Round 1: Maxmars vs Parallex - "Take the Flu Shot!", page 1

At the beginning of this affray, may I thank the relevant architects, moderators and contributors involved with the tournament. It is an excellent and wonderfully productive examination of contemporary issues.

Secondly, I would like to thank Chissler et al for choosing a fantastic subject for myself and the intrepid Maxmars to dissect.

Last but not least, I would like to wish the very best of luck to my esteemed opponent Maxmars. I sincerely hope you can challenge my viewpoints on Swine Flu, the vaccines and associated drugs. It’s quite a subject alright.

Subject - "Not Everyone Is Trying To Kill You, Take The Darn Flu Shot Already!”

OPENING STATEMENT

This is a ‘prickly’ question and requires a couple of suitably blunt remarks from myself to set the tone of my approach from the ‘con’ side. As best as I can understand this question, I am required to argue that a person or persons will try to cause my death via the methodology of the Swine Flu vaccine / ‘pandemic’.

“Not everyone is trying to kill you” – Many people just don’t care enough to NOT let me die or suffer. The difference between actively and passively working towards this end, in my view, is minimal. Therefore, many people by their actions alone (without specific intent) may well cause my death.

“Take the darn flu shot already” – If I was a U.S. citizen, I would say it was my constitutional right to choose what goes into my body, and what doesn’t. As a British fellow, I would say that my forefathers didn’t fight for a set of ‘human rights’ (along with the signing of Magna Carta) for nothing, and as such, I KNOW that I have no responsibility to anyone or anything to take a Flu Shot. The decision lies squarely with me.

I can assure everyone here on ATS that I will NOT be taking any Swine Flu related drugs, or any of the panoply of vaccines available.

Let us examine the reasoning behind my refusal to comply with the debate subject matter.

I make three central claims about the Swine Flu Shot –

1) The vaccine has not been tested properly, nor given the correct time period for useful assessment – as such I believe it is potentially dangerous.
2) Historical precedents provide warning signs about the safety of flu vaccines that must be heeded.
3) The hidden agenda associated with Swine Flu demands an opposing response. A biological ‘true-flag’ event must not be pandered to by taking the vaccine.

POINT 1 –

Clinical trials of normal vaccines and medicines often take many years to complete, sometimes decades. Even so, we often hear of examples of medicines and vaccines that are approved by government committees, only to be withdrawn because of ‘unforeseen’ or ‘ignored’ consequences. Unfortunately, these ‘consequences’ are all too often lethal. One of the most famous cases of malfeasance was that of the Thalidomide scandal. Easily findable on Google, this incident caused a sea-change in the setting of standards when assessing drugs and vaccines for public use. What it didn’t do however, was separate the testing of said articles from the influence of the ‘Big Pharma’ corporations around the world. To this day, these companies still provide their own test results and conclusions to the relevant approval committees. The fallacy is that these clinical trial results are regarded as trustworthy.

To add to this point – this source – Bio-Medicine.org Article, explains why drugs and vaccines that are ‘rushed’ are more likely to cause problems down the line. If you combine the ‘Big Pharma’ corporations rush to get limited-time patent / licenced drugs out onto the market and making money, with self-attesting standards application – you will start seeing a disturbing trend in no time at all. Given all the years that these organisations have been refining this practice, it could be posited that they would now be able to stimulate an environment in which to maximise the returns of this practice.

The approval of the main swine flu vaccines took only months all over the world. In the U.S. important lawsuits put forward the fact that at the time there were NO supporting research documents validating the safety and effectiveness of said vaccines. In the EU, research papers were poorly weighted, and subject to much controversy. Perhaps by all parties involved, including the people taking the vaccines, this was a leap of faith?

POINT 2 –

It is common knowledge now that the 1979 Swine Flu pandemic that was supposed to arrive (that didn’t) was hyped, and taken advantage of. The US government, and it’s ‘Big Pharma’ lobbyists saw an opportunity to take liberties for themselves, and make a tidy profit. The ‘American Dream’ for some.

