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

The topic for this debate is "Not Everyone Is Trying To Kill You, Take The Darn Flu Shot Already!”

"Maxmars" will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
"Parallex" will be arguing the "Con" position.


Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

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

The topic for this debate is "Not Everyone Is Trying To Kill You, Take The Darn Flu Shot Already!”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you esteemed chissler, for the work you put in to making the Debates tournament a reality, and thank you to everyone who is helping one way or another.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been assigned the "Pro" position of this both timely, and somewhat tricky debate.

Technically, to win I must support the topic statement which consists of two phrases:


"Not everyone is trying to kill you" and "take the darn flu shot already!"

Axiomatic Premise number one: This debate is primarily concerned with the recent H1N1 (so-called "Swine Flu") vaccine.

Axiomatic Premise number two: I am to argue as if I were trying to convince, for example, Parallex to get the shot, which is being refused on the grounds that it's purpose is to "kill people."

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

My analysis of this topic title leads me to the following conclusion:

It appears I am intended to counter the argument the vaccine itself is a means towards achieving the nefarious goal of increasing the likelihood that people die sooner rather than later. That such a generalized plot to reduce the population is an unreasonable agenda to attribute to the international, national, and local authorities involved in the campaign.

I am to succeed in affirming that refusal based on such a position represents illogical paranoia ("they are out to get me") and such reasoning is insufficiently sound.

What it does not mean bears noting for the record.

It does not mean I think there are no valid reasons for refusing the shot. Only that the recurring "They are out to kill us all" mentality is not a valid.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must be acknowledged is that not everyone CAN take the shot without accepting undesirable risk. There are parameters of medical conditions that make taking the shot a risky proposal such as age, genetic predisposition to anomalous mitochondrial breakdown, allergy, immuno-suppressive diseases, etc.

I hope that my esteemed opponent will grant that such objections are not paranoia. Thus, this group - those medically advised to refrain - are off the table insofar as theoretical subjects of the debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If however, you expect me to say that the accepting the vaccine is safe; or that it is well-tested, "tried-and-true", or otherwise without risk; I would have to argue that the topic be restated to explicitly say that.

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

Based on presumed acceptance of the former, please review and respond to these Socratic questions:


Socratic Question #1: Parallex, do you contend that vaccination campaigns are part of an intentionally orchestrated effort to 'cull the herd' so to speak? Or is it limited to this particular "H1N1" vaccination round?

Socratic Question #2: If you were certain that a vaccine was, in fact, a deadly substance, yet were obliged by law or policy to take it, would you object, refuse, or submit? Assume the consequences of refusal are simply loss of employment, and not the possibility of fines and prison for this question.

Socratic Question #3: Assuming you were informed by competent authorities that this illness could be life-threatening, would you risk the side-effects of the vaccine?

Socratic Question #3: Do you hold that the intent of the authority behind the drive to vaccinate everyone is malignant abuse of the health and welfare of the population?

Socratic Question #4: Do you think that those pushing the vaccination agenda are trying to kill us?

Socratic Question #5: If the actions of someone who is trying to assist you could lead to your injury or death, would you say it justifies refusing their help?

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.

(Post Removed)

Reminder to Debaters: All relevant information must be included within the 10,000 character restriction. This includes your Socratic question and answers. A follow-up post to add this content is not within the agreed upon rules.

One post per turn.

-chissler


[edit on 11-23-2009 by chissler]

Thank you, Parallex, well said.

Recognizing that this debate is about a choice, and why it is made, is essential to the resolution of the conflict we are in. Equating the ham-handed profiteering and cronyism that allows dangerous abuses to happen with a plot to kill billions is fallacious, and thus, not a valid reason.

“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.

A good point - indeed the truth is, institutionalized apathy towards the well-being of individuals has it's rightful place among the tangible factors contributing to death, as does a cultural lack of empathy for those who need, want, or suffer.

“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.

Herein we part from a common path. You see, the premise of the topic is that the reason you refuse the vaccine is not that you are exercising a right.

The debate is that the reason for refusal is because of the posit contention that this is an attempt to end you (or anyone's) life.

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.

We must all make such a choice eventually. It seems best to be prepared for the consequences, if you already know the choice you intend to make.

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

If I may presume to advise you, this is not a sound course of action. The debate subject matter exists as a constraint that makes the debate level. I will attempt to adapt to whatever form your argument will take, but the subject matter is the goal. To avoid it is antithetical to the exercise.

I hope our kind readers will understand if some of my responses seem obtuse in this regard. I'm sure we can regain the rhythm of the debate, nevertheless.

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.

You will get little argument from me here. The authorities have stated that they have waived the precaution due to the WHO's recommendation and the recommendation of the DHHS. It does not represent the only medical treatment to which such a waiver has been granted; often to our detriment. By this reasoning all such medications, devices, or treatments are more dangerous.

I don't wish devote an inordinate amount of time to this aspect of the debate. I respond to in deference to the obvious importance of the topic. While it is clear, that the elements of this point are of consequence, they are not necessarily contributory to the notion that someone desires to kill someone.

2) Historical precedents provide warning signs about the safety of flu vaccines that must be heeded.

History paints a troubling picture. It is difficult to believe that our authorities were so easily swayed into allowing the lax safety measures that have caused, and perhaps will continue to cause so much unnecessary suffering. Again, this doesn't equate to a desire to kill us all.

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.

My opponent rightly implies the twin of the clinically detached calculation of a few enterprising elements within global and national governments world-wide; namely, the pathetic opportunists who use confidence tricks and abuse of public trust to make political use of the system for power and wealth.

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

There is a callous disregard for individual health and safety when actuarial tables and dollars are involved. "Enlightened self-interest" is the polite way of describing the greed which ultimately drives the abuses which we, as "designated consumers" seem at best either too complacent to change, or at worst too weak to overcome.

But again, it does not equate to killing just about everyone on the planet.

In fact, that would be counterproductive to the goal of harnessing all these people for their wealth building capabilities and services.

And with that I segue into the crux of the matter, we are discussing the penultimate conspiracy. The destruction of the billions of human lives, and worse, the utter negation of human freedom. Can we believe that this is the goal of the campaign to inoculate people against the H1N1 virus?

Since you were unexpectedly unable to answer my Socratic Questions I will not add to that burden.


I turn the floor over to you. Thank you for your patience.

