Vaccinations; recent developments

[allcanadian]

@Cap

Its going on everywhere...plastics leeching estrogen into the landfills and then into the water aquifers has lowered male sperm count significantly=infertility=sterilization=checkmate.Regards...

I would agree we now know ultra low level contamination may play a major role however we should work the problem backwards. It is not a contamination problem but a habitual issue concerning people doing stupid things. Trying to bury our problems never has worked because at some point someone is going to have to deal with them. We simply pretend the problem does not exist not unlike those billion tons of plastic particles floating around in our oceans. Denial is not a solution but i think you know this all too well.


AC

[Cap-Z-ro]

And all the while a very high yield organic source for bio degradable plastic is readily available and right under our noses...hemp based plastic.

Regards...

[MarkE]

@Sark
I read the article and found it interesting and informative as I said then you spam posted it with equally unsubstantiated claims and I ignored them... exactly which part of this do you not understand?. You seem to get all hot and bothered trying to prove yourself to the point of being obsessed by it.. No offence but instead of spam posting why not try to interact on a more personal level like a real person. I understand what your saying however I'm not convinced, no big deal, stay calm.

I also liked the logical fallacy bit, lol, I always get a kick out of that because the context is almost never logic or reason but more so narcissism. I see people trying to use this all the time however it is a bit of an art and to be honest I think you could have done better... something to consider in the future.


You seem to be a logical person so I would like to hear your thoughts on statistics which apply here. We all know about statistics don't we and it seems logical however I always had a problem with it. Now let's say the odds of winning the lottery are ten million to one however we know almost every week someone wins the lottery. So the odds for them on winning are obviously 100% and everyone else zero. Which is a way of saying the odds of statistics do apply up until the point you are actually effected by them directly.


By the same token we could say the odds of a severe reaction to immunizations is extremely low however when your child is in emergency because of a severe reaction then the statistics really don't mean jack shit do they?. As well in those rare cases resulting in death which are about the same as winning the lottery one has to wonder was it really worth it?. You see people love to talk about statistics only because they truly believe they will never be personally effected by them however when they are they are only left with unanswered questions and guilt.


You see statistics are completely impersonal however we are not, we are real people with real feelings who care deeply about the ones we love which is why I research everything and debate these issues with people like you. So tell me something I don't know... convince me otherwise.



AC

Lightning does strike.  Sometimes it strikes an unlucky person.  The decision to act in one way or another is rational if based on knowable facts the action reduces the chances of an unfavorable outcome / increases the chances of a favorable outcome.  For instance in your decision not to vaccinate your kids what did you do to determine that the odds of them being stricken with: smallpox, polio, mumps etc versus being stricken by something equal or worse as a result of the vaccinations that you avoided?  Have you also refused them tetanus vaccinations?  If so again:  What data did you rely on to make that choice?

[allcanadian]

Many people here have made some very good arguments concerning their opinions however I think it is different when it becomes personal. I know very few relatives who have died from old age and most all have died of cancer. The statistics suggest cancer, diabetes, ms etc.. will reach epidemic proportions in the near future. Why today just this afternoon I was informed that a relative passed away due to brain cancer and she will me sorely missed. To you she was just another statistic, yet another number another topic for debate but to me she was a person, a loved one.


So all this debate is wonderful until that statistic, that opinion or than logic you need to get through the day hits home where you live. At which point it's relevancy seems diminished, it's importance somehow forgotten. We can presume to understand, we may justify it by any means but that cannot change what it is, the reality of this world in which we live.


Why today I came on shift to find a weeks worth of problems I solved in a matter of hours, possibly 20 trained and qualified people came and they left scratching theirs heads and I waltzed in and did what I do. It is a peculiar thing that it is presumed we are equal and yet we are people, why I know a few people of supposedly equal expertise I would not let change the tire on my truck. So we are left with the notion that expertise must be relevant, it must be applicable and up to date. I'm just another redneck farmboy but what I do I expect to do well.


So yes believe whatever you need to get you through the day but know we are not equal, we were born equal but from that day forward what we do and think determines who we are. So yes, it was kind of a stipulation the good book(s) forgot to mention because we are not equal.


So the question remains, with whom are you willing to place your trust?. With some dip-shit who sounds intelligent, a person who believes in a bearded man in a white dress who created the universe in six days or a scientist who was proven then dis-proven by his peers but only after the fact. We live, we learn then we die... those are the facts but it is what we do in between the living and dying that matters most. So this proof and belief everyone speaks about is constrained by time because everything we know must change with time... it is a constant we we all know and believe on some level.


That's my rant
AC

[MarkE]

@mark E

Google Ultra-low level testing relating to toxins and long term exposure and it should explain everything. The scientific studies suggest there are levels well below that considered safe which do more harm over time that the levels actually considered safe.


AC

The erroneous claim was that HCG was in the vaccines, and put there in order to sterilize those who received the vaccine.  The facts show that when tested by a properly equipped and capable laboratory, HCG was not found in the vaccines.  Ergo both claims are false.

Now, you've jumped horses and want to argue that the HCG is really there in minute quantities? That's not what competent labs found.  They did not find any.  Or are you arguing that there was something else in the vaccine? If so, what, and what is the evidence for its alleged harmful effects?