Vaccine Pandemic Targets the Innocent.

Since SeaMonkey lacks any kind of faculties to actually make an argument but loves to post link after link that he/she has barely read and certainly not taken even the slightest amount of time to try an refute.  I'll read what I can until I read something stupid.   Then I'll explain how stupid it is and why.  Then I'll ignore it unless some individual wants to draw my attention to a specific part.  In which case I'll try to respond.

So again a few sentences in we read this: "After years of mandating the cowpox vaccine in England and Japan, the death rates skyrocketed and the vaccines were eventually stopped."

Like a number of people here there's no reference at all.  It sounds a bit like Gary Null.  Anyway the mention of Japan was interesting...and wrong.  A 1910 public health record shows these numbers for smallpox deaths.

1898 40000
1899 4000
1900 721
1904 237
1905 3388
1906 109
1907 437

Vaccination history in Japan is complicated but before 1857 is was done in secret - Western medicine was still frowned upon (except for specific surgeries).  After it was done through private centers and from what I've read sometime during the Meiji restoration vaccination started to gain ground as a public service - perhaps around the 1890s and as you can see the death rate dropped even as vaccinations probably increased.

Well...somebody prone to fraud sure seems to have a lot of time on his hands.

Or maybe a pipeline to the inbred elite's office staff.

Just sayin'

Regards...

Wow!  Finally a post with real facts and verifiable citations and links.  What a retort.

Oh wait...

Never mind.

Bill

@Sark

Seriously?  Cap-Z-ro posts a link to an article that he has barely read.  I point out that he didn't even read the parts it linked to which had quotes from the subject of the article saying exactly the opposite of what Cap-Z-ro's article said about her.  Pointing that out adding no information?

I also provided quotes from Ben Goldacre who actually TALKED to the person in question quoted her complaining about the way the article was presented.  Also the article was from a source which gets sued for libel a lot (this information is in a link from the very article that Cap-Z-ro posted).  Was that no information there?

I also provided Dr. Harpers concerns about Gardasil which I got from an anti-vaccine radio interview.  I provided my counter point.  Again you are actually saying there is no information in any of my response(s) at all?  No potential possible alternative viewpoint you could somehow divine from all that?   This is why it's hard to take you seriously.

I read the article and found it interesting and informative as I said then you spam posted it with equally unsubstantiated claims and I ignored them... exactly which part of this do you not understand?. You seem to get all hot and bothered trying to prove yourself to the point of being obsessed by it.. No offence but instead of spam posting why not try to interact on a more personal level like a real person. I understand what your saying however I'm not convinced, no big deal, stay calm.

I also liked the logical fallacy bit, lol, I always get a kick out of that because the context is almost never logic or reason but more so narcissism. I see people trying to use this all the time however it is a bit of an art and to be honest I think you could have done better... something to consider in the future.


You seem to be a logical person so I would like to hear your thoughts on statistics which apply here. We all know about statistics don't we and it seems logical however I always had a problem with it. Now let's say the odds of winning the lottery are ten million to one however we know almost every week someone wins the lottery. So the odds for them on winning are obviously 100% and everyone else zero. Which is a way of saying the odds of statistics do apply up until the point you are actually effected by them directly.


By the same token we could say the odds of a severe reaction to immunizations is extremely low however when your child is in emergency because of a severe reaction then the statistics really don't mean jack shit do they?. As well in those rare cases resulting in death which are about the same as winning the lottery one has to wonder was it really worth it?. You see people love to talk about statistics only because they truly believe they will never be personally effected by them however when they are they are only left with unanswered questions and guilt.


You see statistics are completely impersonal however we are not, we are real people with real feelings who care deeply about the ones we love which is why I research everything and debate these issues with people like you. So tell me something I don't know... convince me otherwise.



AC

I read the article and found it interesting and informative

Out of curiosity can you give me say two or three things that the article said which were new information to you and were exceptionally well supported?  I mean, that's part of what I'd call "interesting and informative".  Wouldn't you?

as I said then you spam posted it with equally unsubstantiated claims

If there's a particular part of my post that you believe is unsubstantiated then please.  Simply point it out.  Most of the substantiation for what I said is actually in the article or linked from it.  So if you read it, you didn't read it very well and you certainly didn't follow up on it. As I say though I will happily provide what you think is missing.

You seem to get all hot and bothered trying to prove yourself to the point of being obsessed by it

LOL. Then you really are not understanding my posts.  I mean if you're saying that out of everything I posted in response to that you couldn't find one thing that presented a reasonable alternative viewpoint to what the article presented.  That's cool.  I'd love to hear you say so plainly though.

No offence but instead of spam posting

No offence but it's simply not spam not under any useful definition.  It's a clear response to what was stated in the article:  The article says X.  The reality is probably more like Y.

I understand what your saying however I'm not convinced

Dude.  Don't take this the wrong way but you just blather. Seriously I've probably asked you for a half-dozen cites for things you expressed or implied as externally verifiable and you have provided almost nothing (other than urls from drugstores and wall mart which were actually beside the point).  So ask yourself if that's really worth any energy to convince.

I also liked the logical fallacy bit, lol, I always get a kick out of that because the context is almost never logic or reason but more so narcissism

If you have an actual argument.  Feel free to present it.

ok I was editing my post when everyone decided to respond, we might need a re-do, lol.

Its going on everywhere...plastics leeching estrogen into the landfills and then into the water aquifers has lowered male sperm count significantly=infertility=sterilization=checkmate.

Regards...

@mark E

OK so you've got the alarming claim.  Now, if you dig a little deeper you will find out the claims are nonsense because the vaccine does not contain HCG.  When the vaccine samples were tested at a high quality lab, they registered lower HCG than the tap water.

Google Ultra-low level testing relating to toxins and long term exposure and it should explain everything. The scientific studies suggest there are levels well below that considered safe which do more harm over time that the levels actually considered safe.


AC

You ask for proof and references and citations none of which you have actually provided.

Actually I've provided a few and I've made a completely open offer to respond to any specific request you ask for.

Now why would you think I should do such a thing when neither of us have?

The difference is the willingness to do so.  If you say: "Right here you say X and I'd like to see a reference for that".  I will be more than happy to comply.  See I don't fault you for having a stupid opinion, or not sourcing it but you should be willing and able to do so when asked, even if you don't like the way you've been asked.  There are dozens of comments I could make about your conduct but I simply don't think it's relevant to the discussion.

You may want to rethink this because in my opinion you are being unreasonable in thinking I need to prove anything

Well that's good because I haven't asked you to prove anything.  I've asked you to provide external support for assertions you've made - which appear to be based on external data.

hence the reason I use the phase-- in my opinion.

I'm not calling into question that these...ideas...are your opinions.  I'm just giving you the opportunity to differentiate them from poor, uninformed and unsubstantiated....opinions.