Thank you for your insightful and interesting take on the subject matter Maxmars – much food for thought.

Preface Response:

Recognizing that this debate is about a choice, ...cut for space... not a valid reason.

I disagree - the expressions 'ignorance is not a defence', and 'I was only following orders' both apply here. You also mistake my point, I have in fact previously thrown away the idea that billions are to die.

... You see, the premise of the topic is that the reason you refuse the vaccine is not that you are exercising a right.

As ever context is required. Rights are always important - it is the denial of these rights that forms part of the conspiracy.

The debate is that the reason for refusal is because of the posit contention that this is an attempt to end you (or anyone's) life.

I have to disagree - in my view, the posit contention states nothing towards the ending of any specific individuals life. Your point relies on an assumption that is not stated, but merely inferred. Therefore it is fair of me not to place the 'murder' aspect centre stage of this debate.

If I may presume to advise you, this is not a sound course of action. The debate subject matter exists as a constraint that makes the debate level. I will attempt to adapt to whatever form your argument will take, but the subject matter is the goal. To avoid it is antithetical to the exercise.

My apologies, I appear to be confusing you. By my statement I was referring to the fact that I have not, and will not comply with taking the Swine Flu shot - not ignoring the debate subject matter as a topic.

I don't wish to devote an inordinate amount of time to this aspect of the debate.

While it is clear, that the elements of this point are of consequence, they are not necessarily contributory to the notion that someone desires to kill someone.

I'm sure you don't, as it is a key element of the debate. It represents a part of the wider pattern of methodology employed to 'pharma-farm' humanity - a shining example of the indifference which could lead to my death at their hands - I wonder if I am to end up as part of the mandated dead percentile?

It is difficult to believe that our authorities were so easily swayed into allowing the lax safety measures that have caused, and perhaps will continue to cause so much unnecessary suffering. Again, this doesn't equate to a desire to kill us all.

Again, you assume the 'kill us all' position - as I have previously stated, this is a null position. You say nothing of the mandated dead percentile required for the manipulation to work effectively.

My opponent rightly implies the twin of the clinically detached calculation of a few enterprising elements within global and national governments world-wide; namely, the pathetic opportunists who use confidence tricks and abuse of public trust to make political use of the system for power and wealth.

Hear Hear!!!

There is a callous disregard for individual health and safety when actuarial tables and dollars are involved. "Enlightened self-interest" is the polite way of describing the greed which ultimately drives the abuses which we, as "designated consumers" seem at best either too complacent to change, or at worst too weak to overcome.

I should buy you a beer!

But again, it does not equate to killing just about everyone on the planet.

Your assumption sir, not mine.

In fact, that would be counterproductive to the goal of harnessing all these people for their wealth building capabilities and services.

I am glad to see you agree with my argument made in POINT 3 of my opening session. Thank you.

And with that I segue into the crux of the matter, we are discussing the penultimate conspiracy. The destruction of the billions of human lives, and worse, the utter negation of human freedom. Can we believe that this is the goal of the campaign to inoculate people against the H1N1 virus?

I feel it necessary to remind our readers here sir that nowhere has the debate topic introduced numbers into this fracas. I am as guilty as you sir in terms of imposing a figurative ball-park - but is it not easier to believe that a small percentage of humanity are mandated to die, rather than a frivolous conspiracy about the slaughter of billions?

My respones to your socratic questions, and questions of my own.

I would like to add that MaxMars has been very sporting about my blunder in terms of the format of this contest - thank you!

Maxmars Socratic Questions:

Socratic Question #1: Parallex, do you contend that vaccination campaigns are part of an intentionally orchestrated effort to 'cull the herd' so to speak? Or is it limited to this particular "H1N1" vaccination round?

This particular vaccination campaign is but one of a selection of money making opportunities exploited by ‘Big Pharma’ and governments. A wider pattern can be observed of released pathogens, being created and ‘sustainably farmed’ by pharmaceutical companies and governments. I believe that a low-level ‘cull of the herd’ is a necessary element of this to provide the ‘scare’ factor to ensure governmental and civic compliance. This particular round is displaying some ‘unusual’ characteristics however.

Socratic Question #2: If you were certain that a vaccine was, in fact, a deadly substance, yet were obliged by law or policy to take it, would you object, refuse, or submit? Assume the consequences of refusal are simply loss of employment, and not the possibility of fines and prison for this question.

My position on the first matter here is abundantly clear. I would refuse, and object. I have no fear of the consequences given that I am unemployed and in the process of building my own business.

Socratic Question #3: Assuming you were informed by competent authorities that this illness could be life-threatening, would you risk the side-effects of the vaccine?

No. I would take the opinion that, whilst competent, the local authorities have been misinformed. Assuming uwe are still talking about Mexican Swine Flu in the subjective matter. I have been informing governmental figures, and other competent authority figures as to what the side effects of the Swine Flu vaccine actually are. They know less than I do on the matter, which in my view, lends weight to the idea that they are not supposed to know too much. The power of ‘Big Pharma’ extends far and wide.

Socratic Question #3: Do you hold that the intent of the authority behind the drive to vaccinate everyone is malignant abuse of the health and welfare of the population?

I believe that the use of the word ‘malignant’ here is incorrect. I don’t believe that there is specific intent to kill individuals as individuals. I propound that the ‘authority behind the drive’ is more akin to the words ‘callous’ and ‘nonchalant’ about the health and welfare of the population.

Socratic Question #4: Do you think that those pushing the vaccination agenda are trying to kill us?

They view the vaccine as a means to an end, a tool for every occasion. If death is a result of application of this vaccine, so be it – as long as they make the money and power. It can be argued that a critical mass of deaths must be attained in order to achieve a ‘pharma-farm’ status. It can also be argued that if they are too effective in this, then they will be killing their cash crop. Sick people buy treatments, dead people don’t. The legitimate answer to this question is Yes, AND No.

Socratic Question #5: If the actions of someone who is trying to assist you could lead to your injury or death, would you say it justifies refusing their help?

Without context the question is a minefield of moral conundrums and unopened doors. On the definition of ‘help’, you will notice that your question posits the word as a description of what is its’ antithesis. ‘Chance’ or ‘Risk’ would be better suited here. If someone offered me a chance or risk of injury or death, but in good faith of a better outcome – I would perform my own cost vs. Benefit analysis. I would use all of the information at my disposal at the time.

