Tucker Carlson and Robert Kennedy Jr. about the vaccine conspiracy 5 minute video

a reply to: 727Sky

How ridiculous is this man? (Robert Kennedy). He clearly said that if you shatter a vaccine vial you will have to evacuate the building, due to the mercury content... I wonder if he's really that ignorant or if he pretends.

The answer is no, if you shatter a vaccine vial on the floor you don't evacuate the building, you clean it up. A vaccine dose has 25ug of ethylmercury (thimerosal) which is a trace amount. There is more mercury in a light bulb! A fluorescent bulb has 5 mg of elemental mercury, which is highly volatile.

Have you ever evacuated a building after breaking a light bulb? A light bulb contains 20 times more mercury than any vaccine does, let alone a completely different/ more toxic type of mercury.

OP please post the original study done with African children, I would like to read the real study to discuss it as it's evident Mr Kennedy is not a very honest chap. Thank you.

a reply to: CovertAgenda

Yes I stand by what I said. They've been giving these vaccines since the 1890s . They have come a long way from the original types of live vaccines which were still better than dying of these diseases.
It's not statistically impossible for millions to have received these vaccines. They've been available for over 100 years. If they were more than marginally dangerous they would have pulled them.
Yes all medications carry risks. Aspirin has killed children. When I was a teenager a little boy I babysat for died from ryes syndrome from taking aspirin when he had chicken pox. I'm not saying there are no risks but I've seen this leap being made frequently. I defend a vaccine. I get posts like yours. Claiming I've said things I didn't.

a reply to: Pardon?

Did you miss the bit where I said "severe".

So now the moot point is now defining what you interpret to be 'severe'.... take your pick of what suits in what I presented above if that makes you feel better....allergic reactions, including anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions? or maybe just a headache? what about diarrhoea, vomiting, gastrointestinal disorders ...is that severe to you?

Has the contamination with SV40 over half a century ago led to anything? Did it harm anyone? Has anyone anywhere ever proved that SV40 causes cancer in humans?

Thats the easy way out mate, Ive provided enough proof already, and from the freaking manufacturer. Even if I did provide something, no doubt you would say 'The site you copy & pasted from (an anti-vaccine site, not a "skeptics" site) regurgitates the same tired old anti-science rhetoric which has been shown to be false time and time again.'
What a surprise that would be.
Time-wasting i think its called.
Why don't you show me something from your 'research' that would indicate that it is perfectly safe to inject a human with foreign DNA and or viruses (etc)
BTW you must already know about the 'cancer' issue as I never stated it.

Your understanding of what research actually is needs more research

So now you claim to know what I understand ? Wow... Mind reading part of your CV too?...
But in researching research I found this...
'The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines research in more detail as "a studious inquiry or examination; especially investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws"
See that bit.... 'revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts'
Try it... you might like it.....

a reply to: Sillyolme
Stand wherever you want mate, don't bother me....

They have come a long way from the original types of live vaccines which were still better than dying of these diseases

Yes I agree, but at what point do we say 'enough', considering that (as previously linked) a rise in living standards was already reducing incidence (in the first/second world anyway) with or without vaccines ? When is that risk outweighed?

It's not statistically impossible for millions to have received these vaccines

No but impossible for millions of doses given without any adverse incidents as alluded to in other postings.

Claiming I've said things I didn't.

I may have mixed you up with another poster, quote me, provide proof and I wont mind apologizing.

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
a reply to: Pardon?

Did you miss the bit where I said "severe".

So now the moot point is now defining what you interpret to be 'severe'.... take your pick of what suits in what I presented above if that makes you feel better....allergic reactions, including anaphylactic and anaphylactoid reactions? or maybe just a headache? what about diarrhoea, vomiting, gastrointestinal disorders ...is that severe to you?

Has the contamination with SV40 over half a century ago led to anything? Did it harm anyone? Has anyone anywhere ever proved that SV40 causes cancer in humans?

Thats the easy way out mate, Ive provided enough proof already, and from the freaking manufacturer. Even if I did provide something, no doubt you would say 'The site you copy & pasted from (an anti-vaccine site, not a "skeptics" site) regurgitates the same tired old anti-science rhetoric which has been shown to be false time and time again.'
What a surprise that would be.
Time-wasting i think its called.
Why don't you show me something from your 'research' that would indicate that it is perfectly safe to inject a human with foreign DNA and or viruses (etc)
BTW you must already know about the 'cancer' issue as I never stated it.

Your understanding of what research actually is needs more research

So now you claim to know what I understand ? Wow... Mind reading part of your CV too?...
But in researching research I found this...
'The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines research in more detail as "a studious inquiry or examination; especially investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws"
See that bit.... 'revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts'
Try it... you might like it.....

No, it's not my definition of severe at all.
Generally a severe adverse event is one which requires a hospital stay or becomes a chronic illness.
Headache, stomach-upsets and diarrhoea in this context are not deemed severe.
Allergic reactions, especially those including anaphylaxis are unbelievably rare.

