Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Vaccinations; recent developments  (Read 485868 times)

allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #240 on: December 17, 2014, 07:04:42 AM »
@Cap
Quote
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...


I would agree we now know ultra low level contamination may play a major role however we should work the problem backwards. It is not a contamination problem but a habitual issue concerning people doing stupid things. Trying to bury our problems never has worked because at some point someone is going to have to deal with them. We simply pretend the problem does not exist not unlike those billion tons of plastic particles floating around in our oceans. Denial is not a solution but i think you know this all too well.


AC

Cap-Z-ro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3545
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #241 on: December 17, 2014, 07:14:38 AM »
And all the while a very high yield organic source for bio degradable plastic is readily available and right under our noses...hemp based plastic.

Regards...


MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #242 on: December 17, 2014, 08:30:16 AM »
@Sark
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
Lightning does strike.  Sometimes it strikes an unlucky person.  The decision to act in one way or another is rational if based on knowable facts the action reduces the chances of an unfavorable outcome / increases the chances of a favorable outcome.  For instance in your decision not to vaccinate your kids what did you do to determine that the odds of them being stricken with: smallpox, polio, mumps etc versus being stricken by something equal or worse as a result of the vaccinations that you avoided?  Have you also refused them tetanus vaccinations?  If so again:  What data did you rely on to make that choice?

allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #243 on: December 17, 2014, 08:42:11 AM »
Many people here have made some very good arguments concerning their opinions however I think it is different when it becomes personal. I know very few relatives who have died from old age and most all have died of cancer. The statistics suggest cancer, diabetes, ms etc.. will reach epidemic proportions in the near future. Why today just this afternoon I was informed that a relative passed away due to brain cancer and she will me sorely missed. To you she was just another statistic, yet another number another topic for debate but to me she was a person, a loved one.


So all this debate is wonderful until that statistic, that opinion or than logic you need to get through the day hits home where you live. At which point it's relevancy seems diminished, it's importance somehow forgotten. We can presume to understand, we may justify it by any means but that cannot change what it is, the reality of this world in which we live.


Why today I came on shift to find a weeks worth of problems I solved in a matter of hours, possibly 20 trained and qualified people came and they left scratching theirs heads and I waltzed in and did what I do. It is a peculiar thing that it is presumed we are equal and yet we are people, why I know a few people of supposedly equal expertise I would not let change the tire on my truck. So we are left with the notion that expertise must be relevant, it must be applicable and up to date. I'm just another redneck farmboy but what I do I expect to do well.


So yes believe whatever you need to get you through the day but know we are not equal, we were born equal but from that day forward what we do and think determines who we are. So yes, it was kind of a stipulation the good book(s) forgot to mention because we are not equal.


So the question remains, with whom are you willing to place your trust?. With some dip-shit who sounds intelligent, a person who believes in a bearded man in a white dress who created the universe in six days or a scientist who was proven then dis-proven by his peers but only after the fact. We live, we learn then we die... those are the facts but it is what we do in between the living and dying that matters most. So this proof and belief everyone speaks about is constrained by time because everything we know must change with time... it is a constant we we all know and believe on some level.


That's my rant
AC


MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #244 on: December 17, 2014, 08:54:47 AM »
@mark E

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
The erroneous claim was that HCG was in the vaccines, and put there in order to sterilize those who received the vaccine.  The facts show that when tested by a properly equipped and capable laboratory, HCG was not found in the vaccines.  Ergo both claims are false.

Now, you've jumped horses and want to argue that the HCG is really there in minute quantities? That's not what competent labs found.  They did not find any.  Or are you arguing that there was something else in the vaccine? If so, what, and what is the evidence for its alleged harmful effects?

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #245 on: December 17, 2014, 09:01:17 AM »
Many people here have made some very good arguments concerning their opinions however I think it is different when it becomes personal. I know very few relatives who have died from old age and most all have died of cancer. The statistics suggest cancer, diabetes, ms etc.. will reach epidemic proportions in the near future. Why today just this afternoon I was informed that a relative passed away due to brain cancer and she will me sorely missed. To you she was just another statistic, yet another number another topic for debate but to me she was a person, a loved one.


So all this debate is wonderful until that statistic, that opinion or than logic you need to get through the day hits home where you live. At which point it's relevancy seems diminished, it's importance somehow forgotten. We can presume to understand, we may justify it by any means but that cannot change what it is, the reality of this world in which we live.


Why today I came on shift to find a weeks worth of problems I solved in a matter of hours, possibly 20 trained and qualified people came and they left scratching theirs heads and I waltzed in and did what I do. It is a peculiar thing that it is presumed we are equal and yet we are people, why I know a few people of supposedly equal expertise I would not let change the tire on my truck. So we are left with the notion that expertise must be relevant, it must be applicable and up to date. I'm just another redneck farmboy but what I do I expect to do well.


So yes believe whatever you need to get you through the day but know we are not equal, we were born equal but from that day forward what we do and think determines who we are. So yes, it was kind of a stipulation the good book(s) forgot to mention because we are not equal.