Given that I’m not a gambling man, and that I don’t like to take chances or risk, I would probably refuse this form of ‘help’.

Socratic Questions from Parallex:

Socratic Question #1: Do you consider the proven links between Guillan-Barre Syndrome and Flu vaccines to be based on solid science / evidence or shaky half-truths?

Socratic Question #2: There are stark contrasts between the symptoms & mortality experienced by sufferers’ of the original ‘Mexican’ Swine Flu, and that of the new ‘Ukrainian’ Swine Flu. Given that all treatments; and mainstream widely-available information pertain to the ‘Mexican’ Swine Flu - do you submit that the latter version of the virus has been released to make the unilateral image (and reality) of Swine Flu more deadly?

Socratic Question #3: If adjuvants contained with the vaccines are not harmful, why then have we seen not only the German government individuals and military refusing ‘adjuvant’ based vaccines, but also advisors to pregnant women demanding Celvapan? (A Baxter made non-adjuvant based vaccine.) Related Article

Socratic Question #4: Do you contend that Pharmaceutical organisations are regarded as some of the safest to invest in because of their ability to stimulate product demand?

Socratic Question #5: How do you explain Mr Moshe’s warning / prediction (shortly before his extraordinary-rendition from the U.S.) that a bio-weapon relating to Swine Flu would soon be released in the Ukraine, appearing to hold the truth?

I look forward to your response; and further questions.

Kind Regards,

The Para

Please forgive the delay, as I need to use my 24-hour extension.

You and I remain slightly out of tune, but I see we are accelerating toward the same conclusion.

I commend you on your response. However we remain in contention, and I disagree on some important points.

----------------------------------------------------------------
I will follow the custom of responding to Parallex's Socratic Questions before proceeding with my argument.

Socratic Questions from Parallex:

Socratic Question #1: Do you consider the proven links between Guillan-Barre Syndrome and Flu vaccines to be based on solid science / evidence or shaky half-truths?

Well, technically, it would be foolish of my to contend that proven links were false. I happen to see more than a statistic reason to believe that there is a connection.

Socratic Question #2: ... symptoms & mortality experienced by sufferers’ of the original ‘Mexican’ Swine Flu, and that of the new ‘Ukrainian’ Swine Flu. ... do you submit that the latter version of the virus has been released to make the unilateral image (and reality) of Swine Flu more deadly?

I lack the evidence to prove that there was intent in the outbreak in the Ukraine. The preponderance of both anecdotal and authoritative data indicates that not investigating this outbreak, its vectors and details would be foolish. The possibility of foul-play has not been ruled out because the possibility of foul-play has not been investigated. It should be.

But assuming their was a conspiracy behind the Ukrainian outbreak, the intent behind it cannot be determined, I could only speculate. Assuming the population is subject to global information manipulation, it is possible. But that's a hard case to prove, even harder to carry out, and pointless if you are intended to kill people, there are more efficient ways.

Socratic Question #3: If adjuvants contained with the vaccines are not harmful, why then have we seen not only the German government individuals and military refusing ‘adjuvant’ based vaccines, but also advisors to pregnant women demanding Celvapan? ...

It is clear that some groups of people have access to vaccines that others do not. There is nothing 'fair' about it.

Socratic Question #4: Do you contend that Pharmaceutical organisations are regarded as some of the safest to invest in because of their ability to stimulate product demand?

I would make no such recommendation. The question is whether they have been 'stimulating' product demand, how, and with the help of whom. But we return to the objective of satisfying the reasoning behind the implied reason for refusing the vaccine.... death.

Socratic Question #5: How do you explain Mr Moshe’s warning ...

We will never know the full truth behind Mr. Moshe's appearance into the limelight of the MSM. There are too many unanswered, and unasked questions in the matter.

----------------------------------------------------------------
On to my argument.
----------------------------------------------------------------

First and foremost I wish to speak plainly about the topic:

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

The statement is not easily confabulated beyond the immediate.

A – Not everyone is trying to kill you,

B- Take the darn flu shot already.

Which is the debatable matter? Certainly the topic is the flu shot, but it is not a 'blank check' to debate the flu vaccination minutiae in such a manner as to isolate it from it's intended purpose. I point to the first (qualifying) phrase, from which we can clearly infer that the flu shot is not intended as a 'death sentence.'

It appears imperative to me some substantive attempt at convincing me that in fact, someone is trying to kill us, hence you (or me, or anyone) should not accept the inoculation.

I am urging you to engage in this point. I have a reason why, for my part, I find it imperative to assuage such a fear. I will make that reason clearer as we go along.

I will now proceed to review your directed comments, and ask the questions that will lead us back to this pivotal point: “Is someone out to kill us with this vaccine?”

----------------------------------------------------------------
Now I must engage with your points, so en guarde, my worthy opponent.

...You also mistake my point, I have in fact previously thrown away the idea that billions are to die.

The precise number of deaths is debatable, and quite frankly, inevitable given the nature of the medical gamble that is profit-based medicine. But in fact, you cannot discount the death issue. It is central, actually 50% of the debate topic. The statement clearly identifies the negation of an intent to kill. I am negating that intent.

It does not include the myriad of facts and conditions that complicate the decision, it is that we cannot believe this 'intent to kill' justification for refusing the inoculation.

... As ever context is required. Rights are always important - it is the denial of these rights that forms part of the conspiracy.

Then by all means convey the conspiracy that entails killing people via an antiviral agent.

I have to disagree - in my view, the posit contention states nothing towards the ending of any specific individuals life. Your point relies on an assumption that is not stated, but merely inferred. Therefore it is fair of me not to place the 'murder' aspect centre stage of this debate.

It may seem unfair, but “Not everyone is trying to kill you,” is not an implicit reference to murder, it is a direct identification of the reason that the addressee of this statement refuses the vaccine.

My apologies, I appear to be confusing you. By my statement I was referring to the fact that I have not, and will not comply with taking the Swine Flu shot - not ignoring the debate subject matter as a topic.

It is I who owe you an apology, since the misunderstanding was mine.

I'm sure you don't, as it is a key element of the debate. It represents a part of the wider pattern of methodology employed to 'pharma-farm' humanity - a shining example of the indifference which could lead to my death at their hands - I wonder if I am to end up as part of the mandated dead percentile?

