Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson Claims Government 'Science' Overrides Medical Freedom

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burgerbuddy
Choppers are so 10s.

Coke drones dude.

Yeah, I rememberd a skit by Firesign Theater called Pigeon Park.

That's where I got the copter.

Funny stuff. www.youtube.com...

a reply to: burgerbuddy
How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all.

Quantum physics. Dude!

a reply to: butcherguyHave to keep the "stoner" Garry away from the Nuclear codes.he doesn't seem like a serious candidate. A vote for Garry is a vote for HRC (for prison)

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: neutronflux

I didn't say there was no money.

I said they take huge losses. Which they do.

Between trials(successful or failed), research, development, logistics, and finally the fact that most vaccines are given for free to the end user(you and me and a good chunk of the poorest in the world most at risk) and you have losses.

Some are certainly profitable as they sell certain emergency vaccines to governments either for their own research or for stockpiling for emergency situations.

I don't know who told you that vaccines are free. You've been scammed. It's the same as a free lunch. The drug companies don't give away vaccines. The end user may not turn over dollars at the time of injection but somebody paid for that chemical cocktail being injected into your bloodstream.
Farmers don't donate food to schools for free lunches either.
Show me a vaccine maker that lost money over the past three decades.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: neutronflux
Makes you wonder how pioneers made it out west without government to build roads for them.

A lot of them died.

Strange statement. About 30k to 50k individuals are still killed on our roadways each year?

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: neutronflux

I didn't say there was no money.

I said they take huge losses. Which they do.

Between trials(successful or failed), research, development, logistics, and finally the fact that most vaccines are given for free to the end user(you and me and a good chunk of the poorest in the world most at risk) and you have losses.

Some are certainly profitable as they sell certain emergency vaccines to governments either for their own research or for stockpiling for emergency situations.

Prove Marck and Pfizer vaccine sectors loss money each year. In fact, their profits are over a billion dollars. Then factor in the government research grants. And yes, companies will loss a bit of money here and there because of tax breaks.

I guess Huffington post thinks vacvines are not free enough.
m.huffpost.com...

Another article vaxtruth.org...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Metallicus

Don't smoke. Science overrides medical freedom.
Don't use salt. Science overrides medical freedom.
Don't drink sodas. Science overrides medical freedom.
Don't eat meat. Science overrides medical freedom.


I am so sick and tired of having assholes in government taking away my freedoms and telling me what to do!

You gotta keep that stupid livestock healthy. Otherwise, they stop working and spend money that you could be collecting. Line them up, push them through the chute and inject them to keep them giving...and giving...and giving. Eventually...freedom will be from here to the fence, crapping wherever you want and a trough full of slop.

Again. What better way to insure profit by lobbying the CDC to stock pile your vaccine. Or lobby the state Senate to make your vaccine required by law.

I've documented the profits companies make off vaccines, the huge CDC budget, the large sums of money funnelled into vaccine companies world wide, and mentioned the numerous timed FDA approved medications have been recalled.

I'll be honest, thought there was more risk in not getting vaccinated than getting vaccinated. However, there is risk with all medication. Also, one bad batch of vaccinations can effect how many children?

The lobbying, the corruption of our government,and total dependence on vaccinations has all the earmarks of a accident waiting to happen.

originally posted by: neutronflux
Strange statement. About 30k to 50k individuals are still killed on our roadways each year?

A much lower percentage than those who died in the pioneer days.

To bring this back to the topic, a few people are harmed from vaccinations but far less are hurt, disabled, or killed than the alternative of going without vaccines.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: neutronflux
Strange statement. About 30k to 50k individuals are still killed on our roadways each year?

A much lower percentage than those who died in the pioneer days.

To bring this back to the topic, a few people are harmed from vaccinations but far less are hurt, disabled, or killed than the alternative of going without vaccines.

I would get my facts straight. Not to marginalize either set of victims, but our modern road system kills yearly the number of prople taken by the entire history of the Oregon Trail.

From:
www.alertdriving.com...

Nonetheless, motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death for those between the ages of three and 34, costing society more than an estimated $99 billion annually.

Like to change your statement?

a reply to: neutronflux

And how many went on the trail total? Killing 50k when 100k people traveled, vs 50k per year when 320 million people travel the road are very different things.