In doing this, the vaccines that arrived, arrived quickly and upon a huge wave of government propaganda and hype (Contemporary similarities I wonder?). They were there to save peoples’ lives. However, at the time no one heard about the instances of Guillane Barre syndrome associated with the vaccine. Very few in the public domain knew about the Thimerasol, the Squalene and other toxins being included in the vaccines. As such, roughly 4,000 people are now suing the U.S. government for damages due to adverse reactions associated with the Swine Flu vaccine of that year.

It is yet more common knowledge that the vaccine that year killed more people than the REAL flu did. History is there for us to learn lessons, and learn them well.

As one of my favourite people in the U.S. – Bill Maher recently found out, questioning the dogma of vaccines is like questioning the Dogma surrounding the Christian faith. I am in agreement with him when I say that the science behind vaccines should remain as such – science, NOT dogma. It should be given room to improve and advance. Currently, the thinking behind the use of vaccines is outdated and quite frankly toxically stagnant. It is precisely this stagnation, and the failure to learn from history which has granted this situation the opportunity to rise again.

POINT 3 –

There is some controversy surrounding the idea that the Swine Flu is in fact part of a hidden agenda perpetrated by various factions. Much of this controversy stems from the idea that one of the aims of this agenda is to kill people. I can present no evidence, or indeed I completely disagree with the notion that Swine Flu has been released as a population control agent or any such outlandish idea. However, this is not to say that killing some citizens of the world is not part of this agenda. I submit precisely the opposite.

There has been much anecdotal and circumstantial evidence to suggest that Swine Flu, an oddly ‘quadruply recombined’ virus (Avian, Human Seasonal & two types of Swine Flu) was not the result of a freak natural event. In fact, a lab in Europe (before the virus appeared publicly) was known to have combined the viral strains in this way – trying to second guess nature in the pursuit of a usable vaccine should said virus appear naturally. Given the leak of ‘Foot & Mouth’ disease in the UK into the wild from a laboratory, a precedent for leakage accidentally was set. On a side note, many notable microbiologists have noted that the virus in question displays many characteristics of a manufactured strain.

An accidental leak would’ve been the most likely causal possibility of this outbreak. However, during the initial stages of the so-called ‘Swine Flu’ pandemic, an organisation known as Baxter Pharmaceuticals was caught red-handed shipping out ‘live’ versions of the virus disguised as vaccines. Innocent mistake or something more sinister? I vote for the latter because, unbeknownst to many, the laboratory in question producing these ‘vaccines’ had a bio-security protocol in place which – without intent otherwise – would not have been able to allow ‘live’ viral content out of its’ facilities.

How is this relevant to a grand scheme I hear you ask?

In POINT 2, I described the notion that ‘Big Pharma’ has become so adept at pushing out new treatments for anything and everything, with huge margins and massive profits; that they have embarked upon market-making. Manipulating their market environment by releasing agents into the general human population, requiring treatments that ‘Big Pharma’ can provide. It is a money-making scam that involves all levels of government national and international. Campaign funds, private boons, expensive gifts, political favours, all can be provided to government figures when the monies involved are this huge. Then there is the reality that governments can use the ‘pandemic’ to remove inconvenient liberties from their populations.

Inevitably, people will die because of the pathogens released. ‘Big Pharma’ and ‘Big Government’ don’t care. The trade-off of a few lives, for many billions of dollars in profits and backhanders is nothing. The race to abuse the human species, take advantage of a profit making situation, and to garner more POWER, has meant that surely – not everyone is seeking my specific death, but they don’t care if I die because of what they do. Morally, and practically, it’s the same as murder.

Given that I know what is in the Swine Flu vaccines, and given the Swine Flu vaccine history in years gone by, I will NOT be taking the Swine Flu vaccine as it is hazardous to my health.