The conduct of business, for the primary purpose of profit, in other words using an actuarial table to calculate the 'loss' of dollars against a base and cold metric of deaths, is an evil adopted by those who have through corporate citizenship secured immunity for their actions. At this time, our authorities seem unable, or unwilling to confront this paradigm. It has been in place for decades, if not longer.

... you assume the 'kill us all' position - as I have previously stated, this is a null position. You say nothing of the mandated dead percentile required for the manipulation to work effectively.

If it is a null position your argument is lost, because the topic is based on exactly that particular consequence.

But again, it does not equate to killing just about everyone on the planet.

Your assumption sir, not mine.

I will have to risk that you are not correct.

I feel it necessary to remind our readers here sir that nowhere has the debate topic introduced numbers into this fracas. I am as guilty as you sir in terms of imposing a figurative ball-park - but is it not easier to believe that a small percentage of humanity are mandated to die, rather than a frivolous conspiracy about the slaughter of billions?

Actually, I consider no conspiracy to kill billions frivolous, although I empathize with the fact that he claim is outrageous, from most perspectives. It was not I who invoked numbers in any but the most general way. “Not everyone is trying to kill you,” can be interpreted in several ways.

The believer of the negation could think, literally that “everyone” is out to kill him or her. Alternately, the phrase could be the kind of generalized retort such as to be spoken to anyone who frequently or insistently identifies conspiracies that lead to their theoretical demise. In either case, death is the goal which is being confronted here.

I expect that such is the phrase of those who demand compliance with their insistence that everyone get the vaccine. That refusal of the vaccine labels one as paranoid (as in “Thinking everyone is out to get you”). By associating the suggestion to get the vaccine with the notion that refusal makes you akin to the oft-cited tin-foil hat-wearing Hollywood/Madison Avenue caricature. So this statement, sort of justifies the surrender to the vaccine.

Well I'm here to tell you that NO, not everyone (nor is someone specifically) out to kill us with this vaccine. You contend that this is not a debatable point, I see it as the crux of the debate itself.

I would like to add that MaxMars has been very sporting about my blunder in terms of the format of this contest - thank you!

Don't mention it, we are exploring a fascinating subject, as far as that goes, it's just a technicality. In fact, I made a blunder of my own. I should only have asked 5 Socratic Questions, but because I mislabeled number 3 twice, there was a superfluous question in there. So it seems I owe you an apology myself.

Thank you for your patience.

Parallex, it's up to you now.

Be well,
MaxMars

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

Let's have at it.

Well, technically, it would be foolish of me to contend that proven links were false. I happen to see more than a statistic reason to believe that there is a connection.

So you admit that the Swine Flu vaccines are dangerous?

I lack the evidence to prove that there was intent in the outbreak in the Ukraine. The preponderance of both anecdotal and authoritative data indicates that not investigating this outbreak, its vectors and details would be foolish. The possibility of foul-play has not been ruled out because the possibility of foul-play has not been investigated. It should be.

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

But assuming there was a conspiracy behind the Ukrainian outbreak, the intent behind it cannot be determined, I could only speculate. Assuming the population is subject to global information manipulation, it is possible. But that's a hard case to prove, even harder to carry out, and pointless if you are intended to kill people, there are more efficient ways.

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. Given the seriousness of the potential threat to our lives, as possibly one of the % mandated to die, would it not be prudent to act upon this possibility – especially as quantum mechanics states it as a reality that could happen?

It is clear that some groups of people have access to vaccines that others do not. There is nothing 'fair' about it.

So that’s it? No further questioning of why certain people get one and not the other? Given that some vaccines contain adjuvants, and the special privileged few receive non-adjuvant based vaccines, I definitely think there’s something to this.

I would make no such recommendation. The question is whether they have been 'stimulating' product demand, how, and with the help of whom. But we return to the objective of satisfying the reasoning behind the implied reason for refusing the vaccine.... death.

If these organisations have been stimulating demand, through the release of pathogens, there is a clear moral imperative in terms of trading with said organisations. Do investors in these organisations know of or care about their callous indifference to the death they will cause? Does that by proxy mean that 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....

We will never know the full truth behind Mr. Moshe's appearance into the limelight of the MSM. There are too many unanswered, and unasked questions in the matter.

Yet more unanswered questions – the abundance of questions regarding this issue, and the drought of answers seems to indicate a ‘blackout’ in terms of information flow. Someone is trying to make sure we don’t know exactly what’s going on. If you’re planning to commit a global corporate fraud, and kill lots of people along the way – this sort of activity would be a necessity would it not?

...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 reailty.

It appears imperative to me some substantive attempt at convincing me that in fact, someone is trying to kill us, hence you (or me, or anyone) should not accept the inoculation.

I don’t quite understand this sentence. I agree, I think?

The precise number of deaths is debatable, and quite frankly, inevitable given the nature of the medical gamble that is profit-based medicine.

I agree with this first point – but our argument has suggested that a very small population percentage dying would be correct yes?

But in fact, you cannot discount the death issue. It is central, actually 50% of the debate topic. The statement clearly identifies the negation of an intent to kill. I am negating that intent.

It does not include the myriad of facts and conditions that complicate the decision, it is that we cannot believe this 'intent to kill' justification for refusing the inoculation.

I am not discounting the ‘death issue’ as you named it. I have addressed the number, and nature of the dead. However, you haven’t provided any useful corroborative evidence to prove or disprove that there is intent to kill. The only evidence presented on this issue so far (from me) lays considerable weight on the side of ‘callous indifference to fatal risk’ – manslaughter by anyone’s standards.

Then by all means convey the conspiracy that entails killing people via an antiviral agent.

I refer you to my OP.

It may seem unfair, but “Not everyone is trying to kill you,” is not an implicit reference to murder, it is a direct identification of the reason that the addressee of this statement refuses the vaccine.

I disagree. Killing in any circumstance is a murder, whether justified by a natural process or not.

If it is a null position your argument is lost, because the topic is based on exactly that particular consequence.

I refer you to the debate subject – “Not everyone is trying to kill you.” Nothing is mentioned about killing us ALL, I merely contend that killing of myself or others is intended directly or indirectly depending on your viewpoint.

I will have to risk that you are not correct.

A risk we will all have to take I fear.

“Not everyone is trying to kill you,” can be interpreted in several ways.

The believer of the negation could think, literally that “everyone” is out to kill him or her.