I didn't say vaccinations are bad. I just don't trust politicians and the profits vaccinations draw. Especially now we know billions in spending and profits are involved / at stake.

Like I said, sounds like the making for a disaster.......

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: neutronflux

And how many went on the trail total? Killing 50k when 100k people traveled, vs 50k per year when 320 million people travel the road are very different things.

Does not make the dead less dead or hide the fact modern road ways are responsible for more total deaths. Guess that's progress.


And its estimated ten percent did not finish the journey. Not fifty percent. Might want to get those facts straight.

a reply to: neutronflux

But I'm not referring to total deaths, I'm referring to percentages. More total deaths actually shows signs that our roadway is working because it's enabling more people to travel. As far as the numbers go, I was just throwing numbers out to illustrate the point, I wasn't using accurate ones.

Either way, I'm not going to debate the merit of roads further here, the thread is about vaccinations. Vaccines are a good thing, but they only work when everyone gets them. Leaving it up to people to opt out only makes the diseases even more dangerous.

a reply to: Aazadan

They only work if properly researched, manufactured, approved, and quality controlled. Not pushed as a political agenda in a corrupt system. Again how many recalls on FDA approved drugs last twenty years.

And with the wide spread of vaccines, like antibiotics, isn't there new strains evolving that vaccines do not give protection.

I think it is wise just to know what law makers are requiring in the form of man made and genetically altered chemicals and materials put in our children's bodies. What could go wrong?

originally posted by: neutronflux
They only work if properly researched, manufactured, approved, and quality controlled. Not pushed as a political agenda in a corrupt system. Again how many recalls on FDA approved drugs last twenty years.

Relatively few. The FDA has done a good job. Would you prefer to move this to the state level, where each state has 1/50 the funding to give to an agency to test/approve medications? There would be fewer recalls but that doesn't mean we would be safer.

And with the wide spread of vaccines, like antibiotics, isn't there new strains evolving that vaccines do not give protection.

Antibiotics are not vaccines. Their issue is also a different one, it's not that they're dangerous, it's that we over use them and pump them into our food supply. This overuse has allowed certain diseases to mutate and get around the antibiotics, which then results in us having to make stronger ones. It's unsustainable.

I think it is wise just to know what law makers are requiring in the form of man made and genetically altered chemicals and materials put in our children's bodies. What could go wrong?

Less than opting out. That's the worst case scenario.

originally posted by: PsychicCroMag
a reply to: butcherguyHave to keep the "stoner" Garry away from the Nuclear codes.he doesn't seem like a serious candidate. A vote for Garry is a vote for HRC (for prison)

That's where you guys are drinking the propaganda flavored Koolaid from the Republican and Democratic spin masters.

A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for a third party candidate. Trump and Hillary are the same...both unethical Jerks who don't care a bit for you and I. They're both after power and a historical legacy.

There will come a tipping point where we break the corporate owned two party system. Every time you vote or support a third party candidate, that tipping point get's closer. If you look back in history...it's always been that way. The underlying tensions that create change suddenly spring. It appears that change happens quickly and miraculously...but that's not the case.

Guilt shaming someone for voting third party when there is no choice between the two idiots we have running now is nothing more than parroting your corporate overlords. wake up.

And hre's the crux of the problem...we've been trained since birth to believe or big news organizations. Now we can see clearly that they've biased, only tell us what they're owners want us to know...and edit out anything that doesn't help their world view. Examples are clear bias towards clinton over Sanders in the Democratic primary by CNN. Or clear anti liberal agenda by fox news and talk radio. Or editing out the "bad parts" on a Jill Stien interview by PBS because she criticized Clinton. Or the big news shows and organizations marginalizing third party candidates or just not talking about them at all.

personally i have to ask, if vaxers are afraid of non-vaxers because they're putting them at risk doesn't that technically mean vaccinations dont work? i mean you got vaccinated to "prevent" disease and illness

a reply to: Aazadan

It seems you have utter trust in the government and large pharmaceuticals. The ones who over sold and allowed the over use of antibiotics? You don't believe in a well inform voting population that scrutinizes evey aspect of government to be governments watch dog?

a reply to: RammsteinEscobar

Is that a real question?

It is common knowledge that vaccines do not work for everyone and many cannot take them because of medical reasons like being too young, allergic, immune compromised, pregnant, etcetera.