Knowledge is the Antidote for Vaccine Orthodoxy

a reply to: TerryDon79

I'm aware of that fact.

I've taught it to my psych 101 classes etc. for more than 35 years.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
IIRC
the bacteria killing the kids
were IN the vaccines.
Sigh.

No, the bacteiral infection occured at some point during vaccination, it was not in the vaccine.

we have results from the cultures that are beginning to show the presence of local external contamination, unrelated to the vaccine

LINK

I am sure this was a case of poor infection control during the immunization process, which unfortunately is pretty common in certain countries.

originally posted by: BO XIAN

originally posted by: TerryDon79

So the vaccines themselves didn't kill the kids. That makes your statement about vaccines killing people, false. Contamination killed people.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . I see . . .

I doubt it.

Sooooooooo, the bacteria were riding along on a Harley beside the needle and just happened to miraculously end up in the same stream in the same hole?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

No. A batch got contaminated. It happens sometimes. Just like food, water, air, fuel and everything else.

The bacteria came in the same needle as the vaccine. It was all one injection. The injection was called, quite reasonably

a VACCINATION.

Yes, it did. Because it was contaminated. That does not mean it was the vaccine.

All manner of convoluted revisionism will not change that FACT.

No, it doesn't change the fact that the vaccines weren't the cause, but the contamination was.

I'm glad it's my bed time.

The absurdity level is getting a bit high, currently.

Yet you continue to post it.

a reply to: Agartha

If that's proven, happy to concede the point.

One would think that the vaccinating personnel would have taken that potential into account and solved the problem before administering the vaccination. Therefore, it seems to me, they would STILL be at fault.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: TerryDon79

I'm aware of that fact.

I've taught it to my psych 101 classes etc. for more than 35 years.

You're aware of it, yet you still equate the them as the same? Not a very good course of you ask me.

Also, I couldn't give a monkeys what education you have or had. Posting rubbish is still rubbish, no matter of the level of education a person has.

a reply to: BO XIAN

So, as you could get infected in a hospital by a multi-immune bacteria, you would conclude that visits to a hospital are worse than the treatment you came there in the first place?


Never heard of statistics? 1:1.000.000 and such? There is a very, very minor chance for bad things happening and a huge chance in favor for getting better.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
If that's proven, happy to concede the point.

One would think that the vaccinating personnel would have taken that potential into account and solved the problem before administering the vaccination. Therefore, it seems to me, they would STILL be at fault.

I have lived in South-America and seen first hand how infection control is very difficult to achieve in very poor areas. The health professionals are indeed responsible for poor higiene and spreading the bacteria (which is a very common bacteria actually). But this does not mean the vaccines were to blame, because they werent.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Agartha

If that's proven, happy to concede the point.

One would think that the vaccinating personnel would have taken that potential into account and solved the problem before administering the vaccination. Therefore, it seems to me, they would STILL be at fault.

Well, yes, mishandling might be at fault, but that would make the hospital bad, not the vaccines, and by your logic we would do best by doing away with hospitals. I mean, the mere presence of the chance of something going wrong - however unlikely relative to the chance of a beneficial outcome - is enough make it perfectly logical to avoid something, right?

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Guilty conscience?

There is a huge difference between using reasonable arguments to support your claims and parroting the propaganda of Big Pharma.

Of all the "anti-anti-vacciners" in this thread, I can see two who are doing the first and the rest are all doing the second.

It's funny, you should mention those attempting to "discredit" others, because those of us who simply question whether vaccines are safe or effective are the subjects of ridicule and attempted character assassination.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Guilty conscience?

There is a huge difference between using reasonable arguments to support your claims and parroting the propaganda of Big Pharma.

You mean evidence? God forbid someone actually disprove one of these pseudoscientific threads with evidence.

Of all the "anti-anti-vacciners" in this thread, I can see two who are doing the first and the rest are all doing the second.

It's funny, you should mention those attempting to "discredit" others, because those of us who simply question whether vaccines are safe or effective are the subjects of ridicule and attempted character assassination.

Questioning is fine. Blindly believing nonsense on the Internet, isn't.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I advise you observe the banner in my signature.

The depth of the conspiracy is so great that conventional pieces of "evidence" cannot be presented in the manner you request. This isn't just about vaccines, it goes deeper. But since the topic of this thread is vaccines, maybe I should stop there. (Unfortunately, it is all connected.)

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: TerryDon79

I advise you observe the banner in my signature.

On my phone so don't see signatures.

The depth of the conspiracy is so great that conventional pieces of "evidence" cannot be presented in the manner you request.

Of course it is. That way, any evidence presented, doesn't count, right? How convenient.

This isn't just about vaccines, it goes deeper. But since the topic of this thread is vaccines, maybe I should stop there. (Unfortunately, it is all connected.)

Of course it is. Maybe make a thread about it and let people decide for themselves? I'm sure got could back it up with some sort of evidence too? Oh, wait, evidence, yeah.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Of course it is. That way, any evidence presented, doesn't count, right? How convenient.

Out of curiosity, what would you accept as evidence?

Of course it is. Maybe make a thread about it and let people decide for themselves? I'm sure got could back it up with some sort of evidence too? Oh, wait, evidence, yeah.

Evidence deemed permissible according to your world-view. You want people to produce incriminating evidence that is impossible to produce within the current system in which we live.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Of course it is. That way, any evidence presented, doesn't count, right? How convenient.

Out of curiosity, what would you accept as evidence?

Depends on the subject matter.

Of course it is. Maybe make a thread about it and let people decide for themselves? I'm sure got could back it up with some sort of evidence too? Oh, wait, evidence, yeah.

Evidence deemed permissible according to your world-view. You want people to produce incriminating evidence that is impossible to produce within the current system in which we live.

How convenient.

a reply to: TerryDon79

We are going in circles, it seems.

Why don't we try approaching the topic from a different perspective?

First question: do you believe that vaccines are 100% safe and effective?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: TerryDon79

We are going in circles, it seems.

I'm not the one who took the thread off topic.

Why don't we try approaching the topic from a different perspective?

Quite impossible. My perspective will always be my perspective.

First question: do you believe that vaccines are 100% safe and effective?

No.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Question two: would you accept or reject the assertion that the overwhelmingly vast majority of companies that comprise the pharmaceutical industry are businesses or corporations, as opposed to not-for-profit organisations?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: TerryDon79

Question two: would you accept or reject the assertion that the overwhelmingly vast majority of companies that comprise the pharmaceutical industry are businesses or corporations, as opposed to not-for-profit organisations?

Yes, I would ascertain that to be true.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Would you agree that there is a high correlation between running a successful corporation and turning over profit, as opposed to running a successful corporation and incurring a deficit?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: TerryDon79

Would you agree that there is a high correlation between running a successful corporation and turning over profit, as opposed to running a successful corporation and incurring a deficit?

Yes.

Can you kindly get to the point? I also fail to see how this has ANYTHING to do with the rubbish the op posted.