Several ways, yes. Some more plausible and logical than others. I also draw your attention to the word COULD in your second sentence quoted here. ‘Could’ is not in the ‘current’ tense.

By associating the suggestion to get the vaccine with the notion that refusal makes you akin to the oft-cited tin-foil hat-wearing Hollywood/Madison Avenue caricature. So this statement, sort of justifies the surrender to the vaccine.

This only applies if you have the self-preservation attributes of a Lemming. Surrendering to something clearly viewed as a threat is suicide.

Don't mention it, we are exploring a fascinating subject, as far as that goes, it's just a technicality. In fact, I made a blunder of my own. I should only have asked 5 Socratic Questions, but because I mislabeled number 3 twice, there was a superfluous question in there. So it seems I owe you an apology myself.

I must say I hadn’t noticed – and I agree, it is a fascinating subject, all the better for your involvement!

***NOTE***

I am 100% positive that the issuance of this vaccine in the format, timescale and method that it has been; has not been performed with the best interests of humanity at heart. I am convinced that a mandated % of patient-death is required to ‘grease the wheels’ of the vaccine product train. Billions of $’s will be made in this confidence-trick, and the general population of the world will be none the wiser.

“That’s all for tonight folks, stay classy San Diego...”

Over to you MM.

Parallex

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

If nobody minds I'd like to be able to take my 24hr extension at this point. I would like to enjoy a Saturday night out, and as such wont have the time to put into this tonight.

The Para.

A truly ‘shock & awe’ style post there Maxmars – I applaud your tenacity in this debate.

I am going to keep my third response to you relatively short. I believe I had have said most of what needs to be said, and made my point abundantly clear.

During the ‘cut & thrust’ of your responses, you have often agreed that there is a conspiracy involved in this issue. You disagree with me (in line with your debate position), when I say that this conspiracy has a sufficient mandated percentile of patient mortality required to give governments the power to invoke emergency act usage (Civil Contingencies Act, 2004, UK etc) and as such be ‘justified’ to purchase obscene quantities of materials from interested pharmaceutical parties. Most likely with ‘kick-backs’ attached.

You direct your line of debate along the route of sophistries and anecdotal contrivances. For example, agreeing that a ‘you WILL buy our vaccines’ conspiracy is in place, but providing no evidence or reasoning as to how this conspiracy would be enacted is hollow. You would have us believe (as would I) that ‘Big Pharma’ is essentially callous and cold. Yet you try and divide this very callousness from the idea that a conspiracy of the sort discussed would require significant mortalities. I contend that the conspiracy would not be able to function without a distinct means and will to cause mortalities – whether by released pathogen or as an effect of ‘vaccination’.

Is there a functional conspiracy? Or not? Even evil men and women must be practical in their approach.

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

Whilst modern Sharia Law, with its’ foundations in religious diatribe, has distinct problems – it can be said that the ancient devices upon which it was founded have merit. In early Medieval times, Islam helped produce an enlightened culture, with a system of laws, practices and methods that the world held in awe. ‘Responsible Investing’ is a positive moral attribute, inconsistent with the ‘Shock & Awe’ capitalism we have in world the world of today. This new fascist-capitalism would have us all forget our humanity, and become completely cold and emotionless in our economic travails. Making decisions purely based on the equations of supply & demand, and the size of our profit margins.

‘Big Pharma’ it seems is only following part of a wider trend of ‘callous’ economic policy. If lots of people have to die to help them make billions in currency, so be it – their loss won’t affect the bottom line. In fact, their loss will help multiply the margin factors through ‘Shock & Awe’.

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.

I see your point about the mutation issue – this is very much a risk. But a manageable one. If an engineered virus were released, with strict genetic code in place to minimise the risk of mutation, the investment risk in this project would be small, with potentially huge returns. I see you have returned to your doomsday scenario of ‘bodies piling up in the street’. As previously mentioned, this is inconsistent with the discussed conspiracy / reality. Remember my term of sustainable ‘Pharma-Farming’?

One thing that humanity should have learnt is – if a virus descends upon us in the fashion of the true ‘Black Death’ or the 1918 Spanish Flu, we will most certainly see your doomsday scenario. There is nothing we can do to stop it, nature cannot be beaten like that. We can perform damage limitation, and rebuild – that is all.

Vaccines, drugs and treatments are simply tools for control. They present hope and certainty, where only realism and acceptance of our role in nature should be. The fear of death by disease, makes populations panicky and desperate. History also teaches us that panicky and desperate populations destroy governments and behead rich aristocrats. Unless these groups (Big Pharma and governments) have a safety valve in place, their pet ‘profit-project’ of the Flu could backfire on them. It could be said that the trickle effect is better than a ‘gusher’ as to their response.

This presents an interesting idea – the idea that these ‘elite’ groups could be using this form of conspiracy as a lifeline. Providing them with money, and control of populations through fear and obedience to the system. It wouldn’t be the first time.

I digress.

Until the general population of the world becomes more educated, and they learn how to invest their capital better, or spend their money in a wiser fashion, the population of the world will always unwittingly contribute to the chance of my death.

‘Big Pharma’ and governments need this money – it sustains them. In order to keep this money coming, they need a quotient of people to die, and they really don’t care who it is among us (the peons). If the rest of us who are still alive are sick, it is for the better, it creates more profits and power.

I believe you and I Maxmars, are of the same belief – it is just that your debate premise on the ‘Pro’ side really cannot stand up to scrutiny. Not because of any lack of ability or skill, far from it. It is because the argument is so wholly unarguable from the side you find yourself on, that evidential and practical points cannot be found.

I welcome your closing post, and relish the opportunity to present my final hand in this game.

Good luck.

Parallex.

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

Closing:

Perhaps the assertion that defines this debate sounds like the statement of one who has become weary of doom-saying proselytizers and their fixation on the utter ruination of the human world. It may also appear to be the command of one who is responding to the paranoid mentality behind the distrust of all the consumerist contrivances of commercialized (which is to say, authoritative) western science. Maybe it sounds like the Nazi conformist cheerleader chant of a perpetual minion of the sheeple; of our so-called 'leaders'. In the final analysis, it appears that the particular sentiment, carries with it, the seeds of it's own demise.

