Everything you know about this topic is complete shit.
Perhaps. I have been conditioned, and I don't use this in the pejorative, to accept that vaccination is an effective tool for the prevention of infectious disease. When someone challenges that idea, before I accept it as my own, I must look at their facts critically, and understand the opposition.
I work with this crap, every, single day. I know what these things do, and I know how many fucking times we've tried to post findings in every magazine, every publication, and every time we've been shot down, when we have real, measurable, reproducible results from years of study.
You think you know what "these things do". This is not absolute, it's not that vaccines are perfect and have 0 side effects or vaccines never work, are always poison and the government uses them to keep people complicit. They can work, and have rare side effects, or they can not work, and have many side effects. Proving, like the previous poster tried to do, that a certain company does not follow rules and regulations concerning proper manufacturing of vaccines, does not mean anything more than one company did not follow rules and regulations.
Quote every wiki reference or obscure bullshit website you want, and it won't change the fact that you are operating solely on borrowed, fake, "facts", just like every other comment I've seen you spew on this board, all regurgitated, unoriginal, shit, based on mindless philosophy, group think, and the most horrible science I have ever heard of.
My references are not 'obscure bullshit', I would dare to say that your references are 'obscure bullshit''. I cite well-known, peer-reviewed medical journals, while you use your questionable experience, anecdotal evidence, and personal attacks to further your case. I don't know what you imply by saying
1) my facts are 'borrowed' -> why yes they are, I do not conduct my own studies. You may, as you have indicated in this post, but you also said you couldn't get them published, which leads me to question your credibility.
2) my facts are 'fake' -> you have not one rebuttal to the hard data.
and putting the word fact in quote, as if you can put it on equal ground with your own theories about vaccination. It is nothing short of a bastardization of the English language, much like the Christian transformation of the scientific use of the word 'theory' of the theory of Evolution to the layman's term, a hunch, on equal footing with Creationism.
You would have been the doctor in the middle ages that thought bleeding an anemic dry would have saved his life.
If I were a doctor in the middle ages, I probably would, if that was standard medical practice at the time. Looks like you're trying to imply that you are somehow enlightened; above the scientific community in your thinking. I think you're a quack, and that your ideas are dangerous.
Don't comment on this topic again, you are nothing but a useful idiot.
Useful to whom? The Medical Industrial Complex? The
Government?
