Vaccinations; recent developments

[Pirate88179]

You already know vaccines are dangerous so there is no point in proving it.
You are an obnoxious troll.

Come on man, talk science here...OK?  He KNOWS vaccines are dangerous...this is what you said...right?  Dangerous as compared to....what?  He has already said as much on the previous page.  He said...vaccines are not 100% safe BUT  (an important but) they are SAFER than not being vaccinated.  The science and numbers prove this.

In science, toxicity is about levels.  Danger, is about percentages.  Percentages backed up by real science and real studies.  How do you think the US eliminated all of those terrible diseases that are now coming back due to Obama's open boarders?  It was not by washing your hands...it was by vaccinations.  Nothing in this world is 100% safe.  If you read the studies on your chance of being injured taking a shower, you might decide to never shower again.  If you read a headline that says....2,000 people injured while showering.  That might scare you.  Until...you read and find out that was out of millions and millions of folks showering every day.  Once you have the real numbers, you can decide for yourself if you want to shower or not.  Just do not give up showering based on a headline or two.  Dig deeper.

Bill

[Tink]

Nope.  I'm willing to be convinced though.  So either you can produce strong evidence here...or you can pretend that strong evidence exists is easily aquired and somehow be entirely unable to produce it here.  Probably theory would say that you're lying.

Is that best you can come up with?
You disappont me.

[sarkeizen]

Nope

Well thanks for confirming that I'm clearly not afraid of any kind of evidence against the things I currently consider to be true.  Instead you are just refusing to provide evidence because of some made up reason.

As I said to Tink, if the evidence is clear and easy to procure and very strong then Bayes Rule says that your failure to produce that evidence means that it's either not really that clear or that easy to produce.  Thanks for continually confirming this.

[sarkeizen]

Is that best you can come up with?

It's (a corollary to)  Bayes rule. 

[sarkeizen]

Come on man, talk science here...OK?  He KNOWS vaccines are dangerous...this is what you said...right?  Dangerous as compared to....what?  He has already said as much on the previous page.  He said...vaccines are not 100% safe BUT  (an important but) they are SAFER than not being vaccinated.  The science and numbers prove this.

See I'm seriously mystified as to why all the dancing around.  Anyone can go through the thread and see that I've been begging for something worth my time.  When Cap-Mo-ron was out and about he would do this dance too when he actually settled on a point.  Like the CDC whistleblower - BAM! I explained how the analysis was done by someone entirely unqualified and even explained why the analysis was likely wrong and the consequence that if you believe Hookers secondary analysis then you actually have to believe that the vaccines in question were SAFE for the majority of people.  IIRC his or someone elses next bit was about "no level of mercury is safe" and then again BAM! I produced a study showing insignificant cognitive ENHANCEMENT due to higher levels of mercury than you would ever get from vaccines.

His responses were all duck and cover.  "Oh it's not *that* whistleblower it's some other one that I can't name" and "That evidence isn't compelling" - the former is effectively what SM and Tink are doing now.  The later could have been a productive conversation but the only way to proceed would be to discuss what standard of evidence IS compelling...and that he didn't want to do.  Which is why it's on ignore.

So am I really so formidable  that I have SM, Cap-Z-ro, Tink and everyone else entirely UNABLE to post their evidence?  Again I don't seem to be the one scared.