I understood this to be the Pro position's deepest challenge. (The Con's is to prove that the intent behind the flu shot is one of imminent mortal danger.) Neither is an easy challenge, for as all things real, distilling it down into one provocative statement overgeneralizes the meaning into something less concrete, thus diminishing it and rendering it a matter of perspective.

Around this cloud of possible meanings, the impressive Parallex and I have engaged in a study of the why's and wherefores of the issue. Early on, it became most clear that the populist aspect of the contrary position would figure as a most prominent obstacle to my defense of the assertion, while simultaneously affording my opponent a sense of moral support in his argument. It is fortunate that I practice debate as an amoral, apolitical, and non-apologetic form of expression.

In Parallex's argument, we see the foundation of a conspiracy theory, one which only lacks the specificity of names and dates of the progenitors of the conspiracy (the means, motive, and opportunity) to become a criminal accusation. I would hope that the truth will be known sooner, rather than the usual “later” we have come to expect as our information sources fall more and more under the ownership and control of the same suspected institutions.

Perhaps it is not too surprising that Parallex wishes to characterize my recognition of this fact as a capitulation to the raison d'etre of his position. There is the reality we cannot avoid in these matters, and particularly, in any matters where institutional controls are foisted upon people, who are denied the choice; and that is that institutions, groups, governments, and even corporations, have no real ideas.... only people have ideas.

As a purpose, institutionalized indiscriminate mass-murder is self-destructive, and thus an illogical agenda. Only controlled-mass murder is of any logical use to a political or ideological end. Our history shows clearly that such efforts are a dead-end; that those who strength is founded in their numbers will inevitably win over the few who through subterfuge and conspiracy manage to seize and control the tools of governance. It has been so always, and I suspect it is a material function of human culture.

That “everyone is trying to kill you” features as the first phrase of the topic is not an irrelevant or trivial point. It clearly creates the foundation upon which the command “take the flu shot” must be acknowledged. If the reason for rejecting the flu shot is that there is an 'everyone' out there who are 'trying to kill you,' it is a simple matter of demonstrating that the presupposition is incorrect to remove the obstacle towards getting inoculated against the flu.

The inclusion of preservatives has not been an obstacle of consequence before. Hundreds of millions of humans have been routinely been subjected to them with their yearly seasonal flu shots, as well as their inoculations at infancy and early childhood. We eat other petrochemical additives without so much as a moment's hesitation, we ingest fluorides and numerous other substances inserted into our food and water by 'authoritative' biochemical legerdemain, and have done so for decades.

Perhaps somewhat suddenly, we have become more aware of these substances, and now irrationality have decided to select this particular vaccination as the seminal poster child of dissent. I do not, nor would I be inclined to, categorize this as a bad thing. Such is the nature of choice. But should you contend that you need some reason to ingrain into the undecided, I believe that the assertion topic is absolutely correct. It is not intended to kill you, or even harm you..., that is an invalid reason for refusing.

I find something more important about this exercise however. It is about the gestation of memes and oversimplifications and generalizations that are in fact destructive to the crux of the issue; especially if we are to adhere to the conspiratorial elements of the case.

Should some agency contrive to plan the elimination of populations, perhaps targeted viral bio-weapons could be useful, especially if you can convince those critical or suspicious of your 'authority' to refuse the vaccination. As one architect of intrigue once stated, “The best way to control your opposition is to lead it.” Not only do you thus eliminate potential dissent and opposition, but your Big Pharma peer group will have that much more funding with which to pursue your common interests.

Regardless of the outcome it is a win-win for the establishment. Meanwhile there is more treatment available for those who serve. Those who die, reduce the number of potential opponents, those who get sick and suffer from the lack of protection against the virus will probably not repeat the act of dissent. Those who get the protection and don't get sick will have their faith in the establishment reinforced. There are those who will suffer the negative consequences of exposure to the concoction that is the vaccine, but their will simply not be enough of them to cause anything other than lawsuits (civil, not criminal) and they have already legislated that risk of liability into oblivion.

Just like my opponent, I resent the opportunism, and the potential that we are being abused by the commercial exploitation of those institutions that have apparently gotten a free-pass since about a century ago. But that I never felt any differently than my opponent in this regard does not mean that we should not benefit from the protection that the vaccine is designed to offer. For example, it seems that adjuvant-free vaccines do exist. And in a free-market we the global population should be able to vote with our dollars. Simply refuse to buy-in to the manufactured crisis-level that the WHO marketing machine 'sold' to our inexcusably pliant and self-serving “representatives.”

The vaccine is just what they say it is – a vaccine. Just as the others they offer. There is no magical kill formula in it. No bio-genetically engineered viral life form looking for specific genotypes to eliminate. There is no way anyone behind the systemic dispersal of the material to ensure that those they care for, rely upon, or love would be 'safe' from any such effort.

Further, any scientist who would wantonly release a genetically engineered life form into the wild would have to be suicidal and suffer from such anti-social affectations as to be a person the like of which we have not yet seen in our midst before. All of the scientific knowledge required to do such a thing would make it impossible to avoid the ultimate truth, that viruses in the wild mutate, and such mutations cannot be controlled any more than you can precisely control where a single drop of rain is going to strike the earth.

The state of medical science is now no more effective than it was fifty years ago the politics and ideology of “trade” has reduced the medical arts into a business. It is their institution's 'modern' raison d'etre. But that does not justify that we run from them as if they were necessarily part of a plan that is in direct opposition to the notion of healing. It simply means that in their elite world, they have become isolated and stagnated in effect as well as purpose. Our children can, and certainly must change that. And I suspect they will; much to the chagrin of their 'noble' and 'learned' teachers, who love the status quo for the material comfort it brings them.

The fear of being murdered is generally normal (albeit naïve in many cases). The fear of abuse of authority and exploitation, on the other hand, is justified, as history sadly reflects it's repeated occurrence.

Fear must never meet with capitulation. You maybe able to construct a thousand arguments why you might be justified in refusing to protect yourself from a pathogen, but that the cure is a recipe for death is not among the reasonable arguments.

The fear that liquid death can be passed off as a vaccine, and passed through hundreds of hands to be administered to the detriment of entire populations is however, an ugly meme. One that diminishes critical thought and the execution of free will to paranoia.

“Not everyone is out to kill you.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you Parallex, for an outstanding debate. In these debates we have made choices as how to best carry the day; yours have been most excellent. I thank you for the effort, and the manner in which you have presented your case.