Most of my above points can be verified by reading through the articles on this website –

www.theflucase.com... - By Jane Burgermeister

Thank you for your patience in reading my opening session, I will now proceed to answer my esteemed opponents’ questions and pose those of my own.

The Para.

Thank you for your response.

...I do feel you are straining at the leash to steer this debate into a faux-debate of subjective musings.

Let's finish now, with the the dance. This is our final opportunity to understand what the other wishes to say.

You have identified my position rather abruptly as a “faux-debate of subjective musings.” This would be to say that my position, namely:

I contend that rejecting the flu-shot on the basis of the theory that it is an attempt to kill people is fallacious. The reasoning is thus invalidated.

I find this in direct correlation to the debate topic:

“Not Everyone Is Trying To Kill You, Take The Darn Flu Shot Already!”

In order to effectively defend this position, I have assumed the position of challenging you to justify the idea that you shouldn't take the flu shot, on the merits of the embedded reasoning therein. For the purposes of this debate, I cannot logically expect to defend a negative assertion, unless I resort to the trappings of sophistic game-play.

This topic is far too important to reduce to the level of a playful romp of debating tactics. I have resolved to show that such reasoning, as is displayed in the topic assertion, is a most ironic example of self-defeating approach towards the correct goal. It is in fact, an example of the means diminishing the ends – and perpetuating a meme equating dissent with feeble-mindedness or any other such social stigma.

I have clearly indicated that to reject the end, to “take the flu shot”, should not be contingent on the reasoning that “to kill you” is the objective. By that reasoning being invoked, reinforced, and promulgated, you are diminishing that which you seek to defend “that you shouldn't take the flu shot.” How can you (successfully) argue that the two concepts married into one thought should be logically connected.

If the reason you offer to not take the flu shot is because it is has been said to be a death sentence, you are capitulating to fear, my friend. The likelihood of death (or injury) is not much more than many other quite 'acceptable' risks we as people have adopted over the course of time. That there is profiteering, yes, that there are explicit dangers, yes, that transnationalist corporations manipulate what they refer euphemistically to as “the market,” yes...

That someone is out to get us, to kill us, indiscriminately, NO.

Such corruption of presumptive benevolence is evident in more than the topic of instant, and we are not availing ourselves to remedy the situation by accepting axiomatic dogma about exaggerated nefarious purposes.

I risk the latitude you have to declare my approach fanciful and off-point because of the seriousness with with I intend to make my point clear.

“Take the darn flu-shot!” is a command. Direct, plain, and devoid of debatable points. There are literally two solid responses to the command, comply or refuse. You wish to expound upon the reasons for refusal, in the hopes that that I will attempt to expound on the reason for compliance.

I am not a 'compliant' fellow, my friend. I always appreciate the unstoppable force/immovable object paradigm, but it is a construct I know too well. And it can make for tiresome repetitiveness in debate. So I offer you my last attempt to see my point, you may comply, or refuse... such is the nature of choice.

I sense your attempt to impose upon my position, the supposition that I wish to focus on “Not Everyone Is Trying To Kill You,” as it's dialectic opponent. You have erred in this supposition. The two cannot grammatically be separated for the convenience of argument. If you haven't guess my direction yet, you have but one more opportunity respond to me directly. What follows after your next post is our summation. My goal will be reached, fanciful or not; once there we shall see if I have made my point clear enough for all the patient readers and judges who may happen upon out debate and wonder of its course.

As the proponent of the statement: “Not Everyone Is Trying To Kill You, Take The Darn Flu Shot Already!” I assume the challenge of explaining why this statement must be made. In the contrary position, you are to prove me wrong (in the spirit of the debate).

By flooding us with the information regarding the slimy practices of which our authorities and 'trusted' institutions are evidently guilty, you hope to invoke the passions which stir in many informed people about the nature of reality. Frank Herbert once wrote of hope... “Hope clouds observation” and “The unclouded eye sees better, no matter what it sees.”

