.
daymyth 2 years ago
there are no other problem with my sources other than you not being able to read them.
I'll give you the last word if it matter so much for you.
RibbitAfterMe 2 years ago
In addition to your source bieng in a language I cannot understand. It is at the end of the day an unreliable media report portraying often incorrectly science and statistics.
SBS and the ABC are one of the few (with shows like catalyst) newsources that report science topics well. But they are mainly governmentally run. I would not consider The Age or the Herald Sun a good source (Australias two major newspapers).
daymyth 2 years ago
Nope I disagree, nothing is ever proven just highly supported.
daymyth 2 years ago
Scientific minded people should know better. There is no truth only highly supported models of understanding.
daymyth 2 years ago
daymyth... please get vaccinated A.S.A.P. this is an urgent request. Please take as many vaccines as you can find Today. thank you.
magichandpuppet 2 years ago
Against what and why?
I've never bothered with a flu vaccine because I'm just willing to get the flu, because I know I'll survive after a few weeks of great annoyance. That said I'm now in contact with mutagens on a weekly basis, so I probably should.
daymyth 2 years ago
I need to but the TAM 7 DVD
TheUnmaskedMagician 2 years ago
Thanks for posting, excellent video...
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
I'm sure jenny mc-bimbo thinks it's cute to stand behind not vaccinating, but if she knew how unsexy measles, mumps, rubella, and let's not forget polio was maybe she'd stop being so crazy
misslipstickvogue 2 years ago 3
not to mention smallpox, which left hideous life-long scars; also several of these can cause sterility, birth defects, etc.
StarTrekLivz 2 years ago
Michael Goudeau is too great. :)
MagnusIan 2 years ago
Orac has some awesome hand moves.
Even a silent Orac is still awesome.
lumpcouch 2 years ago
Comment removed
Michigan1985 2 years ago
That works both ways chief.
HairyTurds 2 years ago
Why bother to help the anti-vax movments children? The reason science has been able to march on and conquer the world is because those who govern their life after reason and science survive and those who govern their life after supersticion dies off. If the conspiracy nuts gets to be too many they will kill us all and then themselves.
Trencher1375 2 years ago
Why bother to help the anti-vax movments children?
Are you serious? If compassion for children (who don't yet fully understand the reasons for vaccination) having to possibly pay a high price for their parent's ignorance isn't persuasive, how about the fact that multitudes of un-vaccinated children can be wonderful little incubators for lovely little variations on already dangerous illnesses?
Edella 2 years ago 7
The problem is the likely response is going to be a law for forced vaccinations which is going to incite an already distrusting public. The gov has become so corrupt that nobody trusts them anymore. The better response would be a public education program. Maybe we can counter J McCarthy's message with stories of children with polio and other diseases that are prevented with vaccines. All the hoopla of forced N1H1 vaccination laws are really riling up the public.
christo930 2 years ago
Vaccinations not only protect the recipient, but the population as a whole. Thus, the need for all to receive the vaccination, to make it as effective as possible.
Usually, individual actions have much more impact on the population than one might first think.
BayerLexan 2 years ago 6
Unfortunately, infectious disease won`t limit itself to knobs.
Eron2828 2 years ago 5
I lol'd.
Arcaani 2 years ago
The anti-vax movement got all the characteristics of a conspiracy theory. And against those there has not been a vaxine discovered yet. Both silence about it and the will to explain everything seem to be the wrong choice and strengthen the believers in it. One fact that is not really denyable is usually enough - in this case it is about pharma concerns drooling for the next epidemic because it means easy money for them.
ashraghil 2 years ago
So, they are thinking along the lines of sacrificing health of the children, and how to get that message out there. That argument doesn't work for anti vaccine believers. Because they think they are sacrificing the health of their children with vaccines.
truvelocity 2 years ago
"Show my tits"
LOL might work
hellavadeal 2 years ago 3
I just rated this video with the lowest possible grade by mistake. Sorry.
BohemianBlasphemy 2 years ago
LOL! "Vaccinate of GTFO" :-)
CousinoMacul 2 years ago 4
Man, I wish I could go to TAM...
TheWildMagic 2 years ago 2