Thank you Chissler, for stoking the fires of debate and assuming the burden of keeping the art alive here at ATS.

Finally, thank you kind readers and judges, for you patience and attention.

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

Closing Summation:

It is rare to have facts that lend themselves to a conspiracy around them. This rarity can be observed when discussing this debate topic.

"Not Everyone Is Trying To Kill You” is a controversial statement in any context. In this case, controversy will follow closely behind the evidence and the rhetoric.

I have painted a picture of a world in the grip of capitalistic ‘opportunism’. A world that has no restrictions on the satisfaction of supply and demand balancing acts. The image presented shows that through our reliance on a corrupt and self-destructive monetary economic system, it is possible for a few ‘elites’ to have absolute power over others, including us. Luckily for me, my esteemed opponent Maxmars did not oppose this picture – and as such, a context was created for this topic.

It was roughly agreed that Pharmaceutical Cartels and Governments have colluded in the deal of the century. The governments provide access to a captive market, malleable and pliant through the use of the media, and other less conventional methods. The Pharmaceutical Cartels have provided both a Problem (The Flu Virus) and a Solution (Tamiflu, Relenza & Vaccines). The governments can then justify removing our liberties and rights, in the name of ‘emergency situation control’ – to the benefit of the landed ‘elite’ and of course, the government itself. The Pharmaceutical Cartels then receive special trading privileges from said governments, as well billions in profits from the sale of their Solution products.

On a side note, I have (written) direct correspondence from Gillian Merron MP, Minister of State in the UK who is dealing with the Swine Flu issue. My local MP Phillip Hollobone and I have been quizzing her for some time about the nature and agenda associated with the Swine Flu ‘pandemic’ in the UK. Much of this correspondence is ‘bunk’, however one point among others stands out – she has confirmed in writing that the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (UK legislation) can be enacted in regard to the alleged Swine Flu pandemic. This would essentially suspend democracy, and introduce martial law here in the UK.

‘How is all this meant to show that people are trying to kill us?’ I hear you say – The context above is important in this. We know the stakes involved – billions in profit, trading rights and privileges, consolidation of governmental powers etc. Many people would consider these life & death things. In ‘Big Pharma’ and government circles, indeed they do. My argument has shown (in agreement with my opponent) that these factions are callous, uncaring and downright cold in their approach to humanity. The Swine Flu issue was entrenched by these Pharmaceutical organisations, when they saw the opportunity to take advantage of a captive, unintelligent and fearfully superstitious marketplace. Using the capitalist system, with the tried and tested methodology of ‘Shock & Awe’ (coined by writer Naomi Kline), ‘Big Pharma’ indoctrinated and induced governments into allowing them privileged access to their populations. (Naturally said government would always be recompensed.)

We have then been duped. Given an impossible choice of, take the swine flu vaccine or face a risk of death – much of the uninformed and unquestioning masses have thrown themselves willingly into the pharmaceutical industries hands. We all know that the original Swine Flu isn’t that bad, and is essentially a variation on Seasonal Flu. But our media sources tell us about every death, every injury, every sufferance of the said virus. The perception of it is confused, uncertain and scary.

But what of the real world perception? What about the people who can see through the media? How are they convinced?

The ‘mandated percentile’.

The best lies, are half truths. The best half-truths are the ones you have crafted to be that way. The only way ‘everyone’ in the modern world is going to believe Swine Flu is a threat, is if it becomes one. The inclusion of adjuvants in the vaccine, the 5% chance increase in susceptibility to Guillan-Barre syndrome, the allergic reactions – all of these things and more will cause death and misery to a small percentage of people. Combined with the standard flu deaths that usually go unreported each year, we then see through the media machine an ever increasing number of people dying from Swine Flu month after month. This provides the fertile ground for the fear-mongering and vampirism that the pharmaceuticals practice.

What if these ‘organic’ practices aren’t enough? Perhaps people aren’t paying enough attention.... not enough product is being sold...

Options? Release dangerous virally active vaccines – as Baxter was caught doing in Europe. This would propagate the virus, and help it spread into supposedly vaccinated people. This particular strain was near 100% lethal in the test monkeys used. Or perhaps, if this doesn’t work (as it didn’t) release a new, more virulent and dangerous strain in a less ‘transparent’ area, giving it time to take hold – as has happened in the Ukraine.

The ‘Big Pharma’ Cartels and government officials don’t care about you or me. It’s about money and power. They, and anyone who supports their actions, are by proxy helping them implement a carefully contrived ‘cull’ – a ‘mandated percentile’ of people to die or seriously suffer, so that the perceived threat is ‘real’ enough.

The problem with this sort of activity; is that it is very hard to hide. This article on Jane Burgermeisters’ website shows what happens when the proverbial body in your basement starts to stink.

As a man capable of critical thought, not prone to paranoid aversions, I have questioned this subject in detail myself. Is this conspiracy really possible? More importantly, is it REAL? As I stated at the beginning, the facts in this case lend themselves to the conspiracy – the conspiracy itself doesn’t stretch the imagination. I don’t want to believe that powerful organisations and governments are gambling my life for money and power. But given the evidence, and the stakes involved – I can count on it to be the case.

So, Yes – more people than I would like are contributing to the chance that I may die of something related to Swine Flu. In light of this, I won’t be taking the darn Swine Flu shot.

**************************************

This has been a most enjoyable endeavour. I haven’t had an opportunity to switch my critical thinking brain on like this for some time. Maxmars – you’ve been terrific and have tied my mind into complex knots.

Chissler et al, - Thank you very much for providing this most excellent adventure. Bogus!

Judges, viewers and hopefully commentators, I thank you for your time and patience.

Parallex.

We're off to the judges.

The judges results...

The nod goes to Maxmars

This was a very good debate, despite a couple of early technical mistakes, both members deserved to move on, unfortunately that's not possible. I commend them both for their efforts.

Where this debate was lost was in the third round when Parallex seemed to answer Maxmars post with too many questions without presenting more examples to bolster his case, for me that is where Maxmars took control of the debate.

I am not sure if that is a readily accepted debate tactic or not, Parallex trying to use Maxmars answers and turning them into questions for Max, but it didn't work as Maxmars next post presented more of Max's examples and also answered the foray with reasoned response.