Also note that the list of adverse events you posted are events reported in specific time periods following vaccination (up to 6 months post) and may only be temporal in association. That means that it' might not have anything to do with the vaccine but it's reported anyway.
Saying that, the adverse event list from tetanus is far more severe.
The adverse event list from diphtheria is far more severe.
The adverse event list from pertussis is far more severe.
Personally I'd prefer a general malaise or a sore arm rather than any of those diseases' effects.

You mentioned SV40 but you didn't provide any evidence of any harm or negative effects from it.
Care to add some?
What I know is that the last dose was given in 1963 and to date there hasn't been one incident of cancer in a human who was given that vaccine in which SV40 caused it.

As for "injecting foreign DNA or viruses" do you know how a virus replicates within your body?
Sure you do.
That's why you know it's even safer injecting inactivated virus cells as happens in a vaccine as the replication mechanism is removed isn't it?
Apart from that, from a physiological perspective injecting "foriegn DNA" in the form of a virus or parts thereof would possibly evoke an immune response and if not they would be broken down by macrophages and absorbed as a nutrient.
That's about it. And it happens all the time (have you ever had a scratch or cut? If so, "foreign DNA" would have entered your body. Have you transformed into something else yet?).

Oh, I'm sure that you also know that the DTaP is not a viral vaccine as it protects against bacterial infections.

Which all brings me to the research bit.
No, I can't read minds, I can only read what you have written.
And that tells me that you have an awful lot of research to do.
Start from the basics and work up from there rather than trying to dive in head-first.

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
a reply to: Sillyolme
Stand wherever you want mate, don't bother me....

They have come a long way from the original types of live vaccines which were still better than dying of these diseases

Yes I agree, but at what point do we say 'enough', considering that (as previously linked) a rise in living standards was already reducing incidence (in the first/second world anyway) with or without vaccines ? When is that risk outweighed?

It's not statistically impossible for millions to have received these vaccines

No but impossible for millions of doses given without any adverse incidents as alluded to in other postings.

Claiming I've said things I didn't.

I may have mixed you up with another poster, quote me, provide proof and I wont mind apologizing.

A rise in living standards wasn't reducing incidence (morbidity).
A rise in living standards was reducing death (mortality).
BIG difference.

A bit of reading for you
Vaccine Incidence

a reply to: Pardon?
Cheers for that link and your perspective , been sidetracked, I will delve a bit deeper when I get the chance. ( I do appreciate the discussion btw.)
I see that the following study had just been released, your take?
oatext.com...

Research Article - Journal of Translational Science
Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children

Abstract - Vaccinations have prevented millions of infectious illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths among U.S. children, yet the long-term health outcomes of the vaccination schedule remain uncertain. Studies have been recommended by the U.S. Institute of Medicine to address this question. This study aimed 1) to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children on a broad range of health outcomes, and 2) to determine whether an association found between vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD), if any, remained significant after adjustment for other measured factors.

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
a reply to: Pardon?
Cheers for that link and your perspective , been sidetracked, I will delve a bit deeper when I get the chance. ( I do appreciate the discussion btw.)
I see that the following study had just been released, your take?
oatext.com...

Research Article - Journal of Translational Science
Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children

Abstract - Vaccinations have prevented millions of infectious illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths among U.S. children, yet the long-term health outcomes of the vaccination schedule remain uncertain. Studies have been recommended by the U.S. Institute of Medicine to address this question. This study aimed 1) to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children on a broad range of health outcomes, and 2) to determine whether an association found between vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD), if any, remained significant after adjustment for other measured factors.

It seems to be a rehash of a previously retracted study.
And I believe it's been retracted again.
Mainly as it's a very poor study and as scientifically valid as the video in the op.

Bad Study

a reply to: Pardon?
LOL...
The site you present is not really much of a research organisation now is it?
patsy organisation
Patsy Org 2
your site's founder and executive editor...
patsy
Managing editor...
second in line patsy
I could go on, but a little digging on you own behalf would identify the backgrounds of the (remaining) contributors to the site, and their ties to big pharma and the mainstream.
And when these supposed 'science-based' mouthpieces use terms like...

Two crappy zombie studies

and

They’re pretty much all crap

a Wakefield fanboi here

High level scientific-based comments there....
Im afraid that the site you quote seems even less credible than anything that i had presented, and we could go on forever with back and forth potentially useless websites to provide 'evidence' against each other.

Lets make it easy..... show me something of credibility that says that vaccines are 100% safe.

Here again read what the manufacturers themselves state...
boostrix

Anyways... happy vaxxin... or not..LOL

You see, that's what you lot do don't you?
You'll happily attack the commentator but you have nothing to show that the study is valid and you have nothing to contradict their reasons explaining why the study isn't valid.
Why?
Because the study isn't valid, that's why.
And the links you use in your lame attempt to discredit the commentators need revision don't you think (Quora? AoA? Really? And you're saying the site I used isn't credible?)?

