It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Autism rates exploding in Asia after they adopt western vaccination protocols.

page: 12
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 08:33 PM

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: noonebutme

Healthy diets, sanitary conditions, and acclimation.

Let the weak perish, it strengthens the herd.

Giving everyone an award for participation only weakens the sport.

Thats not true actually. The Spanish wiped out entire villages and entire populations of indigenous tribes because, boom, homogeneity.

If you wipe out the "weaker ones" from a sub group you also wipe out diversity. Someone who is susceptible to one disease may be resistant to another, so if we have to help each other live, using medicine, *gasp* not such a bad thing, those people might be very helpful/useful later on.

That and given that many diseases are environmental you can't predict who is the strongest in the pack so to speak. Want to walk each and every human through an infectious diseases laboratory exposing them to every biological agent known to man...then we just let the 1 or 2 that survive repopulate the Earth? Nah...

posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:06 PM
a reply to: boncho

It's actually entirely true, you just feel differently.

I'm sorry you find the need to mention situations that are entirely unreasonable to prove your point, but it shows just how weak your case really is.

Not my deal.

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 12:50 PM

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Pardon?

Go look them up. This stuff is all over online, and I flat don't have time to hunt it all down and post it for you. What makes your personal review any more valid than that of anyone else?

I have done thanks.
And none of them show an association which stands up to real scrutiny.
That's why I asked if you could provide some that do as you're so convinced.

And like I said, I'll look at them from a scientific perspective, it won't be my "personal review".

Well, plenty of people, myself included, have looked at that data fro a scientific perspective, come to a different conclusion from yours.

Your definition of plenty would be very few then.
And your definition of "scientific perspective" would be different too.

And why do you choose to believe those studies and not the ones which aside from being more robust scientifically, don't agree with your beliefs?
(If you hadn't guessed, that was a rhetorical question).

Why do you choose to accept some studies, and not others? Your claim that some are "more robust" scientifically is not scientific. Everyone knows that there are as many political considerations in "peer review" as actual scientific ones.

I "choose" to accept some studies over others as they're the ones that have been performed properly.
By robust, I mean actually sticking to the scientific method and coming up with a conclusion AFTER the study, not fitting a study to an already pre-determined conclusion.
It seems that you don't fully understand what peer review means either. I'm guessing you think that once a study has been initially peer-reviewed and published then it's finished with.
Anyone can review a study and then submit an issue with it. That issue has to be defined though and evidenced for it to be upheld.

I mean, look at Wakefield's.
That got through initially but it was only when it was properly scrutinised that it was deemed to have been unethical and fraudulent.
Every study is open to the same scrutinisation but like I said, you have to back it up or accept it.

<< 9  10  11   >>

log in