This was a tough one for me, as I stated in the beginning both were worthy opponents but in the end it was Maxmars who drove his point home on the topic:

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

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

Maxmars initial opening showed real signs of weakness in arguing the wording of the debate and not the debate itself. He lost real points there.

Parallex on the other hand, hit a resounding success in his opening. Ball out of the park kind of post.

While I read this debate as it unfolded, I found myself going back two more times to make sure I had not missed any important item presented by the opponents. I had not.

While Maxmars attempted to rally, especially in the closing, it was apparent that he had lost a lot of ground in this debate and was unable to make it up. Parallex continued to hammer away with his position and thoroughly refuted Maxmars points.

Maxmars continued to attempt to define the debate and this cost him the win; for while he was doing this, Parallex was continuing the debate.

Parallex gets the win

The topic for this debate is "Not Everyone Is Trying To Kill You, Take The Darn Flu Shot Already!”

"Maxmars" will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
"Parallex" will be arguing the "Con" position.

Notes:

Opening Statement:
Maxmars

Takes a thorough approach to the issue and goes to great length to logically define his stance. He also does an excellent job of narrowing his opponent’s stance right off the bat. Poses pertinent Socratic questions.

Parallex

Makes a thoughtful and compelling argument regarding his position and, I must admit I was intrigued. Be that as it may, I was disappointed that he did not supply adequate sources to back up his points and I am left wondering of the validity of his claims, especially that concerning the 1979 Swine Flu Pandemic or the alleged cases of Guillane Barre Syndrome.

Also, the last source he indicated for www.theflucase.com is nothing more than a compiled index of flu related articles, as opposed the specific articles he used as part of his research material. It’s like searching for a needle in a hay stack.

Finally, Parallex did not answer any of the Socratic Questions that Maxmars put forth, nor did he ask any of his own.



Round 1:
Maxmars

Again, Maxmars attempts to narrowly frame the debate, but slightly misses the mark with this approach:


You see, the premise of the topic is that the reason you refuse the vaccine is not that you are exercising a right.

The debate is that the reason for refusal is because of the posit contention that this is an attempt to end you (or anyone's) life.



In actuality, “exercising one’s right” is a valid reasoning for not taking the flu shot under the vaguely stated debate topic. Attempting to narrow the parameters of the debate does not nullify his opponent’s reasoning. Nice try, though!

Maxmars makes the following statement, but does not supply a source from which to confirm it:


The authorities have stated that they have waived the precaution due to the WHO's recommendation and the recommendation of the DHHS. It does not represent the only medical treatment to which such a waiver has been granted; often to our detriment. By this reasoning all such medications, devices, or treatments are more dangerous.



It’s hard to accept any statement reputed as fact without providing a source to verify its veracity.

Furthermore, I am bewildered that he makes the following statement that only solidifies his opponent’s point:


My opponent rightly implies the twin of the clinically detached calculation of a few enterprising elements within global and national governments world-wide; namely, the pathetic opportunists who use confidence tricks and abuse of public trust to make political use of the system for power and wealth.



Making such a concession seems counterproductive to his given stance.

Parallex

Parallex is back on track and in fine form. He succinctly counters Maxmars’ attempts to narrowly frame the debate and reasserts his position.

He also deftly turns all the concessions Maxmars had made into an easy opportunity to solidify his stance. Smart move.

He has taken the opportunity to answer the Socratic questions put forth by his opponent during the opening statement and asks several Socratic questions in return.

His Socratic questions #1 and #5 refer to specific subtopics which he has either not addressed or not provided source material for proper context. I’m not implying these questions should be dismissed off-hand, but rather it makes it more difficult to follow a line of reasoning without a referencing point.

Round 1 is essentially a tie.



Round 2:
Maxmars

Maxmars does a fine job of answering the Socratic questions posed to him.

However, it is Round 2 of the debate and Maxmars is still arguing semantics of the debate question. Instead of hashing out the issue of semantics, he should be judiciously presenting his stated position. This is especially true since each response is only limited to a set amount of characters.

In all honesty he has presented very little in this round to further his position in any quantifiable way.

Parallex


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



Exactly.

Finally, there is a move away from semantics and onto the core of the debate.

Parallex appears to be refuting his opponent’s points by asking leading questions, as opposed to presenting contradicting material. Either way, he does manage to effectively weaken Maxmars position.

Overall, very little supporting evidence has been offered by either of the debate participants to this point. Round 2 goes to Parallex by a hair.



Round 3:
Maxmars

Again, nearly one-half of Maxmars’ Round 3 post is centered upon the matter of semantics. He has stated his position early on and he should stick with strengthening his position. At this point I’m seeing more posturing than substance. Not even a single source to back up his premise.

Parallex

Parallex spends this post refuting individual points with his opponent and shoring up his own stance. However, he too has presented specific evidence to support his argument.

Due to the lack of supporting evidence by either side, I was forced to judge this round based on the merits of the prose instead of solid fact. That said, Round 3 goes to Parallex.



Closing Statement:
Maxmars

Maxmars has made an eloquent and impassioned closing statement. However, he has made no use of specified sources to support his stance. In fact, I went over the entire debate again and realized that Maxmars did not offer even a single source to support his position.

Parallex

Parallex also offered a highly articulate closing statement, as well as providing a single source supporting the conspiracy angle that the World Health Organization and pharmaceutical companies could possibly be in collusion.

Judgment

Over all, both participants offered a highly spirited debated that was open to much speculation on both sides. Unfortunately, scant to no supporting references were offered by either side. Maxmars did not provide a single source of evidence to support his stance, whereas, Parallex cited a total of four sources (three direct articles and one compiled index).

In the end, Parallex was able to provide not only a viable argument, but one with some semblance of a supportable conspiracy. The win goes to Parallex.

Parallex gets the win and moves to the 2nd round.



This debate is now open to other fighters to comment.

reply to post by chissler


Thank you kindly to the judges and readers.

Congratulations and very best of luck to you Parallex!

And thanks again to those of you who have worked so hard to make the Debate Tournament a reality!

Damn, normally I love winning things, but really, I didn't expect that, nor did I like it. To knock Maxmars out of the competition is something to be proud of, but not to like - I know he'd continually produce excellent debates otherwise!

Thankyou to the judges for a seriously interesting set of feedback, I only hope I can make Maxmars proud, as well as providing a solid challenge to the opposition in my future debates.

I look forward to Round 2.

The Para.