The final case against compliance with any vaccination campaign can only come to reality when it can be definitively stated that it's purpose is to harm humanity. The opportunistic self-serving manipulations of agents and agendas in the matter are visible, but cannot be confronted collectively unless instances of criminality are singled out and brought to public justice.

Not taking the vaccine does not accomplish this end. In fact, it provides legitimacy to the ideological position that those same authorities should be empowered to disregard the wishes of the individual and compel compliance, based on the logical flaw that vaccines are 'bad' for you.

The attachment of “Not everyone is trying to kill you” is a rather heavy-handed generalization about the cause of dissent. In fact, if everyone were to get the inoculation or not, will we see a true biological catastrophe? It seems ironic that we accept that the authorities of the establishment and the predators among them can control such things either way. They breath out air, drink our water, and cannot hide from those who serve them.

They have inoculated many by now, and people are not dropping like flies. What may happen, in the end, is what has happened every time our society has given over control the medical community, people die or get hurt needlessly. It is so because we trust in the institutions' “the state of the art.” Clearly that trust is overinflated, thanks to many who stand to benefit from the inflation.

We have created an institution with a mandate to care for the human condition. While the entire body of that institution to collude towards the opposite goal is not technically 'impossible,' it is so unlikely to succeed as to be a ludicrous endeavor.

I say that unless you are specifically refusing to submit to the inoculation to protest a political point (or a apolitical one), or to express your personal sovereignty, or on some principle that extends beyond paranoia, you have no case.

Rejecting the vaccine as some kind of protection against death is not valid. The vaccine is likely to as effective as any other the chemists have developed, there is nothing extraordinary about it in terms of practices they have declared “good for us” for decades. If, as many have before, you have been inoculated, and survived, you are probably going to survive this one.

Just don't kid yourself into thinking that all doctors are Mengele- clones handing out death and pain. If that's what you fear, you fear needlessly.

--------------------

So you admit that the Swine Flu vaccines are dangerous?

No more so than any other similarly applied vaccine.

Will you admit that the odd lack of an investigation into these strange coincidences provides evidence of a purposeful cover-up?

I agree there should be a purposeful and deliberate accounting; especially since this may be a systemic failure of corporate oversight and national and global governance. I must leave accusations of criminality to those who can identify the means, motive, and opportunity of such a conspiracy.

Physics maintains that given the presence of more than one potential eventuality in any given situation, all are true until the event-horizon is reached, after which one reality is revealed....

Nice! Among the innumerable paths and the ebbing and flowing of the currents of choice both the bad and the good futures exists. You can't manipulate a marionette with one string.

So that’s it? No further questioning of why certain people get one and not the other? .... I definitely think there’s something to this.

The only thing it could prove is that some have the influence and means necessary to avoid exposing themselves to the adjuvants. It is not clear how this spells anything beyond a potential abuse of power and a double-standard being imposed by those who can avoid the risk. Presumably, they will not be reelected, reappointed, or allowed to exercise such abuse ever again.

If these organisations have been stimulating demand, through the release of pathogens...care about their callous indifference to the death they will cause? ... any person who invests in these organisations is callously indifferent to my potential death as well? And you think everyone ISN'T trying to kill me....

What you are alluding to, 'responsible' investing, eerily resembles the topic of Sharia-law finances; a secular version similarly based on principles.

And yes, I do believe that not everyone is trying to kill you.

...from which we can clearly infer that the flu shot is not intended as a 'death sentence.'

What causes, justifies or allows this inference? Nothing. Purely led by your viewpoint rather than reality.

If there was a 'they' who were trying to kill us all, do you believe it would be a vaccine that did it? Knowing you can't control the mutation process, knowing that eventually, local health care organizations would clearly see the corpses piling up and counting on them to say nothing about it? If it were you, would you want to save your sister, your brother, or cousin? Mom, Mom, Dad? your friend's family? How do you accomplish this? I'm afraid the disconnect from reality appears to be yours.

Thank you,

MaxMars