Why has the study been retracted twice?
Why, if the study is valid, hasn't it been followed up and made more robust?
And the answer is that the study is scientifically inept.

So tell me why from a scientific perspective why that study should be taken seriously because you haven't so far?
And instead of attacking them and the sites, tell me why they are wrong.

Nothing can be proven to be 100% safe, that's a typically ridiculous anti-vax remark but to turn it around show me data which proves them to be more harmful than they are beneficial.

Your direct link doesn't work but I managed to find it and was wondering just what your point is?
Is it that Boostrix isn't 100% safe because that's not important outside the anti-vax bubble.
What is does show and I assume you're happy to accept this since you shared the paper is that rare complications are exactly that, rare, between 1 in a thousand to 1 in 10 thousand and are very manageable. The very rare events are listed as allergic reactions and are less than 1 in 10000. Bear in mind that these are events that are reported within a specific time period post administration and are not necessarily as a result of the vaccine. But you know that don't you?
And the mortality is 0 (zero).

Let's contrast that with actually getting diphtheria; without treatment 1 in 2 people will die. With treatment 1 in 10 people will die.
Complications from diphtheria may include:
Blocking of the airway
Damage to the heart muscle (myocarditis)
Nerve damage (polyneuropathy)
Loss of the ability to move (paralysis)
Lung infection (respiratory failure or pneumonia).

What about tetanus?
Without treatment 1 in 4 people will die.
Thankfully with treatment less than 15% of people die (but they will be given scary-sounding chemicals like the vaccine to make them better...).
Complications of tetanus may include
Uncontrolled/involuntary tightening of the vocal cords (laryngospasm)
Broken bones (fractures)
Blockage of the main artery of the lung or one of its branches by a blood clot that has traveled from elsewhere in the body through the bloodstream (pulmonary embolism)
Breathing difficulty, possibly leading to death (1 to 2 in 10 cases are fatal).

I'm happy to carry on if you want...


I always think it's strange that anti-vaxxers happily cherry-pick and misrepresent parts of vaccine package-inserts to bolster their cause but refute the same science that created them which shows they are wrong.
Is it scientific illiteracy or is it more malignant than that?
I'd say it's about 30% of the former and 70% of the latter (a rough estimate...).

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
Anyway fYI even though I doubt it would sink in...

boostrix

BOOSTRIX

So you believe without a doubt all the 'dangers' listed in the vaccines insert..... but you don't believe the efficacy and benefits also listed in the insert?

Please explain this paradox to me........

Tucker Carlson and Robert Kennedy Jr. about the vaccine conspiracy 5 minute video

A Fox News host and a politician.

If this is who you get your healthcare advice from, I really don't know what to say.

a reply to: Agartha
NO never said that... no paradox, try and re read what has been stated......
My comments relate to posts that say things like this...

Millions of children have been given the DPT shot without incident since the beginning of the twentieth century

Did you read that?.... WITHOUT INCIDENT.
Some vaxxers don't seem to understand the concept of risk. Do you?

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
Did you read that?.... WITHOUT INCIDENT.
Some vaxxers don't seem to understand the concept of risk. Do you?

Oh I absolutely do and I could say to you that it is true and raise it to 'billions have been given vaccines without incident', in fact vaccines injuries are LESS than one in a million:

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
a reply to: Agartha
NO never said that... no paradox, try and re read what has been stated......
My comments relate to posts that say things like this...

Millions of children have been given the DPT shot without incident since the beginning of the twentieth century

Did you read that?.... WITHOUT INCIDENT.
Some vaxxers don't seem to understand the concept of risk. Do you?

Congratulations.
That there line is irony in it's purest form.

a reply to: Pardon?
You 'lot'....lol
Show me where I said I am an anti-vaxxer....
If you take off your vaxglasses you will see that all I am saying, or have said, is that nothing is 100% safe
Go back and have a read.
Even the manufacturers own documentation says so.

Nothing can be proven to be 100% safe, that's a typically ridiculous anti-vax remark but to turn it around show me data which proves them to be more harmful than they are beneficial.

Again you miss the point and try a reach around.
You can carry on as much as you want, but shouldn't you make sure of the argument first?

a reply to: Agartha
But still not 100% safe
Your little red circle proves it.
Read what I wrote to your vaxxer buddy, applies to you too.

a reply to: Pardon?
Well you wrote it.
well done.

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
a reply to: Agartha
But still not 100% safe
Your little red circle proves it.
Read what I wrote to your vaxxer buddy, applies to you too.

Some of us live in the real world whilst you're still stuck in your Nirvana fantasy.
Will anything we say or do change that for you?
I very much doubt it.

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: 727Sky



OP please post the original study done with African children, I would like to read the real study to discuss it as it's evident Mr Kennedy is not a very honest chap. Thank you.

Did you ever get to see that study?