So the question remains, with whom are you willing to place your trust?. With some dip-shit who sounds intelligent, a person who believes in a bearded man in a white dress who created the universe in six days or a scientist who was proven then dis-proven by his peers but only after the fact. We live, we learn then we die... those are the facts but it is what we do in between the living and dying that matters most. So this proof and belief everyone speaks about is constrained by time because everything we know must change with time... it is a constant we we all know and believe on some level.


That's my rant
AC
Well yes it is a rant, that doesn't bother me.  Now, would you be good enough to answer my questions?  I am trying to determine whether the actions that you said you took: specifically keeping your kids from being vaccinated were based on a reasoned interpretation of facts or superstition.  If one of them has or does suffer a major cut: something that requires stitches, did you or would you refuse them a tetanus vaccination?

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #246 on: December 17, 2014, 02:39:56 PM »
however I think it is different when it becomes personal. I know very few relatives who have died from old age and most all have died of cancer. The statistics suggest cancer, diabetes, ms etc.. will reach epidemic proportions in the near future.

 Why today just this afternoon I was informed that a relative passed away due to brain cancer and she will me sorely missed. To you she was just another statistic, yet another number another topic for debate but to me she was a person, a loved one.
You are all over the place here.  I'm going to try to paraphrase and find something inside that mess of barely cogent sentences.

I get that we feel bad when someone we care about dies (often people one doesn't care about affect us).  However if we are talking about anything we are talking about what is causing some alleged deaths.  You say "vaccines have killed or seriously harmed people - up to 1 in 20 in some cases".  I say you have to be deliberately trying to think poorly to believe that.
Quote
Why today I came on shift to find a weeks worth of problems I solved in a matter of hours, possibly 20 trained and qualified people came and they left scratching theirs heads and I waltzed in and did what I do. It is a peculiar thing that it is presumed we are equal and yet we are people, why I know a few people of supposedly equal expertise I would not let change the tire on my truck. So we are left with the notion that expertise must be relevant, it must be applicable and up to date. I'm just another redneck farmboy but what I do I expect to do well.
Nobody is saying that all people are equal in every respect.  Given that you accept this, why can't you accept that you are absolutely completely and utterly terrible at looking at vaccine safety objectively?  Why can't you admit that you never really did the kind of diligence that you would require of yourself in your job to reach the conclusions you did?

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #247 on: December 17, 2014, 02:56:02 PM »
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.
I get that SeaMonkey's particular brain damage doesn't let him/her actually state what point s/he is trying to make with those link-only posts.  However it at least appears the point was:

i) Certain vaccines contain hCG
ii) hCG is a sterilizing agent (this is oversimplifying the biochemistry a bit)
iii) Therefore vaccines are being used to sterilize parts of Kenya.

However as the WHO reported these are the levels which are common in women humans.  Meaning if this level was sufficient to sterilize anyone then the expectation would be that most people are sterile.  Which seems at least prima facie untrue.  It's also worth mentioning that hCG isn't a sterility agent per se.  It's actually a chemical produced in the human body.  During pregnancy it's produced in large enough quantities that most pregnancy tests are actually hCG hormone tests.

So you can't really use your "trace amounts" gambit on something we bio-synthesize.  Of course if you had spent even a few seconds researching your view before launching into your "trace amounts" defense.  You would have known this.

This is what I mean about spending time to REFUTE things you already agree with.  If MarkE or myself hadn't stepped in this would have become yet another post on your facebook wall.  You would make the same arguments with people who responded like we did and some of them you would dupe.  IMHO you are responsible for the people you deceive when you are so negligent that you won't even make a 15s check.

allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #248 on: December 17, 2014, 04:52:54 PM »
@Mark E
Quote
Well yes it is a rant, that doesn't bother me.  Now, would you be good enough
to answer my questions?  I am trying to determine whether the actions that you
said you took: specifically keeping your kids from being vaccinated were based
on a reasoned interpretation of facts or superstition.  If one of them has or
does suffer a major cut: something that requires stitches, did you or would you
refuse them a tetanus vaccination?
Oh dear here we go, lol,  the "same logic" argument never actually did work for me. Let me guess, if I say yes I'm a hypocrite and if I say no I'm irresponsible however I'm going to choose option C which is that every vaccine has it's own risk assessment... they are not all the same. It's like flying on a jet and trying to justify the risks by thinking it is know technology and perfectly safe and it is however the actual risk is based on the competency of that technician who replaced those rivets in the wing section last week, the fight he had with his wife the night prior and how much he drank after that which effected his performance. In which case the "same logic" same airplane, same physics, same statistics model simply does not apply because it did not include that drunk technician who just inadvertently killed everyone. You see the risks are conditional and change the moment you enter the cause and effect loop unless you opt out or change the conditions.
All of my family has had a tetanus shot however I would think you would agree the risk of stepping on a rusty nail is just a little bit different than contracting polio which WHO has stated no longer exists on this planet. The risks concerning every vaccine, every drug should be weighed carefully because obviously they are not all the same.
AC

allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #249 on: December 17, 2014, 05:46:18 PM »
@Sark
Quote
This is what I mean about spending time to REFUTE things you already agree
with.  If MarkE or myself hadn't stepped in this would have become yet another
post on your facebook wall.  You would make the same arguments with people who
responded like we did and some of them you would dupe.  IMHO you are responsible
for the people you deceive when you are so negligent that you won't even make a
15s check.
Oh I would agree, you guys are like the white supremicists of logic who live in a world of black and white with no shades of gray. I mean you should get some of those white dresses with the pointy hats and big red letters spelling "logicle" on the front.
However life is chaotic and has a way of coming full circle and biting us in the ass when we least expect it, when it does then we will talk. Maybe you could track down those who's children have been crippled or died due to complications, I'm sure they would love to hear your opinions and you could straighten them out and tell them how it is.

AC

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #250 on: December 17, 2014, 06:09:12 PM »
simply does not apply because it did not include that drunk technician who just inadvertently killed everyone. You see the risks are conditional and change the moment you enter the cause and effect loop unless you opt out or change the conditions.
You are effectively saying it is impossible to generalize risk. By that logic every bite you eat, every step you take (every move you make).  Would require separate risk assessments.  Clearly you don't believe this. 
Quote
contracting polio which WHO has stated no longer exists on this planet.
Again this is incorrect.  From the WHO Q&A on polio. 
Quote from: WHO
Polio does still exist, although polio cases have decreased by over 99% since 1988, from an estimated more than 350 000 cases to 416 reported cases in 2013. This reduction is the result of the global effort to eradicate the disease. Today, only 3 countries in the world have never stopped transmission of polio (Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan).
Now the question is, you've mentioned this several times in this thread.  I'm willing to bet you've mentioned it to other people.  Are you going to go back and give them the correct information that you were so very incompetent at collecting?  Didn't think so.  It would be hard even if you wanted to.  Just another reason why you should put the effort into refuting your own ideas before you speak.

sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #251 on: December 17, 2014, 06:42:57 PM »
who live in a world of black and white with no shades of gray.
Quite the opposite. I think there are shades of grey.  You, interestingly are unwilling to believe that shades exist in a few of your beliefs.

So the idea that hCG is being used to sterilize girls in Kenya was refuted because it is too low.  You came back with the statement that ultra-low doses can hurt you but you didn't bother to even have a microscopic amount of skepticism concerning SM's post.

Where were your shades of grey?  You had no doubt whatsoever when it came to talking about "ultra low doses".

You also called parents irresponsible for allowing their children to be vaccinated with guardasil stemming from an article which appears to be a mistreatment of the words of the person the article is about.  Again this was because you didn't bother to have the slightest amount of doubt about the article.

Where were the shades of grey there?

Quote
Maybe you could track down those who's children have been crippled or died due to complications
Complications with what?  Vaccines?  Wait...how do you know they were crippled or died due to vaccine complications?  That's a pretty black or white thing to say.

See the point here is sure I think vaccines are very, very safe.  Not perfectly safe, but neither is being unvaccinated and yes I think you have be deliberately obtuse to believe a number of the things you SM and Cap-Z-ro have said.  I think the best way to understand the shades of grey that exist in this world is to be self-critical.  Something, if you are honest all three of you suck donkey balls at.

SM posts an article and you say "yesssir".  I went and found the actual WHO report.

Cap-Z-ro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3545
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #252 on: December 17, 2014, 07:08:38 PM »
"Considered safe"...likely by vested interests.

And relying on the WHO as a reliable source is par for the course.

Weren't they the ones pushing the H1N1 vaccine to stem the epidemic which fizzled...despite the fact that hardleyanybody fell for the scam.

You know, the disease where they patented the vaccine 3 0r 4 years before the disease appeared.

Hey...is anybody going to get the new vaccine that makes us immune to Global Warming..er..I mean Climate Change ?

Ever Mike Adams the Health Ranger Dr Oz AND Dr Phil have endorsed this one !

Regards...


sarkeizen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1923
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #253 on: December 17, 2014, 07:18:20 PM »
"Considered safe"...likely by vested interests.
No as testified by human females everywhere.  It is within the nominal values for women.  Again, hCG is BIOSYNTHESIZED so it's entirely reasonable to find some in a woman.  Also for the second time, pregnancy tests are usually hCG tests.  So clearly hCG is safe in some dosage for women.
Quote
And relying on the WHO as a reliable source is par for the course.
Nope.  The WHO report publishes both the lab values the Church supplied and the ones they used both are over 5 MILLION times lower that the amount given in a sterilization vaccine.

Again...all you had to do was think that perhaps you might be wrong and you wouldn't have looked stupid here.

Cap-Z-ro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3545
Re: Vaccinations; recent developments
« Reply #254 on: December 17, 2014, 07:29:16 PM »
Solid Raindrops 50 to 60 feet Long Fall From Sky After Military Jets Fly By

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lkAZTNwq40


Must be more 'Global Warming'..er, I mean 'Climate Change' signs huh ?

Regards...